Revisiting Titular Colonicity

It was back in 2008 when I first wrote about titular colonicity, which isn't near as interesting as it sounds and has to do with the growing use of colons in academic titles, especially as a field matures or becomes more complex. I even did a quick-and-dirty analysis of my field's major journal, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. I've often considered a more formal analysis to submit to a journal, but I suspect it's such a navel gazing exercise that most would pass on publication. Here's the piece that created what's called the Dillion Hypothesis of Titular Colonicity. Always worth a look.

OK, fine Hollander, but why mention this today?

Because I stumbled on this abstract, which talks about the length of journal article titles but also, apparently, touches on titular colonicity. Unfortunately I don't have access to the entire piece (see also this recent analysis). I'd never heard of APA's recommended 12 words or less in an academic journal title. That's interesting (if you're a PhDweeb like me, at least).

So work continues to be done and I really really really should tackle a mass comm journal analysis of colons. Problem is, who the hell would publish it? Maybe as a conference paper. Yeah. Maybe. If nothing else it'd give me the opportunity to say "titular colonicity" in front of others. I'm not above such sophomoric enjoyment.

Good News for the Future?

Yep, my headline above is the beginning of an article title published in the latest Communication Research.  And it has a question mark, the up-and-coming trend in academic punctuation.

The full title is:

Good News for the Future?
Young People, Internet Use,
and Political Participation

We can use some good news, right?  This survey of 2,409 people, ages 16-24, found that "a variety of Internet uses are positively related with different forms of political participation."  That's good news, in particular since it kinda sorta runs counter to both intuition and Bowling Alone suggestions about the Net's impact on people, especially young people.  There's also a positive impact for traditional media use, but the authors say it's weak in comparison.  Duration of media use isn't what matters, they argue, but rather the type of media used.

In other words, young folks are taking Internet-based media and making it their own -- and such exposure does indeed positively predict participation.  That's important for scholars who begin with the assumption that this Net stuff ain't so good.

It's Not Just Colons?

I've blogged at length about titular colonicity, most recently here.  The idea is simple: as an academic discipline "matures" you find more and more journal article titles with a colon.  Yeah, people study this stuff.  And now I've stumbled across a similar study, this one about question marks.  The article title? 

Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005

Which is odd, because the title has a colon, not a question mark.  I'm very confused.  As the abstract explains:

We examined nearly 20 million scientific articles and recorded the development of articles with a question mark at the end of their titles over the last 40 years. Our study was confined to the disciplines of physics, life sciences and medicine, where we found a significant increase from 50% to more than 200% in the number of articles with question-mark titles.

A couple of points.  First, I'd kill myself before I every conducted a content analysis of a bejillion articles in a search for question marks.  Second, I'd kill myself again, just to be sure I did it right.  And third -- this kinda matters.  Not me killing myself, though some might cheer the notion, but rather it's interesting how academic fields ripen and mature and seek out ways to make themselves seem more -- er -- academic. 
 
I should point out that one of the most popular terms people search for, and end up here, is titular colonicity.  The other popular one is cognitive mobilization. 

Titular Colonicity

I've blogged about titular colonicity so many times (latest one here but also see here), it feels like an old friend. There's a theory that as an academic field "matures" you see more and more journal titles (hence, titular) with a colon (hence, colonicity). Plus the name is damn funny.

I'd love to do a serious study of mass comm journal titles, but I'm not sure where the heck I'd publish the thing. But as a quick-and-dirty study, I looked at 1960 titles from Journalism Quarterly and then what's been published so far in 2009 (now it's called Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly).

This was not a careful, systematic study, but if we can argue mass comm has "matured" as a field -- and I think we can -- the academic journal titles certainly seem to reflect that -- at least as far my small sample from one journal are concerned.

• In 1960, I count an almost 3-to-1 ratio in favor of NO colons in titles.
• In 2009, I count an almost 2-to-1 ratio in favor USING colons in titles.

That's a stunning shift. A more careful study, of course, would include more mass comm journals and more years, looking at the trend data. It'd also be interesting to see if certain kinds of studies were more likely to adopt the colon first (quantitative effects studies versus history, for example). As an aside, I note my own research is slightly more likely to include a colon in the title as not. For what it's worth.

This is clearly a good AEJMC conference paper and possibly, but less likely, journal article. I'm tempted, oh so tempted, to carry through with it. But if someone out there wants to take a stab at it, I claim no ownership. Go for it. Just let me know how it comes out.

Titular Colonicity Revisited -- Kinda

I've blogged before about titular colonicity, the use of colons in titles of academic work. It's how you know an academic field has "matured," its greater reliance on colons to sound, well, more academic. Apparently people pay attention not only to colons, but also question marks. This study looks at the use of question marks in journal article titles. They found "significant increase" in the use of question marks in studies of physics, life sciences, and medicine.

Okay, so they've looked at colons and question marks. Periods don't make much sense, so that leaves me an intimate study of the semicolon in titles of academic studies.

Hey, you gotta publish, or perish, even if it's dumb publishing.

Titular Colonicity

Titular colonicity is not a medical test that involves bending over for a doctor wearing rubber gloves. No, this has to do with our tendency to put colons in titles, especially academic work. A study from a while back examined this from 1880 to 1980. Brilliant! And heck, who knew it had a name?

I've always wanted to do a study of colons in our academic journal article titles, and now I have a keyword and some theoretical background. The use of the colon is considered the mark of scholarly quality. Who needs good research as long as you have the following:

Clever Phrase (colon) Description of the Research

The authors found that 72 percent of articles in 30 journals included a colon. And it's historical. They have a neat graphic that shows how around 1950 or so there is a leap in use of the colon. Cool!

I'd love to look at the mass comm literature over time and compare it to a similar field, like political science or speech comm or sociology. And are there kinds of research in mass comm that are more likely to use colons versus others? The only way to find out is to do it. Of course then I'd have to figure out where to send such research.

And I'd also need a title. With a colon.