本文處理五個主題。其一，先從字源分疏「傳播」的三層意義：溝通、交通及媒介。二，施拉姆受「統一科學」的影響，企圖建立廣義的「溝通學」而終告失敗，由此反映了「溝通學」和「媒介研究」的張力。三，分析美國早期媒介研究兩個學術範式的興衰軌跡，即哥倫比亞學派逐漸取代芝加哥學派成為主流。四，美國主流傳播研究日趨「內眷化」，對內求窄深，誤以為本學科自給自足，不假外求，以致技術愈來愈精良，卻缺乏思想創新，甚至逐漸脫離人文與社會科學的主要關懷。五，作者呼籲聯繫本土經驗與全球理論，以匡正時弊。

This paper consists of five topics. First, it begins by elucidating the three layers of meaning in "communication": the classical sense of "making common" among members of a community, transportation, and media. Second, it analyzes the failure in Schramm's early attempt to establish a broad "communication science" as inspired by the "unified science movement," thus revealing the essential tension between "communication science" and "media studies" as a field of inquiry. Third, the paper compares the Chicago School and the Columbia School that informed early media studies in the U.S. and traces the trajectory of their respective influence. Fourth, the author criticizes media studies for its introversive tendency toward what Geertz calls a process of "involution," as researchers pursue technical sophistication at the expense of conceptual innovation. Fifth, to correct the malaise, it argues for integrating "local experiences" with "global theories" in media studies.