We challenge the intellectual separation of interpersonal and mass media communication, arguing that this division of communication research rests primarily on grounds of historical convenience and university politics. There is little theoretical justification for the dichotomous division of our field, yet we provide evidence that communication scholars seldom cross-cite research articles between the two subdisciplines, rarely attend scientific conferences in ways that span this distinction, and often are segregated in separate university departments. The intellectual costs of this division are discussed, and possible means of furthering intellectual exchange between the two subdisciplines are discussed.eople make sense of their world by categorizing experiences. Categories help predict future events and impose some P degree of order on one's environment. Each event serves to reinforce existing categories or else to challenge their utility. Thus categories are retained only so long as they defeat the challenges of contradictory events or remain insulated from them. However, there is a tendency for categories, once formed and found to be efficacious, to persist in use even when the earlier situation of utility has changed. o 1988 International Communication Association 284 Reardon, Rogers / A FALSE DICHOTOMY 285 were the mass media and the rise of the scholarly field of mass communication. Robert E. Park's (1922) monograph, The Immigrant Press andlts Control, dealt with the role of foreign language newspapers in the United States. The work of during the 1930s through the 1940s also had a considerable impact on the study of both mass and interpersonal communication (Rogers, 1986, pp. 96-97).Shortly after World War 11, a crucial intellectual development occurred in the field of communication that affected the future study of both interpersonal and mass media communication. Shannon and Weaver (1949, pp. 7-8) developed a simple model of communication that was adopted enthusiastically by communication scholars.Shannon and Weaver's model was adopted to explain a variety of communication behaviors. It encouraged a feeling of universality among communication scholars, even though they studied different types of channels (interpersonal or mass media). The model also standardized the terminology of basic communication concepts, so that all communication scientists began to talk of feedback, noise, and receivers (Rogers, 1986, pp. 85-91).Along with the benefits of the model, however, came certain problems. Researchers tended to buy into an image of communication as linear and unidirectional, which was a good fit with the one-way nature of the mass media (newspapers, radio, television) that many communication scholars were studying in the 1950s. Feedback and other dynamic aspects of Shannon and Weaver's model were deemphasized and eventually dropped. Later decades of research mainly focused on effects caused by sources sending messages via interpersonal or mass media channels. Lasswell's (1948, pp. 37-51) "Who said what to wh...