Abstract
On September 25, 2018, Professor Charles (Chuck) Berger passed away. Although some knew that he had been undergoing treatment for multiple myeloma, the news was unexpected. For those unaware of his health challenge, his passing seemed incongruent with their image of him. One of his former colleagues noted, “Chuck always seemed invulnerable.” Indeed, Chuck was filled with energy and seemed impervious to aging. One colleague speculated that Chuck must have a hidden portrait that was aging for him. But our shock and disbelief gave way to grief and uncertainty about what to do next. Discussions began about how to pay tribute to his many contributions. Jennifer Gibbs and Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick noted that Chuck had written a journal article that would appear in a themed issue of CR and because of Chuck’s connection to the journal, it would be appropriate to include testimonials that highlighted Chuck’s impact. They asked if I would write such a narrative and because Chuck and I were colleagues, collaborators, and close friends, I gladly accepted their offer.
Chuck received his bachelor’s degree from Penn State University where he majored in psychology. He did all of his graduate studies in communication at Michigan State University and completed his doctorate in 1968. His thesis and dissertation were directed by Gerald R. Miller and his committee members included Bradley S. Greenberg and Alice Eagly. The committee members shared strong interest and expertise in the experimental study of attitude change. Hence, it is hardly surprising that Chuck’s dissertation focused on the effect of counterattitudinal advocacy on persuasion, which was a hot topic in both communication and social psychology. Nor is it entirely unexpected that after completing his doctorate, Chuck accepted an offer to join the faculty of the Department of Psychology at Illinois State University. However, Chuck soon returned to Communication. In 1971, he joined the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University where he remained until 1989 when he joined the faculty of Rhetoric and Communication at the University of California-Davis.
Chuck’s training had a profound impact on his research programs. Throughout his career, he was interested in the impact of cognition on communication. After arriving at Northwestern, Chuck coauthored with Richard Calabrese an influential article that laid out the axioms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Although the perspective was tied to initial interactions between strangers, subsequent research showed that it was useful for studying intimate, health, organizational, and intercultural interactions. Chuck was not one to rest on his laurels and his research interest shifted to another topic. He became interested in how individuals planned for interactions and how those plans were related to communication effectiveness. With Steven Knowlton and Mathew Abrahams, Chuck wrote an article that advanced a theory that specified how individuals adapt their plans when they are thwarted. Chuck’s programs on uncertainty reduction and planning were mostly focused on interpersonal communication, but he later become interested in the cognitive processes associated with processing risk-related media messages. With colleagues, he published in CR a series of articles about how individuals evaluate evidence continued in risk messages and the emotional reactions that result.
Although Chuck’s programs were informed by psychological perspectives and focused on cognitive processes, he conducted them in a manner that kept communication at the forefront. The primary goal was to understand uncertainty reduction communication strategies, message construction, and responses to risk information. Moreover, Chuck was a passionate advocate for the development of theories by communication researchers. Indeed, he was a role model for how this could be done.
The quality of Chuck’s research was acknowledged by his peers. His coauthored book with James Bradac, Language and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty in Interpersonal Relations received both the NCA Golden Anniversary Book Award and the ICA Fellows Book Award. Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action received the NCA Interpersonal Communication Division’s Gerald R. Miller Book Award. For his contributions to the study of interpersonal communication, he received NCA’s Mark Knapp Award. He was selected to be both a distinguished scholar of NCA and an ICA fellow.
Chuck also was a strong of supporter of CR. From 1994 to 1999, Chuck coedited CR with Sandra Ball-Rokeach. During that time, CR continued to be an outlet for high quality research. Although Chuck was skeptical of metrics such as impact factors, when Chuck and Sandra finished their terms, CR’s impact factor was ranked fourth among communication journals and was ranked second the following year. Moreover, the research areas reflected in published articles became more diverse. CR’s traditional focus on mass communication research remained evident but articles focused on interpersonal, organizational, and cross-cultural communication increased and most importantly, research on communication technology increased and CR became a trend setter in that regard.
Less apparent but equally important, Chuck was an excellent reviewer. He was always willing to review articles and during my term as coeditor of CR, I do not recall a single instance when he declined to review a submission I sent him. His reviews were always completed in a timely fashion and well written. The key issues were clearly delineated and often in a witty fashion. Regardless of the quality of the submission, it was apparent that he expended a great deal of time and energy thinking about the article and composing a cogent critique. His standards were high, but he applied them in a fair manner. When possible, he proposed solutions for the problems that he identified.
Part of Chuck’s contributions stemmed from his orientation toward life. He had strong opinions on a variety of issues and was not shy about expressing them in public or in private. His willingness to critique reflected two beliefs. First, he believed that individuals should be skeptical of all claims and second, knowledge emerges from open critique of those claims. This often meant that he challenged the positions of others. His critique was often very direct, but it was not meant to be personal. He also acknowledged the limitations in his own work. By doing so, he strove to improve it.
Chuck and I were in contact much of the time while he was undergoing treatment. He was very realistic about the eventual outcome. During the spring of 2018, he wrote to me that he had been thinking about his life. He concluded that he lived a wonderful life and had a great family. His professional life had been equally blessed. He had met many bright and wonderful colleagues and students. He had no regrets. He hoped that he had made some modest contribution to theirs. I can assure him that his contributions were far greater than modest. Because of him, we are much the better.