{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024390243902439025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.251655629139073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to Murphy's "Re-Viewing Business Communication"

In our original article, "The Legitimacy of Business Communication," we used a model developed by Kenneth Boulding, an economist, to provide a foundation for viewing the discipline in which we teach as a stand-alone field within the academic arena. Our intent was to include the many facets of communicating in the business environment under one all-encompassing discipline since executive communication, management communication, organizational communication, as well as presentation courses and many others, are all part of communicating in business. If those of us teaching in our field view ourselves as members of a specific discipline rather than a sub-area or stepchild of a larger academic field, our peers are more likely to see us as a legitimate academic discipline. Accord ing to Boulding, external and internal legitimacy are necessary for work to be viewed as legitimate.