One underlying theme in the speeches presented by Paula Pomerenke (Outstanding Teacher), Priscilla Rogers (Outstanding Researcher), and Gail Fann Thomas (Respondent) at the ABC 2000 Convention in Atlanta is the need to listen to alternative voices in our discipline, to acknowledge our shared interests and histories while making room for approaches to teaching and research. All three speakers recognize the importance of devising a common umbrella under which scholars and practitioners of communication can meet, discuss our particular professional and institutional successes and challenges, and formulate together the future of communication as a rich and necessary discipline. Yet, each also suggests that have not gone far enough in opening this umbrella to individuals in our profession who bring alternative perspectives to pedagogy and scholarship and who might therefore help both in tackling our discipline's problems and in bringing a renewed vitality to our work. Pomerenke (2001), for instance, calls ABC members to build and strengthen relationships with practitioners, and to consider the two-way conversation between academics and practitioners that will reenergize communication theories and practices in both sectors. Rogers (2001) discusses the dual processes of convergence and commonality in our discipline, suggesting that can encourage diversity in communication scholarship, in particular, if keep our eyes on the common goal of providing practical knowledge that can enhance the communication effectiveness of all kinds of organizational stakeholders, particularly related to business (p. 21). According to Rogers, the topical streams and recurring themes in our conference programs and journals (p. 20) are evidence of our disciplinary commitment to improved interactions in the corporate sector and serve as a reminder that intellectual tensions (p. 16) between individuals who espouse varied ideological and methodological perspectives might be overcome as work towards fulfilling this commitment. And Thomas (2001) effectively reinforces the idea that diversity need not lead to splits in our discipline; rather, the varied aspects of our work (e.g., teaching and research, positivism and interpretive studies) might be viewed as two side of the same [business communication] coin (p. 24). The message that I took away from these speeches was one of inclusion and tolerance, a message that is both inspiring and encouraging to scholars and teachers in our profession who desire to take pedagogical and methodological risks and to challenge the boundaries of our discipline. Later during the conference, I attended a panel discussion focusing on qualitative research methods and theories and was heartened by the continued tone of inclusion of alternative perspectives (including such interdisciplinary emphases as rhetorical studies and social theory, narrative theory, cultural studies, and discourse theory). Yet, at the close of the session, several audience members raised their hands to express concern about merging some of the new approaches discussed with we do as teachers of communication courses in schools and English departments, as consultants for real organizations, and as researchers situated in a variety of professional contexts. I do not want to suggest that there was a lack of interest or enthusiasm on the part of all audience members for the methods and theories offered by panelists. But as left the room, I sensed that the overwhelming response was something to the effect of what interesting ideas ... too bad can't try them out given the places where work, the people with whom work, and the students whom teach. Throughout the remainder of this response, I want to focus on just one example of a disciplinary interest represented by the panelists, cultural studies (Rentz, 2000), and discuss its (perhaps unnecessary) exclusion from our scholarship and teaching interests. …