A Status Report on Methods Used in Mass Communication Research

Abstract

It is widely asserted that methods have re-emerged in mass media research during the last 15 to 20 years (Hall, 1989; Lindlof, 1991; Moffett & Dominick, 1987; Pauly, 1991). A stream of recent books (Anderson, 1987; Jensen & Jankowski, 1991; Lindlof, 1987; Nielsen, 1990; Sigman, 1987), a monograph (Pauly, 1991), and a journal article (Lindlof, 1991) devote themselves to applications and techniques. This interest is felt in U.S. mass communication programs as the number of courses in methodologies appears to be growing (Lindlof, 1991; Pauly,1991).The apparent rise in methods heightens the continuing debate over and research and has important ramifications for students and mass media education.First, the variety of methods and data-gathering skills needed today appear to be increasing in number and complexity. One requirement for most graduate students at major institutions in the United States is the completion of a series of courses in research methodology. About 20 years ago, research methodologies reached their peak in the United States and provided the primary focus of methodology courses. However, this has apparently expanded to include non-quantitative methods in recent years (Lindlof, 1991; Lull, 1990). Young scholars, thus, will be exposed to additional methodological tools and may even consider using multi-method strategies more frequently.Second, the addition of methods in mass media programs may mean students will study different phenomena from different perspectives than in the past. Yet, educators and young scholars have little indication of which topics and procedures are actually used in and research. This study provides this information by reporting on the uses of these methodologies in eight major communication journals from 1965 to 1989.THE DEBATETo count or not to count is not the fundamental question in the debate about and methodologies. The terms appear to function more approximately as an expression of the chasm that exists between research philosophies, rather than containing some intrinsic meaning. The phrase qualitative has been cited as a purposeful alternative to a natural science model of the social sciences (Christians & Carey, 1989).(1) Nevertheless, quantitative and qualitative appear to be the most common ways to distinguish interpretive approaches in the social and human sciences from the so-called quantitative approaches (Anderson, 1987; Christians & Carey, 1989; Nord, 1989; Lindlof, 1991).Most importantly, the terms highlight the intellectual dilemmas that stem from a differential set of foundational assumptions that often induce a heated debate within the research community. These dilemmas involve: (a) the purpose of research, (b) the procedures that should be used to gather data, (c) the use of theory, and even (d) the nature of reality itself (or the ability to know). It is in these areas that much of the debate rests. Although a number of texts illuminate these differences (Anderson, 1987; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), below we provide a very brief summary of the basic characteristics of each method in order to develop a rationale for this study.Quantitative researchers seek to explain and predict behavior by measuring variables, which can then be submitted to statistical analysis (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991). The quest is for universal generalizations that will describe the characteristics, practices, causes, and consequences of human behavior (Anderson, 1987). This perspective sees the world as orderly, stable, and connected, and attempts to uncover commonalities from a stance of neutrality that is context-free. It is a very formal, conservative process that uses theory as part of a deductive process to produce hypotheses and make predictions.Qualitative research, by contrast, examines the construction of meaning in everyday social phenomena (Anderson, 1987). …