The Universal and the Contextual of Media Systems: Research Design, Epistemology, and the Production of Comparative Knowledge

Abstract

Current discussions about the state of comparative research in journalism studies and political communication suggests the field is characterized by a methodological imbalance (i.e., many quantitative studies, few qualitative ones). This paper suggests the problem is better understood as an epistemological imbalance. We suggest that one epistemology—we call it “universalism”—underpins much comparative scholarship. While this approach produces numerous comparative insights, it also struggles to adequately account for the diversity of contexts it studies. We therefore describe an alternative epistemology, which we term “contextualism.” This approach aims to identify the mechanisms or principles that unify or differentiate cases across contexts. We suggest that progress in the field depends in part on the coexistence of multiple epistemologies, each with careful awareness of its strengths and limitations.