Journalism and mass communication research have been conducted since the dawn of mass media, yet there is no agreement on how it should be researched.
The two main methods of conducting research relating to social phenomena are Qualitative and Quantitative. Each of these forms of research follows a fundamentally different research paradigm. Quantitative research is significantly influenced by positivism which is a belief in a tangible, objective reality, and therefore disregards the researcher’s bias and opinion by focusing on statistics formed by sense data (Quantitative Source). In contrast, Qualitative research follows the paradigm of interpretivism which believes that objectivity is impossible and that the insights gained through subjective experience are more valuable than statistical data (Qualitative Source). Each research method has its own strengths and weaknesses; however, instead of participating in the classic ‘paradigm war’, researchers should choose the method most appropriate for the situation and in some cases use a fusion of both to maximise the desired outcomes.
Qualitative research can be broadly defined as, “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:17). The aim is to achieve a complete, detailed description, of which the researcher would only have a cursory idea in advance. The researcher is the data gathering instrument, analysing information such as words, pictures and objects. This kind of research often causes the researcher to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter which is methodologically acceptable as the research as a whole is subjective and based upon asking people detailed questions such as the ‘how’ and ‘why’ rather than just the ‘when’ and ‘what’(Hoepfl ,1997)(Neuman, 2006)(Sarantakos, 2005). Finally, there is no overarching framework to guide the conduct of qualitative research; instead, it is guided by philosophical stances taken in relation to each phenomenon, (O’Brien, n. d.). There are five key types of qualitative research: case study, grounded research, phenomenology, ethnography, and historical (Christensen, 2010, 38) and each has its own characteristics and rubrics.
A Case study is the traditional approach to the study of topics in social science. The case study researcher will typically uncover a large number of variables, making statistical control impossible. It is typically used to help generate an hypothesis and theories to develop fields of inquiry (Christensen, 2010:49)(Neuman, 2006:30-54). Grounded Theory concentrates on the meanings emerging from the phenomena studied rather than conceptualized beforehand by the researcher (Quantitative). Grounded theory focuses on identifying and building theory (Christensen, 2010:49). Phenomenology is the study of the structures of consciousness as people experience something (Christensen, 2010:48), for example the emotions prominent during an earthquake or tsunami. Ethnography focuses on the sociology of meaning through field observation of socio-cultural phenomena (Christensen, 2010:48), generally through interviewing individuals of a community. Ethnographic research intends to reveal common cultural understandings of the phenomena being studied. Historical research is the methodical compilation and objective evaluation of data relating to past events in order to understand causes, effects and trends to explain past, present and future events (Gay, 1996, 204). An example is learning from past events so that societies do not make the same mistakes in the future. It can be seen that Qualitative research delves into the richness, depth, and complexity of phenomena. Myers (2000) elaborates that Qualitative is also more widely understood as, “A major strength of the qualitative approach is the depth to which explorations are conducted and descriptions are written, usually resulting in sufficient details for the reader to grasp the idiosyncrasies of the situation.”
In contrast, Quantitative research is any kind of research that produces findings arrived at by statistical procedures. In Quantitative research, data is collected numerically, attempt to remove inaccuracy by excluding the research bias of the researcher. In addition, specific phenomena are studied through a neutral, deductive and most importantly, a clearly measurable way (Sarantakos, 2005:363).
Qualitative and Quantitative both have their strengths and weaknesses. Taylor summarizes these in the following way: “Qualitative data covers a range of material from the descriptions of social life provided by participant observation and unstructured interviews to information from written sources, such as diaries, autobiographies and novels. Some researchers argue that qualitative data provides greater depth, and a richer, more detailed picture of social life.” (Taylor, 1995:632). Also, “Quantitative data is numerical in form – in the form of numbers…Questionnaires and structured interviews are the usual research methods…Some researchers claim that unless human behaviours can be expressed in numerical terms, it cannot be accurately measured.” (Taylor, 1995:632). Although many researchers prefer one style of research and declare the other as ‘heresy’, objectivity in research methodology is nothing less than “an excuse for a power relationship every bit as obscene as the power relationship that leads women to be sexually assaulted, murdered, and otherwise treated as mere objects” (Stanley and Wise 1983:169). The ‘Paradigm War’, like most wars, seems to be a pointless exercise, unless in true dialectical fashion, the debate produces some synthesis that allows researchers to move forwards. Clearly, the research method or methods used should only relate to the context of the phenomena and the primary goal of the research. Is the researcher interested in a systematic approach which would produce comparable, general data, or rather a detailed description of a particular case, group or situation?
Qualitative research is best used in two types of circumstances. The first is when the researcher knows very little about the phenomena. The second is when the researcher wants a greater understanding of the motives, reasons and patterns, which are commonly overlooked in standard surveys (Christensen, 2010:48). Surveys are generally highly formal and standardized while ethnographic methods are informal and open to unexpected new data (Christensen, 2010:38). Qualitative research for the media helps provide a comprehensive range of responses or opinions that exist to determine what is important, and more significantly, why it is important in a population. Michael Meyen and Katja Schwer (2007) in their research entitled “Credibility of media offerings in centrally controlled media systems” use Qualitative research to understand how credible the media of East Germany was. They utilize both Historical and Ethnographic methods by critically examining documentation, media examples, and questioning citizens of East Germany from all demographic cohorts. Using Quantitative research for this type of study would be less effective as the researchers were trying to understand why the people of East Germany were more politically opinionated and how East German society was shaping their communication needs. A Quantitative approach would have focused on the number of people listening to specific media outlets and would have drawn similar data; however, the conclusions Michael Meyen and Katja Schwer made would not be apparent.
Quantitative research is more valuable when data needs to be compared in a systematic way, and generalizations need to be made or to test theories that include an hypothesis (Sarantakos, 2005:392). In a journalism and mass communication context, it helps to understand numerically how many people share particular preferences and characteristics. In her study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online newspaper articles, Serena Carpenter (2006:1067) utilizes Quantitative research to determine whether online citizen journalism and online newspaper publications were diverse in content. Her studies reported that online citizen journalism articles were more likely to feature a variety of news than online newspaper publications (Carpenter, 2006:1083). A Qualitative approach in this situation would not have delivered the numerical, nor the easily generalized conclusions her research question was directed at.
There are many different processes to incorporate a fusion of Quantitative and Qualitative research methods. A popular and effective combination better known as triangulation, popularized by Denzin (1978) is used here to prove cooperation is plausible and effective. It is also important to note that in their text, ‘Foundations of Multimethod Research’, Brewer and Hunter (2006:1-4) agree with Denzin and provide some other methods for when triangulation is unsuccessful. “The mere addition of researchers from various disciplines …is not sufficient to make a research effort interdisciplinary. Analysis of the conceptual framework, study design and execution, data analysis, and conclusions [must] …be used…”(Aboelela, 2007:339) which Denzin believes is covered under his triangulation methods. He clearly identifies four different types of triangulation. They are data, investigator, theory and methodological (Denzin, 1978, 310-312). Data triangulation uses a variety of data sources and sets, which may be both qualitative and quantitative. Investigator triangulation uses several different researchers who separately collect data and then combine their gathered information. Theory triangulation uses different theoretical viewpoints to determine competing hypotheses and to interpret a single set of data. Finally, methodological triangulation uses multiple methods to study a single phenomenon allocating what method is most appropriate to each sub-context (Denzin, 1978:310). John Parmelee, Stephynie Perkins and Judith Sayre (2007) demonstrate the success triangulation can have in their work “What About People Our Age?” which attempts to uncover how political advertisements alienate college students. This study uses two research groups, the Qualitative groups examine how college students interpret the value of political advertising and having the a Quantitative group manifest content analysis concerning ad framing of a hundred ads from the 2004 presidential race. This research was then combined and conclusions were made to why college students felt so alienated by political advertising. This is an appropriate example of investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1978:311) as both methods of research were equally used by having each ‘team’ target a different aspect which worked to their research methods fortes. The successful process and conclusions of John Parmelee, Stephynie Perkins and Judith Sayre (2007) research prove the effectiveness of fusing the research methods together in certain conditions.
Qualitative and Quantitative research methods are both invaluable to Journalism and Mass communication research. The ‘Paradigm War’ is aptly described as “an excuse for a power relationship” by Stanley and Wise (1983:169) as both research methods are equally useful. Lawrence Neuman argues that different types of research target different aspects of phenomena by explaining that a positivist researcher will accurately assess particular quantitative information about thousands of people and use statistics, whereas an interpretive researcher may live a year with a dozen people to collect sizeable amounts of comprehensive qualitative data to gain a detailed appreciation of how they create meaning in everyday life. (2006, 30-86). All information is not quantifiable, nor can it all be qualitatively presented. The reason behind why the concept of research exists is because society wants to have the best possible understanding of phenomena. Their strengths and weaknesses can be amplified and minimized, respectively, by focusing on using the most appropriate method or even combining them under different set contexts.
Reference List
Aboelela, S.W. (2007), Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. Health Services Research, 42: 329–346
Brewer J, Hunter, A. (2006), Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Style, Sage Publications, U.S, 1-12.
Carpenter, S. (2010), U.S. online newspaper and online citizen journalism publications: A comparison of content diversity. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1064-1084.
Christensen, L., Burke, J. (2010) Educational Research:Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, Sage US, 38-51.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act: An introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 310-312 .
Gay L.R., Mills G. E, Airasian P. W., (1996), Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Merrill/Pearson,US, 204.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers (M. Sanders, Ed.) Journal of Technology Education , 9 (1).
Meyen, M., Schwer, K. (2007) Credibility of media offerings in centrally controlled media systems: a qualitative study based on the example of East Germany, Media Culture Society, 29(2), 284-303.
Myers, M. (2000), Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing firm with Proteus. The Qualitative Report, 4(3/4). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html
Neuman L. W. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Allyn & Bacon, US, 30-86.
O’Brien, K. (n. d.), Research paradigms. Latrobe University. http://ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/~obrien/parad/index.htm Accessed: 4/4/2011.
Parmelee, J., Perkins, S., Sayre, J. (2007) “What About People Our Age?” Applying Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Uncover How Political Ads Alienate College Student, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2) 183-199.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc, 17.
Sarantakos, S., Social Research, Basinstoke : Palgrave MacMillian, 2005, ch. 16, pp. 362-392.
Stanley L., Wise S., (1983), Breaking out: feminist consciousness and feminist research, Routledge, UK, 169.
Taylor, P., Richardson, J., Yeo, A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K., and Pilkington, A. (1995), Sociology in Focus. Ormskirk: Causeway Press, 632.