This is a dense summary of the Communication Science Bachelor entry course Methods of
Communication Research and Statistics. The summary comprises notes and revisions of all
weeks of the course, comprising both methods, and statistics. The student still strongly
encourages reading the book and viewing the lectures and micro-lectures alongside the
summary.
Methods of Communication Research and Statistics
Week 1 - revision
● Scientific research is a systematic process of gathering theoretical knowledge
through observation
● Observation = empiricism
● Empirical = based on social reality
● Systematic and cumulative = builds on previous research; in search for patterns and
associations
● Research is a systematic process of posing questions, answering questions,
demonstrating that your results are valid, sharing your research results
● Communication research is a systematic research of asking and answering questions
about human communication
● Research strategies - qualitative (generating theory, words, no measurement) and
quantitative (measurement, numbers, testing theory)
● Research designs - experimental, causal = effect; correlational, cross-sectional,
longitudinal = association;
● Any research project requires that you start by getting yourself oriented towards an
area of interest - the next step after finding questions of interest is deciding how best
to get answers to these questions
● The more distant the observer becomes, the more neutral or dispassionate she can
be in reporting a group’s behavior, but she will be unable to get the insights she
would get if she were closer to the group. On the other hand, moving closer to the
group will provide her with insight, but she then becomes open to influencing the
group dynamics or to seeing only the group’s view of the world and becoming biased
in her reporting as a result
● Critical analysis works from a basic assumption that communication maintains and
promotes power structures in society
● To what extent should researchers get involved with their human “subjects”? The
scientific tradition values objectivity and dispassionate observation. The “reward” to
the researcher is the satisfaction of a new finding, the development of a new theory,
or the confirmation or disconfirmation of an existing theory.
● One school sees research as a quest for knowledge, and the other sees it as an
engaged contribution to bettering society. In both cases the researcher’s behavior
has ethical implications
● Can research be objective? Social scientists often bring the assumption of an
external “real” world that can be observed, understood, and agreed on to the study of
human interaction
● One solid series of interviews with a few people can give a better grasp on a situation
than all of the thousand-people surveys that the big sample people can conduct
,● Triangulation - researchers using multiple methods providing multiple perspectives to
ensure they have a good fix on a problem
● Published and topical research carries a “metamessage” - which topics are hot,
which approaches are in vogue and who the current “stars” are
● Articles as a considering continuing worldwide conversation among researchers on
how to best understand human communication
● KEY:
● Worldview I - nomothetic approach - empirical analytical - sees human behavior as
predictable, objectively measurable, and generalizable. Aims to make generalizations
about human communication that will hold true across space and time. Emphasis on
measurement and generalization
● Worldview II - idiographic approach - empirical interpretative - sees human behavior
as individualistic, unpredictable, and subjective. Assumes that knowledge is socially
constructed out of interaction between people and is subjective. Attempts to describe
and assess the subjectivity and individuality of human communication, rather than
aiming to discover universal laws. Emphasis on individual understanding.
● Foundational beliefs and arguments about human behavior are issues ultimately of
ontology, which addresses the nature of what we study.
● Ontological questions for communication scholars include “to what extent do we
make real choices
● A theory or generalization about communication is weak if not supported by
evidence, so researchers move between theory and observation. They may start with
a theory that needs testing with observations, or they may have observations that
lead them to construct or reconstruct a theory. Three thought processes that link
observations with theories are induction, deduction, and abduction.
● Induction is your reasoning from observations to a theory that might explain your
observations, moves from the specific to the general
● Deduction moves from a theory to defining the observations you will make to test the
theory; it moves from the general to the specific. More efficient than induction in the
sense that it leads to a specific observation that will test your hypothesis.
● Abduction, your starting point is an effect from which you reason back to possible
causes.
● Open ended research questions basically ask whether there is a relationship
between variables
● Closed ended research questions focus on a direction of the relationship.
● Starting with an open ended RQ is appropriate for the exploratory study you would
conduct when you don't have a lot of evidence as to what might be going on. With
, additional evidence you can question the direction of the relationship between
variables.
● Hypotheses are statements about the relationships we expect to find between
variables.
● Two tailed hypotheses state that there is a relationship between variables but do not
specify the direction of the relationship.
● One tailed hypotheses require extra confidence because you commit to predicting
the direction of the relationship between the variables
● Null hypotheses specify that there is no relationship between the variables
● Hypothesis over RQ, you know what is going on, trying to determine whether H is
supported
● RQ over H, more speculative, more open minded
● operationalizing - define key construct in such a way that they can be measured
Week 2 - lectures
● In the empirical cycle, the deduction phase is always followed by...testing
● According to the empirical analytical approach, reality is…something that is
objectively measurable
● Empirical cycle: observation (noticeable relations and questions) -- induction (from
specific observations to general theories that can explain the specific relations) --
deduction (from general to specific formulating specific expectations/hypotheses that
can be tested) -- testing (testing the variables from the hypotheses) -- evaluation (do
the results support the hypotheses that were formulated on the basis of theory)
● Breakdown of the empirical cycle in academic paper
● Ethics in research: show participants offensive materials? Deliberately deceive
participants? Accept funding from a source that wants your research to help sell its
products? Start false rumors? Record people’s behavior without them being aware of
it? Use a recipe from a magazine and present it as your own? When you are
conducting research, ask yourself: what am I doing to participants, would I do to
myself, parents, family…
● Belmont report: autonomy(respect) - voluntary, well informed informed consent,
deception only when necessary and not harmful, debriefing; beneficence - do no
harm (risk should not outweigh benefit), privacy (confidentiality and anonymity);
justice - benefits and risks of research should be distributed fairly;
● Informed consent - why is it important? They need to be well informed, they need to
know what they are taking part in; autonomy, you must give participants the
opportunity to choose what will happen to them - information, comprehension,
voluntariness - explain the study and offer to answer questions, participation is
always voluntary, provide participants with copy of informed consent form if relevant,
confidentiality or anonymity means that no one including the researcher will know the
subject’s identity
● Other key points of ethics codes: crediting other researchers, full reporting,
transparency
● Milgram’s obedience study, very unethical study (1963) - has to do with administering
shock - of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end,
proceeding to punish the victim until they reached the most potent shock available on
, the generator…; other results: trembling, sweating, stuttering, nervously laughing,
biting lips, digging fingernails into palms of hand, 3 participants had seizures!
● Debriefing, dehoaxingL revealing the true purpose of the experiment to your
participants. Also explaining the hypotheses you test;
● Desentizing: the process of redoing any stress or other negative feelings that might
have been experienced during the experiment;
● Which element of your research is described in the research plan? Problem
definition, research design, data collection
● Before you start your research, you draft your research plan
● Association or causal relationship? Descriptive questions (describes a certain
phenomenon or difference; start with who, what, which, when, how, what is the
difference, how often, etc.; example: what percentage of the population voted for a
democratic party?) Explanatory questions (explain why a phenomenon occurs; start
with why, how is it that, what is the reason, etc; example: why did people vote for a
democratic party?) Predictions (predictions about future phenomenon; start with what
leads to, what happens if, etc; example: which political party will readers of a
sensational newspaper vote for?)
● The research objective - characteristics - fully reflects what you want to achieve,
avoid vagueness, reflects the whole study; achievable by scientific research; is not
too large or too small; fits the research question;
Week 2 - revision
● Ethics in research: show participants offensive materials? Deliberately deceive
participants? Accept funding from a source that wants your research to help sell its
products? Start false rumors? Record people’s behavior without them being aware of
it? Use a recipe from a magazine and present it as your own? When you are
conducting research, ask yourself: what am I doing to participants, would I do to
myself, parents, family…
● Belmont report: autonomy(respect) - voluntary, well informed informed consent,
deception only when necessary and not harmful, debriefing; beneficence - do no
harm (risk should not outweigh benefit), privacy (confidentiality and anonymity);
justice - benefits and risks of research should be distributed fairly;
● Informed consent - why is it important? They need to be well informed, they need to
know what they are taking part in; autonomy, you must give participants the
opportunity to choose what will happen to them - information, comprehension,
voluntariness - explain the study and offer to answer questions, participation is
always voluntary, provide participants with copy of informed consent form if relevant,
confidentiality or anonymity means that no one including the researcher will know the
subject’s identity
● Other key points of ethics codes: crediting other researchers, full reporting,
transparency
● Debriefing, dehoaxing reveals the true purpose of the experiment to your
participants. Also explaining the hypotheses you test;
● Desentizing: the process of redoing any stress or other negative feelings that might
have been experienced during the experiment;
● Before scientific research, research plan
