Methodology summary
Research communication - chapter 1: Getting started
This chapter is about assumptions and decisions that every researcher makes, consciously or unconsciously.
Chapters learning goals:
• Identify several basic assumptions behind human communication research.
• Identify several research questions that might be asked about advertising content.
• Describe some of the initial, unavoidable decisions required when planning communication research.
• Identify the basic steps in the process of communication research.
Getting started in research
Any research project requires that you start by getting yourself oriented toward an area of interest (make
notes and later translate these in a formal research question). The next step is deciding what questions,
assumptions and methods will best get you answers to your interest question. After finding questions of
interest, you have to decide how best to get an answer to these questions (research method). Choosing a
method unavoidably requires making assumptions and decisions; these will help you prefer some methods
over others. Every research question has assumptions behind it that reflect the researcher’s view of
communication and how to study it.
Basic assumptions behind communication research
There are several basic assumptions that underpin all communication research:
One such assumption is called observation capture / do not capture an underlying reality. That means
we choose to look at dress or language, for example. It tells something about an underlying reality we cannot
see but assume to exist (think of power and attitude; no one has actually ever seen it). We are looking at
behaviours that we assume as represent power or attitude. For researchers, this assumption is a useful tool
for the communication process.
Another one is theories about human behaviour can/cannot be generalized. Theories about human
behaviour can be generalized. Here you make a general statement. Such as ‘young people are more likely than
older people to have a twitter account’. For this, you have to assume people are basically like other people.
There is an assumption that people are similar in the way they behave.
A third assumption relates to the researchers’ level of engagement with their research participants
(researchers should/shouldn’t distance themselves from their research participants). The more distant the
observer becomes, the more neutral or dispassionate she can be in reporting a group’s behaviour, but she will
be unable to get the insights she would get if she were closer to the group. Also, when she moves closer to
the group, she might influence the group.
A fourth assumption is about the purpose or reason that should underlie research (research
should/shouldn’t be done for a specific purpose). Some researchers can have personal motivations. This can
affect the study.
A fifth assumption is simply that some aspects of a question are more important to look at than others
and, related, that there is one best standpoint from which to observe human communication (there is/isn’t
one best position from which to observe human behaviour). For example, the SMCRN-model (source,
message, channel, receiver, noise) (Dutch: ZBMO). It exists in multiple components that can’t be studied in
,isolation. They are all related, but researchers will typically find one of the components more interesting than
others and will give that component priority.
Some research possibilities: what can we do with an ad?
PSA’s (public service advertisements) are targeted communications designed specifically to promote positive
attitudes and behaviours. They focus on public interest topics such as health, education, safety and
environment. PSA’s are typically based on a strong, often alarming, fact or statistic. Researchers may be
interested in the results of these kinds of ads.
Does the ad work? This question focuses on the receivers of the message. Therefore, all possible
causes would need to be identified and ruled out before we could assume the ad is working.
What can readers and viewers tell us? This question also focuses on the receiver and especially the
‘whys’ of human behaviour. Establishing that the ad did influence behaviour provides no insight into why it
did. Here focus groups or surveys are used to capture the audience opinions. You need a measured moment
before and after seeing the ad. Both methods have their advantages and limitations.
What can the content tell us? This question focuses on message content. There are different angles
from which to study content. Rhetoricians (doing qualitative research) are essentially interested in the appeals
(Dutch: oproepen tot gedrag) or persuasive tactics the advertisement uses to persuade an audience to adopt
the behaviour. Rhetoricians might search for appeals based on logic (logos), character (ethos) or emotion
(pathos). Kenneth Burke analysed human communication in terms of drama ‘what is the act, the scene, the
people, and the purpose of the act?’. Content analysis is primarily a quantitative method for assessing media
content. The analyst counts the number of appearances in ads, for example, of men and women and compares
them. She could also compare these results to a known distribution of these categories. Then she knows if the
advertisement represents the real world. Critical analysis works from a basic assumption that communication
maintains and promotes power structures in society. Essentially the relationship between message source and
receiver. Whose interests are being served by advertising.
What can the creators of the ad tell us? This question focuses on the source of the message. In this
case, we are interested in finding out how and why decisions about content and production were made. Such
research could give insight on how communication facilitates or discourages creativity, decision making, and
client-agency relationships, or how professional communicators build an image of the consumers they are
trying to reach.
Some research possibilities: beyond the ad
Analogous questions can also be asked of interpersonal, group, or organizational communication. The earlier
asked questions and used methods can also be used by other analogous questions (Analogy tests are meant
to test a candidate’s overall knowledge, the power of reasoning and ability to think concisely and accurately.)
A series of unavoidable decisions
Communication researchers have different agendas, methods and assumptions behind what they do. This is
because of the complexity of human communication. That’s why researchers focus on the part of that totality
and choose a research method with which they have a comfort level, be it methodological or ideological. In
addition, all researchers have to face limited time, resources, and inability to be in more than one place at the
time. Following are some choices that are almost inevitable for all types of researchers, based on their
theoretical predispositions and resources.
, The field of study – wide or narrow? Realistically we must research the available and the achievable.
Methodological preferences aside, communication scholars typically divide communication studies into
interest areas to tackle this choice.
The researcher – dispassionate or involved? The scientific tradition values objectivity and
dispassionate observation. By contrast action research engages in research specifically to improve people’s
lives. In both cases, the researcher’s behaviour has ethical implications.
The approach – objective or subjective? Social scientists often bring the assumption that the external
world can be observed, understood, and agreed on to the study of human interaction. For example, they
assume that intelligence or loyalty can be found across all people and measured objectively with an
instrument. By contrast, phenomenologists and ethnographers try to understand people’s subjective worlds.
They think concepts such as intelligence or loyalty are defined subjectively by people they are researching
(subjects vary, for example, by different cultures). Phenomenologists observe behaviour, but really want to
know what that action means for the individuals involved (no assumption such behaviour has a universal
meaning).
The priority – your questions or their answers? A basic research decision is whether to get answers to
specific questions you have or whether to elicit people’s views in their own language (not quite knowing what
you might get)
The sample – large or small? You can ask many people to answer a question (that’s what public opinion
researchers say), but you can also ask a less large group of people. By asking a lot of people you know what’s
going on. By asking a less large group of people you can explain why or how people feel about it. So, asking a
few people might give a better grasp on a situation.
The data – quantitative or qualitative? The most obvious blending is in the approach called
triangulation in which researchers use multiple methods providing multiple perspectives to ensure that they
have a good ‘fix’ on a problem. Approaches such as Q-methodology (Dutch: eerst opvattingen analyseren en
daarna aantal meten, het is een mix) assume that it is respondents’ subjective views of the world that are of
interest but combine that research focus with quantitative, computational approaches to recording and
assessing these views.
The report – subjective or objective? Phenomenologists and ethnographers will report in language
that they will call ‘their informants’ own words’. Dispassionate researchers will report in a language that strives
for neutrality and that removes them from the narrative altogether. Research and research reporting both are
communication activities framed by disciplinary standards and expectations, ethical decisions, and personal
motivations.
Problem posing, problem-solving, peer persuasion
Communication research can be regarded as having three main components.
By problem-posing you have to decide what the question is. Defining the question is a human process
involving personal interest, the feasibility of doing a study, and the rewards, etc.
When having a question, we face the problem to answer it. But problem-solving is more than selecting
a research method and using it. By getting answers we get more questions and new ideas.
Academic publication is a process of persuasion. Readers must be convinced that your research is to
gain recognition. That’s why there is peer persuasion, to improve your report before it is accepted for
publication.
Conclusion communication research inescapably involves ethical decisions.
, Chapter summary of the book
• Communication research is a systematic process of posing questions about human communication,
designing and implementing research that will answer those questions, and then persuading other
researchers that your results are valid.
• Communication researchers typically specialize in one aspect of communication.
• Researchers may use qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or both.
• Researchers have empirical, interpretive, or critical perspectives on communication.
Learns from application exercises
The authors of the book are helping to identify and refine researchers with their own research questions. They
say by formulating a research question you also have to choose methods that will give you the data you need
to answer the research question. You must consider the positives and negatives of each method (ethics,
honesty etc.). The method they discuss in chapter 1 is (observing, interviewing and analysing) getting oriented
toward an area of interest.
Research communication - chapter 2: First decisions
Research questions are all around us and identifying some questions about topics that interest you is a good
start. This chapter is about moving from general questions to specific questions.
Chapters learning goals:
• Define terms induction, deduction, and abduction.
• Identify key reasons for doing research.
• Discuss the various ways we ‘know what we know’.
• Describe two major worldviews in human communication research and how each shapes the nature
of research.
• Identify the advantages and disadvantages of basing your work on the work of other researchers.
• Explain with examples the difference between a research question and a hypothesis and the
advantages of one relative to the other.
Starting with the ‘what’ question: Ideas and observations
When starting a research project, first you can think about a field of interest. You come up with an idea. This
idea is based on something. A generalization about communication is weak, 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 reasoning from observations to a theory that might explain your observations. This
requires confidence that you find enough observations to support your conclusion.
• Deduction moves from a theory to defining the observations you will make to test the theory.
Deduction is in a sense more efficient than induction in that it leads to a specific observation that will
test your hypothesis – the statement about the relationship you expect to find.
• Abduction refers to reasoning from an effect to possible causes. With abduction your starting point is
an effect from which you reason back to possible causes (you see something extraordinary and come
up with a reason for this phenomenon).
