Instructional Approaches to Graduate Study

• Quantitative Research
• Qualitative Research
• Understanding the Distinction

The Quantitative Approach

Our quantitative approach to mass communication is grounded the social scientific epistemology, adhering to the principles of empirical scientific investigation. This approach strives to systematize the process of observation in order to reduce potential biases of the investigator. In the process, many observations are “quantified” (translated into numeric forms). For example, survey questions may be used to “measure” media use, attitudes and opinions. The research techniques that are often associated with quantitative approaches include surveys, experiments, field experiments, opinion modeling, network analysis, and content analyses, etc.

Quantification offers several advantages including the generation of estimates of observer bias (e.g., intercoder agreement in content analysis research), measurement reliability (e.g., inter-item correlations), and convergent validity (i.e., do different ways of measuring a giving concept yield similar results) that allow us to evaluate the reliability, validity, accuracy and precision of our measurements. In addition, quantifying measurements allow us to collect observations from a wide variety of cases (e.g., survey respondents, experimental participants, or examples of media content). It often utilizes advantages offered by random selection of these cases in order to seek a generalizable sample (as in a survey or content analysis) or by random assignment of cases to different experimental conditions in order to isolate causal relationships (as in an experiment). Finally, quantifying observations facilitates a precise statistical analysis between measured concepts that can reduce complicated phenomena to parsimonious summaries of basic relationships between concepts.

We recognize that quantitative approaches have limitations. Many important concepts are chronically difficult to quantify (e.g., news media bias). The danger herein is that researchers using quantitative approaches might shy away from such complex concepts, focusing instead on concepts that are easily quantified. Meaning and significance should not be sacrificed in the name of scientific precision.

Back to top

The Qualitative Approach

Our qualitative approach to mass communication is grounded in the social sciences and humanities. This approach crosses disciplines, fields, and subject matter, including law, history, anthropology, sociology, media and literary studies, and cultural studies. Qualitative research offers an interpretive and naturalistic approach whereby phenomena are studied in their natural settings, and it assumes that generalizations are not time or context-free. Researchers strive to bring a deep, rich understanding to the subject matter rather than an explanatory focus used to predict or control. Such approaches and methods are used to gain knowledge through ethnography/observations, through dialogic communication with informants (interviews, focus groups) or via in-depth examinations of texts (discourse or literary analysis, semiotics, historical archives, legal briefs/cases). In the process, “texts” in the form of actual media texts or transcripts of interviews, field notes, or focus groups become the “data.” These “data” are used to understand, for example, the relationships between media and consumer rituals, the representation of race or gender in media, examinations of media technology through time, or the ways in which young people engage in civic engagement practices.

Rather than acting as objective observers, investigators are often part of the research process, allowing for the advantages an intuitive and intimate knowledge and understanding of the situation may bring to the research. Further, research in the qualitative tradition does not need to be presented as an objective or value-free. It can be, and often is, critical and political in nature. Qualitative methods are inherently multi-method. Further, they may stand alone or be combined with quantitative methods. In the latter case, such methods may serve as a logic of discovery – to develop theory and empirically testable propositions or assist in the formulation and clarification of research designs.

Qualitative approaches offer several advantages over quantification. Some concepts are not easily quantifiable. Qualitative approaches can give voice to informants, instead of relying on a priori academic definitions or concepts. Beyond numbers or variables, qualitative texts may bring a much fuller understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

We recognize that qualitative approaches have limitations. Observations may be context-dependent and generalizations to the broader population or texts are not valid. The danger herein is that researchers using qualitative approaches might try to employ the ontology and methodology of positivist traditions to their qualitative research – by quantifying text in inappropriate ways or offering sweeping generalizations based on small sample sizes. The value of qualitative research should be judged on its own set of ontologies and epistemologies, not upon criteria set forth by the quantitative tradition.

Back to top

Understanding the Distinction

We recognize that, to some degree, the quantitative/qualitative distinction is problematic. First, all research approaches involve both quantitative and qualitative aspects, thereby blurring this distinction. Second, we believe that researchers should adopt the right tools for the job and that often times, answering questions thoroughly involves integrating research methods that are commonly associated with the qualitative approach with other methods that are generally considered quantitative.