Page 75 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-05.qxd 8/16/2005 6:30 PM Page 62

62 Communication Theory & Research
cultural studies rely primarily on the humanist type, while in reception analysis
both types may be found.
Within a general social science methodology, in both effects research and U&G
research a number of specific methods and techniques have been used, including
laboratory experiments, natural and field experiments, survey studies by means
of questionnaires and standardized interviews, participant observations, in-depth
interviews etc. The main difference between the two traditions is probably that
effects research as a rule tends to prefer highly structured and standardized tech-
niques, while U&G research seems to have been relatively more open towards
less structured, ‘naturalistic’ techniques such as in-depth interviews and partic-
ipant observation.
In general, and regardless of the specific methods applied, in both traditions
today there is a tendency for researchers to try to apply a holistic perspective, locat-
ing media use and effects within as broad a psychological, social-psychological,
and sociological framework as possible. Methodologically, this tendency gives
rise to at least two types of efforts. [...]
It should be added, finally, that combinations of different research method-
ologies in a single study have existed for a long time in social science research,
at least in nascendi. A majority of handbooks in social science methodology
always recommended, sometimes actually as a sine qua non, that any large exper-
iment and/or quantitative survey be preceded by small qualitative studies in
which the researcher really could gain first-hand, intimate knowledge of the
phenomena under examination. One important issue in this connection is how
these standard procedures of social science may be drawn upon in current audi-
ence research, especially in the light of humanistic articulations of qualitative
research. While qualitative methodologies remain relevant as indispensable gen-
erators of insights and hypotheses, representatives of the humanistic research
traditions suggest that, in certain respects, qualitative studies may have indepen-
dent explanatory value regarding the reception and uses of media.
A major difference between communication research of the social science type
and the mainstream of literary studies is their conception of analysis and inter-
pretation. Except for the social science-oriented literary research mentioned
previously in the historical section, literary criticism does not normally make a
methodological distinction between the analysis of ‘data’ and the subsequent
interpretation of aggregated ‘findings’. Instead, relying on a variety of text-critical
methods developed within linguistics, literary theory and rhetoric, it aims at
performing what may be regarded as analysis-cum-interpretation, in order to
substantiate one, sometimes more, possible and reasonable readings.
The tool of research is the interpretive capacity of the scholar and the cate-
gories of analysis are grounded primarily in the literary works being examined.
The meaning of each constitutive element is established with reference to the
context of the work as a whole. Its wider significance may be assessed by con-
sidering the social context of historical and psychoanalytic factors, which offer
cues to understanding particular authors, readerships or origins of literary
themes. The role of the empirical reader, however, has rarely been operational-
ized or posed as an explicit methodological issue in literary studies, except in
recent work which, by and large, has drawn its research designs from sociology,