Page 120 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: JZZ/KAA P2: KaF
0521828317c05.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 May 22, 2004 11:55

Werner Wirth and Steffen Kolb

produce the same results. Esser (2000, 144) refers to diverse theoretical
backgrounds that will lead either to differences (e.g., action theoreti-
cally based microresearch) or to similarities (e.g., system theoretically
oriented macroapproaches). In general, the starting point of Przeworski
and Teune (1970) seems to be the easier way to come to interesting results
and interpretations, using the quasi-experimental approach for “most
similar systems with different outcome” (Berg-Schlosser 1997, 77). In
addition to the advantages of causal interpretation, the “most similar”
systems are likely to be equivalent from the top level of the construct to
the bottom level of indicators and items. “Controlling” for most of the
variables of possible impact can thus minimize methodological prob-
lems, which makes analysis and interpretation more valid.
Toclarifywhatismeantbycarefuldataanalysisandinterpretation:the
levelofequivalencedeterminestheextenttowhichdatacanbecompared.
If equivalence is guaranteed, structure-oriented and level-oriented ques-
tions can be answered. If functional equivalence has been established
(e.g., by using an emic strategy), the interpretation of level-oriented
variables and results is impossible, due to the lack of intercultural stan-
dardization of instruments and data. Sometimes it makes sense to think
about the relevance of the differences between the instruments, because
complete equivalence can rarely be obtained. At least on the level of the-
oretical constructs, the research strategy should be an etic one, allowing
for a minimum of comparability. Hui and Triandis (1985, 144) sug-
gest omitting the application of the “functional equivalence” approach
to completely emic measurement due to the loss of comparability. Such
studies should be seen as measurements of two or more constructs rather
thanthemeasurementofoneconstruct(usingoneadaptedinstrument).

EQUIVALENCE AND BIAS
Equivalence has to be analyzed and – if necessary – established on at least
three levels: on the levels of the construct, the item, and the method. Fol-
lowing van de Vijver and Leung (1996; 1997) we label these types of
equivalence construct equivalence, item equivalence, and method equiv-
alence.Whenever a test on any of these levels shows negative results,
cultural bias can be assumed. Thus, bias on these three levels can be
described as the opposite of equivalence.
VandeVijver and Leung define bias as the variance within certain
variables or indicators that can only be caused by culturally unspecific
measurement. For example, a media content analysis could examine

100