Page 86 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: Irk-Kic-JzL
0521828317c04.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 May 22, 2004 11:26

Hans J. Kleinsteuber

from the empirical, in which a complex reality is reduced to a limited
number of variables.
Theformulationoftheories,inwhichtheoverallcommonfeaturesare
emphasized – despite differences in detail – nearly always presupposes
the comparison of various single examples. Many of these comparisons
work cross-nationally, which means that countless theories possess a
comparative core. To keep to the preceding example: Theories describe
the relationship between politics and the media in various (e.g., open
or closed) societies. Probably the best-known typology of “global me-
dia philosophies” (Siebert et al. 1956) is based on the evaluation of past
and present experience and identifies the following four types: “author-
itarian,” “libertarian,” “communist,” and “social responsibility.” Other
approaches of the latter years of the east-west divide have formed the
following categories: “market (first world),” “Marxist (second world),”
and “advancing (third world)” (Lambeth 1995).
Generally speaking, it is true that many theoretical concepts have
stemmed from a comparative perspective: for instance “information
society,” “knowledge gap,” or “digital divide.” Also the various (often
ethnographical) views of cultural studies point in this direction. This
approach claims quite appropriately to keep an eye on the diversity of
cultures and to gain access by, for example, ethnographical methods and
sensitive analyses of ethnicity, which all work in a comparative manner
(Hepp 1999).

COMPARISON AS A METHOD
The Units of Analysis
The usual definition of comparative research mostly starts with na-
tionalsystems,whicharethencomparedwithothersystems.Thus,cross-
ing national borders becomes a criterion of the definition. Although this
may apply to a large number of the scenarios for comparison, it forces
them into an unnecessary corset in two respects:
Elements within the national system, such as specific markets, ac-

tors, or products, can also form “units of analysis.” Here it is useful
to divide the field of research into three spatially different variants:
the macro level (e.g., national media), the intermediate level (e.g.,
market shares, organizations), and the micro level (e.g., commu-
nicators). The latter is not of interest here, as the subject matter of
interest is media systems.

66