Megan Bouchillon

Morgan Ginther
Communication Research
12/9/13
1. Communication is defined as interactions that exchange messages and ideas
through encoding and decoding, and may take many different forms depending on how
many senders and receivers are involved. These levels include the intrapersonal level
(communication with oneself), interpersonal level (communication between two
individuals), group communication (one individual communicating with small groups
and/or the public), and mass communication (one individual communicating with
gargantuan audiences). The discipline also engenders a number of components that
contribute to how messages are perceived and received, some of which are language,
paralanguage, nonverbals, space, and time.
Since communicative acts take place in such a diverse range of situations and are
affected or determined by innumerable factors such as individual status, social context,
relationship types, culture, circumstances, and environments, the field of communication
has the potential to reveal voluminous amounts of information to scholars. It is this
multifaceted characteristic which spurs numerous studies to be done on the disciplines.
Research, as Zhou (2009) points out, is essentially the pursuit of information on a
certain subject or concept by means of in-depth skeptical questions, educated postulations
and thorough examination. It is used to gain further insight into a matter so as to bring to
light new knowledge, thus furthering humanitys understanding of both its physical and
abstract world. Without research, human civilization would not be able to build upon
itself in concrete or metaphysical terms, nor progress to higher realms of functioning due
to a stagnation of thought in the absence of curiosity. Further analysis of concepts also
places ideas and thoughts into different perspectives, thus deriving new meanings for
them.
By helping people to derive meaning from reality, communication plays a large
role in determining human behavior. Humans act based on their perceptions of the world,
and how communication defines a given persons perceptions often explains why they
behave in particular ways. These reflections have prompted scientists to study the
intriguing nature of human communication.
Studies done within this field may take four different approaches: quantitative,
qualitative, rhetorical, or critical cultural. All these types of communication research ask
questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of how and why interactions play out in
a certain fashions, however the questions each approach poses differentiates from one the
other and thus yield unique answers that enlighten researchers about different aspects of
communicative behaviors.
The first type of research, quantitative, is a highly formalized process wherein a
researcher constructs questions that are designed to elicit responses that can be
transcribed into numerical data; these are used to prove or disprove hypotheses about
communication. Quantitative research is informal and objective, as well as systematic
and repetitive, all characteristics which require the researcher to remove themselves from
their study. Typically, experiments proceed in a predefined fashion that consists of the
following chronological steps identified by Zhou:
1. Identify a research topic
2. Conduct a literature review
3. Select a research design
4. Collect the data
5. Analyze the data
6. Draw conclusions
7. Report results
This type of research is usually performed in hopes of providing empirical data
that can be used to validate theories about human communication, as well as serve as a
reference for any individuals interested in the causes or implications of certain instances
of communication. Therefore the aforementioned procedures suit quantitative research
perfectly since, as the author notes, its goal is to test and confirm (and) the researcher
knows exactly what she is looking for (p.16).
Qualitative research is the second method used by communicative scholars. In
contrast to its quantitative counterpart, this approach is a subjective one that emphasizes
the perspectives of participants since it relies upon rich description as data. Since the goal
here is to observe how different meanings lead to individuals creation of multiple
realities that exist simultaneously, visceral experiences take the place of measurable
responses in this study. Collection and analysis of data in these studies also differ from
those in qualitative research: personal interviews, not calculable questions and responses,
are used to gather information from respondents. The researcher also takes on an active
role in their experiments as they are able to become participants, reviewing their
respondents answers with the intent of interpreting the particular reasons behind them.
Next in line is the rhetorical approach. In her book Thinking Through
Communication: An Introduction to the Study of human Communication, Sarah Trenholm
(2011) explains that these studies focus on the classical definition of communication as a
means of a sender intelligently arguing a sound position on a matter in an attempt to
persuade others to either adopt their perspective or at least take their ideas into
consideration (p. 3-5). Once again, in this approach researchers take on a subjective view
of a given topic, willing to also review the opinions of others who may sway them to
adopt a new stance in the matter. The methods by which a communicator may sway their
partners were set forth centuries ago by ancient Greek rhetoricians such as Aristotle and
Cicero; Aristotle believed that a sender of messages uses three strategies to do persuade
audiences ethos (character/integrity), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (rational
thoughts/explanations) while Cicero placed more importance on the considerations that
must be accounted for when the sender is delivering the speech. His famous Five
Cannons are listed in the text as:
1. Invention (topic generation)
2. Style (word choice and usage)
3. Arrangement (organization of thoughts)
4. Memory
5. Delivery (verbal and nonverbal tactics) (p. 6-7).
The final approach to communication research is one which examines the
dynamics of power in human interactions. Critical cultural studies reveals how power
functions within the intricate internal workings of all societies in the worlds cultures,
seeking to discern how it may be obtained, maintained or lost through struggles and
relationships. Ono (2011) denotes the powerful implications of this style of research:
(It) has the potential to (answer) critical questions surrounding issues such as:
social inequality, oppression, political resistance, institutional analysis, social and
political organizing and organizations, vernacular logics, and cultural differences (p.
95).
Regardless of a given societys current state of existence, critical cultural studies
holds that unveiling the dynamics of power within its government, agencies, institutions,
and even rules regarding interpersonal-level communication can lead to a more perfect
state.
All of the above are methods by which evidence is collected to support claims or
provide information on one interactive subject, communication, and share obvious
similarities in their overall goals. The overarching theme of a communication research
method be it quantitative, qualitative, rhetorical, or critical cultural is to gather
information that explains human communicative behaviors. Observations are geared
toward identifying contexts, formulations and executions, while analysis of these
mechanisms aims to discover the causations behind them. By doing so these studies
enable humanity to better itself through an understanding of its behaviors that may lead to
their prediction, allowing it to change them as needed.
While these communication research methods resemble each other in general
objectives and implications, they differ drastically since the types of results each provides
is determined by their specific intentions. As stated earlier each approach poses different
questions which aim at achieving a specific end; in this right, each is different from one
another since they all contribute unique information to the field.
Quantitative and qualitative researches are the two approaches which are most
easily distinguished. The purposes for their results contrast one another, which leads to
methodologies that yield very different results. Quantitative research is meant to produce
findings which can be statistically compared, therefore being of more use to larger
entities in society. Due to its impersonal nature, researchers are also removed from their
experiments, causing it to lack humanitarian experience. Qualitative research is used
more during intrapersonal and interpersonal communication; therefore its methods need
to generate data that is relatable. Like researchers of the interpretive paradigm, these
studies whole-heartedly embrace the concept of the researcher as a member of the study,
either directly through participation or indirectly since they must make personal
interpretations when reporting their findings, thus lending them an air of realism while
also putting the results into context.
Rhetorical research primarily concerns itself with a senders ethics, and its tactics
for examining speeches, interpersonal appeals, and mass messages are designed to
determine whether or not the message was conveyed in a respectable manner. Modern
rhetorical scholars study how Aristotles standards and Ciceros cannons may benefit,
harm, and affect a messages perception; in addition to these functions, the approach also
seeks to appreciate a communicative interactions finer aspects. Critical cultural studies
shares an appreciation for discerning whether interactions take place ethically, but are
more interested in their implications. Studying the power struggles within a society, it is
able to assign value to any given societys communication customs and provide fresh
views of a matter from the perspectives of those who may be underrepresented. Thus, it is
able to create new solutions by identifying aspects or characteristics that were previously
transparent or overlooked, often making it the driving motivation as well as justification
for movements and revolutions which call for social change.
2. Communication paradigms are specific research strategies which scholars apply
to their experiments to learn new information; as Merrigan (2004) said, research
paradigms are different ways of knowing (p. 18). Each paradigm uses a designated
method of obtaining new information about the communication field so that academics
may understand the intricate functions or problems that arise within it. The results that
the researches yield are not limited to the scholarly world; it also has pragmatic
applications. Paradigmatic studies provide the basis for our understandings of
communications while also offering guidelines to follow when pursuing new knowledge.
The knowledge we have about how interactions may be viewed separately from
our own perceptions of them, the in-depth information we have about communicative
patterns that may only be explained in terms of their being unique to a person or
situation, as well as how language and symbols can be used to define and maintain power
within societal relationships are all examples of the practical applications of paradigmatic
research results. These understandings are the results of the discovery, interpretation and
criticism paradigms.
Merrigan explains that the discovery model implies there is a reality outside of
our personal experiences (p. 19). Researchers who perform studies using this approach,
like researchers of quantitative projects, remove themselves from their experiments so as
to collect information in an objective fashion. Results from this type of research are
meant to benefit others by either supporting hypotheses or research claims, or setting the
stage for future studies to be done on its subject matter. To do this, the definitions of
research claims must be precisely outlines, as well as the studys objectives. The
methodology followed in the discovery paradigm is strict and systematic so as to provide
accurate information; such structured procedures also serve to make the research
repetitive so that it may be replicated in the future for validation, elaboration or rebuttal
by fellow scholars.
These characteristics allow discovery researchers to identify and report specific
problems and/or topics of interest within a greater sub-discipline of communication
through generalization and discrimination. This is especially useful when gathering
longitudinal data, such as those obtained from studies done on parent-child
communication. The discovery paradigm allows observations of this dialectic to be
carried out in a systematic fashion, while the subject itself is one that may be studied
numerous times using the same repetitive methods of previous research; it also narrowly
defines interesting concepts in a broader category of communication.
Interpretive paradigm studies completely contrast those of the discovery paradigm
since its purposes, methods, analyses, procedures, and even roles for researchers are
almost the complete opposite. This research archetype takes place in natural settings and
seeks to understand how others construct meanings for communicative behaviors, thus
implying that there is not only a world outside of the researchers perceptions but also
that multiple ones exist. As such, scholars of this paradigm adopt a subjective view of
their experiments throughout their methodology, which Merrigan lists as consisting of
(analyzing) observations, journals and interview data in hopes of understanding their
participants perspectives (p. 21). Researchers then interpret their data and thus take
active roles in their research by becoming participants themselves, acting as ombudsmen
or translators if you will, providing rich descriptions of their findings.
An instance where this paradigm might be employed would be a relational
communication study aimed at offering insight into the motivations behind partners
behaviors. Researchers may make observations of individuals verbal and nonverbal
communication strategies and later interpret their participants interactive patterns in their
findings based on the context, personalities and views expressed to them.
Lastly, the criticism paradigm mirrors both the interpretive paradigm as well as
the critical cultural studies type of research. Merrigans text indicated the similarity this
approach shares with critical cultural studies:
Critical researchers work to reveal the existing social structure, which grows out
of (valued) social, historical, political, and economic realities, as well as ethnicity
(culture), gender and abilities (p. 22).
This characteristic establishes the multiple realities experienced in different
societies which are rooted in their cultures and histories through exposing how certain
social groups are repressed by the tactics of those in power. Critical scholars further
integrate interpretive and critical researches since they subjectively analyze their data,
becoming quasi-participants who offer their opinions as a means of criticizing the
existing societal functions. They may sometimes go so far as to develop theories and
recommendations for improving any injustices they might observe.
A classic example of critical scholarship can be found in the documents
surrounding the Civil Rights movement. Leaders and researchers used the qualities seen
in the lives of White Americas as standards of comparison for contrasting the lower-
quality experiences of African Americans. After analyzing their observations they
reported how language, signs and symbols were being used, as well as laws that were in
place, were used to repress African Americans, and in turn some advocated suggestions
for social changes.
3. Quantitative research is an objective way of gathering numerical data that may be
used to support or refute theories. As such, it often serves as a concrete frame of
reference in the dynamic and indirect field of communication. Through the use of
statistical analyses quantitative scholars provide an immediate and unbiased presentation
of communicative phenomena in reports that discuss their findings. These reports have
educational, professional and social relevance, as they increase our understanding of said
phenomena by either confirming or disconfirming previously posited explanations (Zhou
2009).
This type of research is possibly the most extremely regimented of all
communication researches, demanding specificity in its purpose and methodology so that
it may be replicated at a later juncture in time. Given these qualifications it is crucial to
know the procedures of these studies in order to understand their implications. There are
standard practices that must be adhered to for quantitative research to take place; these
include:
1. Defining the studys purpose
2. Conducting a literature review
3. Stating the research questions and/or hypotheses
4. An explanation of the methodology used
5. Reporting the results
6. Providing an interpretation of the findings
7. Validating or refuting the questions, hypotheses, or theories involved (Keyton
2009)
All of the above are described in detail in the studys research article and can be
found under sections with corresponding or similar subheadings.
The purpose of the research must be established first and foremost; this allows the
results to be applied in the appropriate area of the communication field. Keyton says that
this portions of the paper begins (the project) with an overall objective, then moves on
to identifying the research problem into a preliminary question or questions (p. 39).
She also notes that laying this foundation relies on deductive reasoning, a process which
begins with a general topic the isolates a specific aspect of it for study. This is an
important step in the quantitative process as it enables a researcher to narrow their field
of observation so that they may better formulate questions that are capable of being
mathematically tested.
Zhou states that, since scholarly research is cumulative, (it) does not and should
not exist in isolation (p. 18). He refers to the fact that current studies should be
connected to related information in the field that was discovered earlier; this is the
function of the literature review. The purpose of quantitative studies is to validate or
refute preexisting theories; therefore, all literature that is pulled for review would either
build upon previous research, relate to the theory being tested, or consist of work written
by others that it is relevant to the research questions and/or hypotheses that have been
advanced by the current study.
Speaking of which, research questions and hypotheses often laid out at the end
of the literature review define the specific concerns and suppositions put forth by the
researcher. These are many times numerous and carefully constructed so that the results
they yield will produce statistical equivalents. Keyton explains that these are the
guidelines which direct the research process; thus, they play just as critical a role in an
experiment as does the purpose (p. 39). She also mentions that they are linked to the
studys purpose via a contradicting or supporting relationship between the twos natures.
The methodology section is perhaps the most content-dense portion of a
quantitative research paper, but this is due to it containing the complete explanation of
how the study was carried out. As a result of this type of researchs objective and highly
systematic demands, the researcher must detach themselves and their biases from views
of their observations, rendering quantitative studies impersonal endeavors. Listed below
are the contents of this section as well as a description of each.
Samples: these tend to be rather large so as to ensure that enough data is obtained
to account for unexpected setbacks, and that it is statistically analyzable while
taking into consideration qualifiers and processing necessities (variables, codifies,
loss of materials, etc.). It also adds significance to the evidence produced by the
study.
Method of information gathering: collection typically takes the forms of surveys,
questionnaires, or case studies; other tactics may be used as well so long as they
elicit numerical data. The types of participants chosen, how materials were
administered and collected, as well as the amount of time that was lapsed between
the projects execution and conclusion would be found here.
Statistical analysis: the methods of evaluation may be found here, but are
sometimes given in the next section.
Qualifications and reservations: any restrictions, academic sanctions, or
discrepancies in general with regard to data collection or evaluation would also be
found in the methodology. These may be aspects such as ethical treatment,
variables, etc.
Central to the methodology section is its ability to be reproduced for future
observations to contribute to the studys findings.
After defining its methods the article then reports its results. This being quantitative
research, all findings are transcoded or transcribed into numbers or symbols that show
measured outcomes, which may be charts, graphs, percentages, or the like. Often times
this section is difficult to comprehend if the reader is unfamiliar with the jargon or
arithmetic used, but it serves as a way of providing proof of the researchers data.
However, valuable information is located in these paragraphs as it is here that categories,
explanations of codifiers used and precise figures are placed.
At a qualitative research reports end is a discussion of its results. Again, the
researcher is removed from the study and thus only able to draw conclusions from what
their data presents them; they are not free to add personal reflections to their
interpretations. The significance of the research results are written out in this portion,
identifying how they fit into the context of the area of communication in which they lie.
Though, quite possibly the greatest importance of this section rests in its support or
refusal of the research questions and/or hypotheses; this in turn is used to disclaim or
supply evidence in favor of the original theory examined in the researchers purpose. A
quantitative scholar also accounts for the limitations present in their study and makes
suggestions for future studies as their final measures.
4. Qualitative studies are accomplished by keeping a few concepts in mind. First, a
purpose is developed by an inquiry of a specific subject and aims to provide patterns,
structures, and orders. This type of approach does not use experimental studies of
treatments, complex arithmetic or researchers who distance themselves from their work;
rather, its data collection strategies involve interpersonal communication that take place
in a natural setting and solicit answers from voluntary participants. Due to the open
nature of qualitative research the researcher is able to include themselves within their
observations: they are free to ask questions unrestrictedly, enabling them to be much
more interactive with their respondents. In addition to this, the methods used allow for a
large amount of flexibility that may be easily adjusted to better suit the needs of the
researchers and the participants. The active role of researchers in this type of research is
also seen in scholars personal interpretations of their data.
Chesebro and Borisoff (2007) mentioned the following:
Frey, Botan, and Friedman (1992) have also argued that qualitative data take the
form of words rather than numbers. Qualitative data are analyzed and presented in the
form of case studies, critiques, and sometimes verbal reports . . . qualitative data are
analyzed most often by rhetorical critics and ethnographers (p. 7) (p.6).
As opposed to its quantitative counterpart, qualitative research adopts a subjective
view of its topic of study and, as Chesebro and Borisoff note, uses observations as its
primary means of collecting data. It also does not render numerical figures as its end
products. Researchers who are fonder of the qualitative method believe that this approach
results in a more in-depth description of their participants behaviors and can reduce the
level of uncertainty between the two parties. Qualitative scholars are focused on
obtaining direct quotes from respondents that may be used to support their conclusions.
Furthermore, this brand of research is often designed to immerse researchers within the
study in order to provide them with better insights into the realities of their experiments
through the use of an ethnographic approach of observing behaviors and/or
characteristics of a certain topic. This produces reports may be more subjective or biased,
but is none the less a better alternative to quantitative research in terms of
comprehensiveness.
Because of the depth of these studies, qualitative findings better represent the
topics and cultures they examine. However, their methodology does have major
drawbacks; this form of research not only presents scholars with the tedious task of
evaluating the data or quotes collected, but as mentioned before it is also prone to
misinterpretation or biased analysis of the data. Just as well, given that every participant
will have different perceptions, categorization is nearly impossible as responses are not
easily labeled. The perspectives of researchers must also be accounted for, as their results
hinge upon how they received their respondents messages; thus, while this approach
vastly exceeds others in terms of personal connection, the difficulties inherent to
interpreting multiple realities are also a great obstacle. These considerations prompt
qualitative researchers to greatly narrow the aspects which they wish to study.
5. Plato defined rhetoric as the art of ruling the minds of men, however, many
researchers explain rhetoric as a field of study which aspires to identify how humans use
communication, and the ways in which it may be used to influence other's opinions in a
particular direction regarding a given idea. Since it is an artful form of speech, the
persuasive communication of rhetoric has the potential of using ambiguity and
questionable methods of achieving its ends. Rhetoricians use rhetorical methods to ask
questions about how a particular representative act assembles social communication
their questions being as diverse as the topics of communication and are heavily
scrutinizing.
This type of research studies communication from a deeply inferential stance,
holding that any communicative act even something as simple as a statement is never
just a transfer of information; researchers believe that it is an event that affects the
outside world and how others perceive it. Interactions are multifaceted occurrences which
may take on numerous forms or utilize any number of strategies to convey a message.
From a rhetorical standpoint, symbolic action should attempt to assemble truth, and
rhetorical criticism investigates how that construction is consummated in addition to what
it actually means.
Researchers typically use one of two systems to evaluate a senders methods:
appreciating the effectiveness and ethics of a sender's messages and criticism of the
speech art. The former system is based upon Aristotle's three methods of persuasion -
ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos refers to a senders use of character to credit their
message; pathos appeals to an audiences emotions, representing the ambiguity of
communicative methodologies as well as how some may successfully deliver unethical
messages since sensuality is a strongly influential force; and logos is an attempt to win
others over through a well-grounded, rational argument that can be soundly explained or
supported. The latter method includes Cicero's five cannons, a set of criteria which
aesthetically judge the presentation of a message while also providing advice for would-
be senders; these are composed of invention, style, organization/arrangement, memory,
and delivery.
Examples of the ways in which rhetoricians would evaluate messages using
Platos three standards can be seen in advertising and the speeches given by political
candidates. Both are meant to persuade the audiences toward a particular point of view by
using the company or politician's stance. Either party could attempt to sell themselves
through presenting a positive, respected and well-known image that represents good
character/credibility (ethos). They may also make an appeal to their audience's emotions
through connecting mission statements or company values with those of their receivers
(pathos). Finally, their goals could be achieved by presenting sound facts or statistics
from which logical conclusions may be drawn that positively impact a customers
perception of the companys product or the politicians campaign (logos).
Both instances can also be reviewed in terms of how well they measure up to
Ciceros principles. Each would require the senders to carefully consider the topic that
they wish to communicate (invention); an attractive method be it a fancy speech or
colorful analogies by which to convey this information (style); how to best organize
their material so that their receivers easily digest their messages (arrangement); tactics for
remembering the true meaning of their messages, as well as whether to distribute it
through live presentations or captivating displays (memory); and lastly the channels that
would be most appropriate for transmitting the messages (delivery).
6. Critical/Cultural studies are the evaluation and analysis of the relational role that
power plays in a society; this is done by applying knowledge from the social sciences. As
Ono (2011) notes, in order to achieve true critical analysis, scholars must acknowledge
that human communication is a social phenomenon which can take innumerable forms
and interpretations; ergo, critical studies need to be partitioned into subcategories in order
to identify how power uniquely interacts in each situation or context. This is extremely
important to the evolution of civilization, as the author also states that critical evaluations
should not only consider the different contexts in which power may exist, but also that
exactly how that power should be criticized is contingent upon the context and not
dictated by a one-size-fits-all approach of analysis.
Threadgold, T. (2003) stated that cultural studies has been defined as an
interdisciplinary endeavor concerned with the analysis of cultural forms and activities in
the context of the relations of power which condition their production, circulation,
deployment and, of course, effects' (Bennett, 1998:60) (p.1). In other words, this domain
of communication addresses the multifaceted nature of human interactions by examining
the ways in which communication contributes to the placement of power, how those
involved retain, lose or come into power, and how each party in a given situation is
affected by it. This aspect can be seen most vividly in the ways this researchs
practitioners are able to view problems from different perspectives and reveal
dysfunctional patterns within a society or groups in the midst of a power struggle. By
enlightening these audiences of the troubles that are facing and the causative factors
behind them, critical cultural researchers are able to advance creative solutions which
could only be brought about from outside thinking; therefore, these studies contribute to
societal progression by means of problem solving.
This form of research has been applied to the topics that hindered the social
progression of nations topics such as sexism and racism and revealed both the subtle
and overt ways in which language was used to exercise power over a group, segregating
populations in terms of us and them. Another major communication domain that has
conveyed messages that bestow or rob men, women, and people of different races of their
power is social norms. Cultural attitudes towards sexes and races are intrinsic to how a
society functions, and since these aspects have been historically discriminating the
nonverbal communication (including tones of voice, gestures, arranging public structures,
symbols and signs, etc.) people were accustomed to behaving with prejudice because it
was in accordance with the prevailing mentalities of those in power.
By using cultural analysis, we are able to understand that these are ways that
those in power seek to undermine those they feel threatened or superior to, and we can
see how the power flows as each situation is presented. These critical reports sometimes
advocate a certain stance on a matter and consequently offer suggestions for change;
therefore, critical studies are a crucial component for social change.
7. Rhetoric and critical/cultural studies are similar yet different areas of
communication that are heavily steeped in the analysis of interactions. These two types of
research overlap one another when examining the relationships between the senders and
receivers involved, and examine what implications communicative acts may have for
individuals. However, the two approaches differ with regard to their intents and how their
results are meant to be used. Whereas rhetoric aims to identify the ways in which the
various methods of persuasion a person uses might be appreciated, critical/cultural
studies seek to reveal how those persuasive tactics endow, maintain or strip conversers of
their power.
Both researches focus on the analysis of texts, public discourse, and culture while
considering how forms of representation and persuasion used to produce messages have
an influence the perception and comprehension of others. In addition they both analyze
how community perceptions influence message production and meaning. Also central to
their common grounds is the fact that critical rhetorical studies are evaluated by those
involved as well as outsiders; retrospect is administered by considering the previously
mentioned determining factors, but is carried out in conjunction with Cicero's five
cannons and Aristotles ethos, pathos and logos while simultaneously being interpreted
on a personal level by those researchers and readers who hope to gain new knowledge of
social interactions or conventions.
But, as mentioned at the outset these two approaches do have differences.
Specifically, rhetoric and critical/cultural studies differ by virtue of their purposes and
practices. Critical/ cultural research is also more specific of the strands of meanings that
can be made from discourse and how they relate to social practices; whereas rhetoric is
more of an examination of intentions of symbolization. Because critical/cultural studies is
a much more complex yet narrowed branch than rhetoric, critical scholars may seek to
use communication between two parties to persuade one to adopt the other's position, or
used to understand the ways that dominant parties maintain their power in a relationship.
Critical studies are specific in their intents, focusing on one aspect of communication
(power) in separate contexts, thus being more restricted in terms of how and why it is
performed (discourse and audience); just as well, it is an extremely active discipline that
involves more observation, reflection and application.
On the flip side, rhetoric is by far the most passive area of study and is also more
concerned the aesthetics of communication. It utilizes more observation than application
(discourse), and can be used to analyze not just the power aspect of communication, but
also other dynamics such as the beneficial or harmful effects that artful speech deliveries
(context) have on a speaker's message. Whats more, it contemplates which
communicative mechanics would best serve the goals of a sender who is trying to
enlighten a receiver (audience) about the differing points of view held that could be
controversial, such as the religious discussions between international students (context).
Unlike the previously discussed types of research whose liberal purposes lead to
unstructured methodologies that have no precise pre-defined procedures that can be
replicated to reinforce validity the next approaches to communication studies are
viewed as being better developed and more grounded. Their results are immediate and
more practical, too.
Though qualitative and quantitative researches seem like complete opposites they
do share multiple similarities. Motivations for the experiments of both stem from
personal academic motivations that aim to gather data on an issue so as to build upon the
ever-growing bodies of research, contributing to the progressive understanding of
communication. Although, like the aforementioned examples of research, they have
distinct lines that are drawn in their methodologies and specific intentions which
distinguish the two from one another.
Examples of the ways in which qualitative and quantitative studies are similar can
be best observed in how they are carried out. Each is the direct result of an instigative
process within researchers that causes them to undertake studies on a subject about which
they are passionate. So too do both studies seek to develop methods that uncover the best
data using settings and situations, as well as unbiased questions, that so as to derive
testable results. This is evidenced in the fact that qualitative and quantitative researchers
conform to standard sets of procedures during their assignments. As a bonus, it is
possible to combine both of these methods into one research; Tashakkori and Teddlie
(1998) advise that mixed methods combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in
the methodology of a study (p.1). Ultimately, this is to assist researchers in gathering the
richest data possible.
But for all that these two kinds of communication studies strategies have in
common they have fundamental differences to clearly differentiate them from each other.
The most important differentiating quality of quantitative researchers is that their
methodologies are meant to produce numeric data that can be verified by subsequent
studies; as such, their questions and analyses must be systematic and replicable.
Furthermore, the objective nature of this approach removes the researcher from their
studies, making it seems more impersonal. Qualitative research, on the other hand,
intends to report multiple realities and is therefore more subjective than quantitative
research. Its practitioners take active roles in their studies by giving personal
interpretations of interviews and observations of natural phenomena, reporting their
findings using syntax rather than arithmetic; these traits endow this form of research with
an interpersonal feel as well as offering more room for expression.
8. Academic journal articles are written in a specific fashion that clearly outlines and
explains the information contained within so that readers are able to readily locate and
use what it is that pertains to their interests or purposes; this is done by organizing the
documents materials. Organization of the subject matter in scholarly articles is done
through the use of subheadings that proceed in a logical order which delivers relevant
information cumulatively in order to facilitate learning of the material. As Frey, Botan
and Kreps (2000) note, there are typically eight sections that comprise an article: the title,
abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and references.
The first subheading of a scholarly article is the title, which plays a key role in
defining an article as well as determining its availability. Titles of these types of works
are often more explanatory than conceptual since they are the foundations upon which
researchers build their reputations and work. In order to serve the purpose of academic
tools, academic headings are bipartite, which enables them to specifically denote their
general topic of exploration in addition to what specific aspect about the topic the article
examines. This exactness allows the multiple concepts and problems within a single
discipline to be targeted by scholars. The direct nature of journal article titles is also
beneficial when academics try to locate the articles; using words or phrases unrelated to
the writings content would cause searching difficulties, thus possibly hindering
researchers from finding the piece that contains the information they need most.
The abstract, an articles second section, is a basic summary illustrating the
important contents in the writing. Staple explanations in this section include the topic,
purpose, outline of the articles methodology, results, and the discussion. When in the
course of doing academic research, scholars and researchers are often pressed for time as
they search for reference materials that may be integrated into their work, or could
support their claims; therefore they cannot afford to sift through irrelevant findings (Frey,
Botan & Kreps, 2000). This aspect of academia makes the abstract and its immediate
availability of information crucial to researchers schedules.
Next is the introduction, which Frey states begins the actual body of a journal
article (p. 67). In this part of the writing the author(s) provide background information
about the area that their study concerns, citing any literature or academic information that
might help to clarify its subject matter along the way (Frey, Botan & Kreps, 2000). This
is done to establish the context of their writing, allowing readers to place in into the
appropriate perspective for analysis. The article then proceeds to explain which approach
its researchers used to conduct their study, identifies which specific topic it addresses
within the field, and concludes with statements that illustrate or reinforce the important
implications of the research.
The literature review is, for some forms of research, one of the most crucial
components of an article. Here, a reader learns how the studys topic relates to its field in
addition to the intentions of the researcher(s). This portion of the writing that is where the
author(s) refer to previous studies that have been done on either their topic or its field
thus adding more contextual depth to their writing; it also illustrates the cumulative
nature of research (Frey, Botan & Kreps, 2000). Information given in this section is also
key to understanding the purposes and importance of the article, as it has been selectively
chosen to support, disclaim, explain, or even found the material presented in the article.
Previous literature provided in this section offers a backdrop to the author(s)s claims or
a springboard from which they decided to put forth a new theory before clearly stating
them in the forms of hypotheses, research questions, or both.
After the literature is the methodology; under this subcategory the participants,
means by which data was collected and analyzed are listed and explained (Frey, Botan &
Kreps, 2000). All relevant aspects about the subjects who participated in the research
must be accounted for here the amount, demographics, and motivations of those
involved because it is necessary for the proceeding results section as well as for helping
readers understand them. Next in the methodology is the ways in which the researchers
gathered data, which would include: how procedures were created, prior considerations
about the study, method of sampling, mathematical guidelines, collection strategies, time
spent conducting the study, time elapsed between information administration and
retrieval, variables accounted for, conversions of data, method of data analysis, and the
time spent analyzing the data. Context clues in this section, such as sanctions from
outside agencies or incentives offered for partaking in the study, will help readers
determine whether or not the method of data collection was ethical, too. At its end this
section explains the means by which data was evaluated, be it through statistical analysis,
literary review or personal interpretation.
Most results sections are brief and directly report the findings of the researchers.
Essentially, here is location that contains the raw data obtained from the study. Findings
are presented in their unadulterated forms (numbers, charts, types of responses) and the
procedure with which they correlate is listed. Inferences are not made here by the
author(s), however readers may use this section to draw their own conclusions about the
study.
The discussion subheading is the final subheading in the article which reports
information regarding the research. In this section the author(s) interpret their findings in
terms of the approach that they adopted at the outset of their study, and like the
introductions end, it further illustrates in academic and/or pragmatic importance of its
results. The writer(s) of the article show(s) here how their results either confirmed or
disconfirmed their hypotheses and/or research questions, explaining in what ways their
data relates to their suppositions. Just as well, figurative implications, practical
applications and connections to previous literature in the field are made in this section.
Use of hindsight is typically seen toward the end of an articles discussion as the
author(s) list(s) the limitations or failings of their study while simultaneously using these
to suggest corrections for future studies.
At the articles end are the pieces of literature which was drawn upon in the study,
which are collectively known as references. Here, the researcher(s) is/are giving other
intellectuals their due credit by acknowledging that their previous studies have helped or
contributed to the current article. Frey, Botan and Kreps mention that this section is also a
sign of respect towards readers since they deserve to know who should get credit for
each idea presented and what is the track record for each idea (p. 69).