Edited By Leah A. Lievrouw
The chapters in this collection, chosen from among the top papers presented in London, suggest that the challenges themselves are constantly being reinvented, broken down and reorganized. The communication discipline undergoes continuous change rather than following an orderly, stepwise path toward the neat, complete accumulation of knowledge. The chapters challenge familiar approaches, notions or assumptions in communication research and scholarship and reflect on the field’s multifaceted and increasingly open character in an era of shifting social relations, formations and technologies.
Chapter Three: A New Era of Field Research in Political Communication?
| 43 →
A New Era OF Field Research IN Political Communication?
DAVID KARPF, DANIEL KREISS, AND RASMUS KLEIS NIELSEN
For 40 years, a particular methodological consensus has dominated the study of political communication. Quantitative research methods generally, and content analysis, surveys, and experiments in particular, have defined the core of legitimate research, especially in the United States.1 While some scholars have produced qualitative work—and some of it has been very influential—most political communication research is quantitative, and quantitative methodologies provide the standards by which most political communication research is judged. This methodological consensus not only provides the main tools scholars have at their disposal for empirical work on political communication, it also shapes the very questions they ask, the answers they provide, and the theories they develop.
Since the 1970s, scholars working within this consensus have generated a remarkable body of findings. Scholars have advanced our understandings of agenda setting, the dynamics of public opinion, the influence of news media and campaign communications upon political behavior, and the limits of both citizens’ independent reasoning and elites’ ability to manipulate people. Political communication research has uncovered with increasing sophistication the cognitive and affective processes that underlie many kinds of political attitudes and assessed the relative importance of mediated appeals versus other factors in shaping political outcomes. Normatively, scholars have made forceful arguments, backed by data, about journalistic and political practices, detailing the corrosive effects of negative...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.