An Analysis of Research Method PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
IN 15 MAJOR COMMUNICATION JOURNALS
FROM 1987 TO 1996
BY
SHAHEED N. MOHAMMED
B.A.. .Arts and General Studies. University of the West Indies. 1990
VI.A.. University of W'indsor. 1993
DISSERTATION’
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Communication
The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque. New Mexico
August, 1998
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
UMI Number: 9839215
Copyright 1998 by
Mohammed, Shaheed Nicky
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9839215

Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
i
i
i
Shaheed N. Mohammed_____________________ I
C andidate j
i
Communication and Journalism I
Department
This dissertation is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and

form for publication on microfilm:
A p p ro v e d b y the D isse rta tio n C om m ittee:
, Chairperson
Accepted: ,
UDe<
lean. Graduate School
JUN 3 0 1998
Date
© 1998, Shaheed N. Mohammed
iii
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
DEDICATION
As ever, for Wends, the inspiration.
For Sarah, sunshine incarnate.
For my parents Shaffie and Hassina, whose hard work is here rewarded.
For Sis and Nabs.
and
in honor o f Professor Thomas F. Camey
in memory o f Professor Stuart H. Surlin
iv
AN ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGIES
IN 15 M AJOR COMMUNICATION JOURNALS
FROM 1987 TO 1996
BY
SHAHEED N. MOHAMMED
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Communication
The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico
August, 1998
AN ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
IN 15 MAJOR COMMUNICATION JOURNALS
FROM 1987-1996
by
Shaheed N. Mohammed
B.A.. Arts and General Studies. University of the West Indies, 1990
M.A., Communication Studies, University of Windsor, 1993
Ph.D., Communication. University o f New Mexico. 1998
ABSTRACT
The present dissertation investigated what research methodologies were used in
articles published in 15 selected communication journals over a recent decade. The
investigation comprised (1) a content analysis of a 25 percent sample (N=969) articles
published in 15 communication journals from 1987 to 1996, and (2) interviews with
editors o f the 15 journals in the same period.
The sample o f 969 communication journal articles included 54.8 percent
quantitative articles, 27.6 percent qualitative articles, 14.3 percent conceptual articles and
3.3 percent mixed-method articles. There was no sustained trend in the frequencies of
these research methodologies from 1987 to 1996.
Communication journal editors perceived that qualitative research methodologies
had increased and that qualitative and quantitative research were equally represented in
vi
com m u n icatio n study. These editors’ perceptions are not supported by the present content
analysis o f the 969 articles.
Communication journals are polarized by methodology. Few journals published
an even mix o f quantitative and qualitative articles. Journal editors perceived
com m u n icatio n journals as having methodological reputations (a perception supported
by the present content analysis). The editors perceived a limited role for editors in
influencing the methodological reputations of communication journals.
Quantitative articles used more experiments and surveys, while qualitative articles
used text analysis, participant interviews, and depth interviews.
Authors of journal articles were polarized by the research methodology they used.
O f the 24 most prolific authors in the present sample only one published a qualitative and
a quantitative article. None of the 24 most prolific authors published a multi-method
article.
Interpersonal, Mass and Intercultural Communication were highly quantitative.
Speech/Rhetoric and Feminist Communication were highly qualitative. Organizational
Com m u n icatio n used the most mixed method research.
The present research indicated that openness to quantitative and qualitative
research methodologies does not necessarily imply openness to combining these
methodologies. Input from responding editors also explored “methodological
maturation.” the opening of a scholar’s methodological outlook over time.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF F IG U R E S ......................................................................................................... xii
C hapter 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Present Investigation........................................................................ 1
Importance o f the Present Investigation for Communication Scholars..................3
C ontext.........................................................................................................................4
Ideology and Methodology ...................................................................................... 4
Paper Submission and Article Publication............................................................... 6
Methodological Aspects o f the Present S tu d y ......................................................... 8
C hapter 2: LITERA TU RE R E V I E W ............................................................................ 11

D efinitions.................................................................................................................11
The Nature of the Methodological D ebate..............................................................13
Paradigms or P ractices?........................................................................................... 15
The "Differences" in Qualitative versus Quantitative Methodologies..................18
Multiple M ethods..................................................................................................... 24
Chaos T h e o ry ............................................................................................................26
Summary o f Literature R e v ie w ..............................................................................39
C hapter 3: RESEA RCH Q U E S T IO N S ..........................................................................41

Frequency o f M ethodologies..................................................................................42
Perceptions of the Methodological Mix in Communication Journals................. 43
Perceptions of the Methodological Mix in Communication S tu d y ..................... 43
Methodological Trends in Communication Study.................................................44
Methodological Specialization................................................................................45
Perceptions of Communication Journals' Methodological Biases ..................... 45
Associations Between Methodology and Research Procedures ..........................46
Authors and M ethodologies.................................................................................... 47
Methodological Reputations o f E ditors................................................................. 47
Journal Article Titles and Methods ........................................................................48
Sub-Fields and M ethodology..................................................................................48
C hapter 4: RESEA RCH M ETHODS ............................................................................50

Overall Flow o f the Present Research M ethods..................................................... 50
The Journal Selection P rocess....................................................................56
Qualitative Data-Gathering .................................................................................... 72
Text-Reduction ........................................................................................... 77
Approaches to the Research Questions ..................................................................83
Summary o f Approaches to the Research Questions.............................................86
viii
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission
C hapter 5: RESULTS ........................................................................................................87
Incidence of Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodology Research . . . . 87
Editors’ Perceptions of Research Methodology Mix in Communication Study . 91
Perception of the Methodological Mix of Communication Journals.................... 92
Methodological Openness of Journals.....................................................................94
Methodological Trends ........................................................................................... 96
Methodological Polarization o f Communication Journals ....................................99
Journals’ Methodological Reputations .................................................................106
Journals’ Reputations and Submitter C hoices.......................................... 107
Reviewers’ Methodological Orientations ................................................ 108
Role of the Editor in a Journal’s Methodological R eputation.................110
Research Procedures and Methods ....................................................................... 119
Editors and Methodologies ....................................................................................124
Methodological M aturation....................................................................... 127
Institutional Factors....................................................................................128
Methodology and Announcement of Research Procedures..................... 129
Methodology Across Sub-Fields of Communication ..............................130
C hapter 6: SUMMARY AND D ISC U SSIO N ...............................................................133

Purpose of the Present Investigation .....................................................................133
Summary of the Present Findings ......................................................................... 134
D iscussion.............................................................................................................. 139
Editors’ Methodological O rientations.......................................................141
The Real Versus the Ideal ......................................................................... 143
Importance of the Hidden Methodological Divide .................................. 146
Methodological R eputation....................................................................... 148
Chaos Theory and the Case for Qualitative and Quantitative
Investigation.................................................................. 1
Media Gatekeeping T h e o ry ....................................................................... 153
Uses and Gratifications T h eo ry .................................................................154
Reflexivity about Shortcomings of the Present Investigation..............................155
Future R esearch......................................................................................................157
C onclusions............................................................................................................ 159
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 161

A: Most Prolific Authors in a Sample of Communication Journal Articles
in the Period from 1987-1996 by Number of Articles Published and
Research Methodology Used in Those A rticles........................................ 163
B: Comparison of the Relative Frequency of Qualitative, Quantitative
and Mixed-Method Articles in 8 Communication Journals in the
Periods 1965 to 1986 and 1987 to 1996................................................... 165
R E FE R EN C ES.................................................................................................................. 166
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The Contrasting Values of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

M ethodologies..............................................................................................19
Table 2. A Comparison of the Attributes o f the Qualitative and Quantitative
Paradigm s......................................................................................................20
Table 4. Comparison of 47 C o m m unication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies ......................................................................................... 57
Table 5. C o m m u n ication Journals Used in Past Research Ranked by the Four
Criteria of Citation, Circulation, Rejection, and Age................................. 64
Table 6. Inter-Coder Reliability Scores on Four Coding Dimensions of 969
Articles from 15 Communication Journals in the Period from 1987 to
1996 ............................................................................................................. 71
Table 7. The 54 Editors of 15 Communication Journals o f Study from 1987 to
1996................................................................................................................ 75
Table 8. Responses o f 54 Editors of 15 Communication Journals during the
Period 1987-1996 to Requests for Interviews by the Present
Researcher...................................................................................................... 78
Table 9. Editors’ Responses Concerning the Role of Research Methodologies in
Communication Journal Article Publication................................................80
Table 10. Total and Mean Pages of Journal Articles Using Various Research
Methodologies in 15 C o m m unicatio n Journals over the Ten-Year
Period from 1987 to 1996.............................................................................90
Table 11. Comparison o f Research Methodologies Used in a Sample of
Communication Journal Articles (N=969) in Two Time Periods 100
Table 12. Methodological Orientation of Articles in 15 Communication Journals
by Editor Term from 1987 to 1996........................................................... 114
Table 13. Three Issues Surrounding Research Methodology in Communication
Journal Article Publication on the Real/Ideal and Public/Private
Dimensions...................................................................................................147
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Processes in the Submission of a Research Paper for Publication in a

Journal...............................................................................................................7
Figure 2. The Present Research Methods Used to Investigate the Methodologies
in 969 Articles Published in 15 Communication Journals from 1987
to 1996 .......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3. Research Methodologies Used in 969 Communication Journal Articles
Published from 1987 to 1996 ...................................................................... 88
Figure 4. Research Methodologies Used in a Sample o f 969 Communication
Journal Articles by Year of Publication.......................................................97
Figure 5. Percentage o f Four Research Methodologies Used in 969
Communication Journal Articles by Year o f Publication ......................... 98
Figure 6. Percentage o f Research Methodologies Used in 969 Communication
Journal Articles Published from 1987 to 1996 by Journal o f
Publication..................................................................................................101
Figure 7a. Balance of Qualitative/Quantitative Methodologies of 15
Communication Journals from 969 Articles Published from 1987 to
1996............................................................................................................. 104
Figure 7b. Number of Qualitative and Quantitative Articles per Journal in a
Sample o f 969 Journal Articles in 15 Communication Journals from
1987 to 1996 ............................................................................................ 105
Figure 8. Percentage o f Research Procedures Used in 830 Communication
Journal Articles by the Research Methodology of the A rtic le s...............120
Figure 9. Number of Articles Published per Author in a Sample o f 969 Articles
from 15 C o m m u n ication jo u rn als in the Period from 1987 to 1996 . . . 123
Figure 10. Percentage o f Research Methodology in a Sample of 969 Articles
from 15 Communication Journals in the Period from 1987 to 1996 by
Communication Sub-Field......................................................................... 131
Figure 11. Model of Interrelationships among the Main Influences on the
Methodological Orientation of a Communication Journal ..................... 150
xi
PREFACE
The present dissertation arose out of a presentation on the false dichotomy
between quantitative and qualitative methodologies given by the author in a graduate
seminar during the Fall 1996 semester at the University of New Mexico. In subsequent
discussions with Professor Everett M. Rogers, it became apparent to the author that the
continuing methodological divisions in the field o f communication study might indeed
bear investigation.
On the advice of Professor Rogers and other committee members, the author
pursued the present investigation in a pilot study o f research methodologies in
communication journal articles. The pilot study in early 1997 revealed a number of
difficulties in the proposed project. Such problems were solved through discussions with
the dissertation com m ittee members, leading to refinements such as more explicit
definitions of criteria for methodological delineation. The pilot study laid the foundation
for the present content analysis of 969 communication journal articles which constitutes
the quantitative phase of the present dissertation.
Discussions with committee members also prompted an investigation of the views
of editors of com m unication journals on methodological issues. Initially, the editors’
views were intended for comparison with the quantitative content analysis findings.
Eventually, the author realized that the editors’ views represented an important data-set
independent of the content analysis findings. The editors of the 15 selected
xii
com m u n icatio n journals thus provided data for the qualitative phase of the present
research.
The present dissertation would not have been possible without the tireless support
of my supervisor, Professor Everett M. Rogers. Professor Rogers sparked the initial
impetus for the present research and was involved in every aspect of the research project.
Professor Rogers' personal and academic support made all the difference in my
completion o f this dissertation and the Ph.D. degree. He is a rare man who is great even
beyond the eminence of his work.
I extend thanks to my committee members. Dr. Bob Gassaway, Dr. Kenneth
Frandsen, and Dr. Magdalena Avila, for their inputs to the present dissertation, and for
their guidance in the various courses I took with them towards completion of the Ph.D.
degree. Something must also be said for the wisdom, beyond the knowledge, that they
imparted.
I also thank my colleague Mr. Kevin Gore for helping with the intercoder
reliability measurement in the present research, despite his own heavy workload.
My perpetual gratitude goes to my wife Waheeda (Wends), without whose
constant support and help, this dissertation could never have been written.
Shaheed N. Mohammed
xiii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Every cobbler thinks leather is the only thing. M ost social scientists,
including the present writer, have their favorite methods with which they are
familiar and have some skill in using. A nd I suspect we mostly choose to
investigate problems that seem vulnerable to attack through these methods. But
we should at least try to be less parochial than cobblers.
Martin Trow (1957, p. 35).
It is often said that the quantitative/qualitative distinction among research
methodologies is illusory and that, nowadays, enlightened researchers are open to the use
o f both classes of research methods. However, in the field of communication study, such
pronouncements, while perhaps socially desirable, may not be necessarily reflected in the
content of published journal articles. That issue is the crux of the present dissertation.
Purpose of the Present Investigation
The debate over quantitative and qualitative methodology has been evident
in communication study, as it has been more generally in the social sciences. The present
investigation focused on the suspected disparity between the reality of methodological
composition of communication research versus an idealized perception of a balance of
qualitative and quantitative research in communication study. The present dissertation
attempts to establish the frequency of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies
in the field o f communication study as reflected in the content of 15 selected
communication journals over the ten-year period, 1987 to 1996. While there are previous
investigations o f quantitative/qualitative methodology distribution in sub-fields of
communication study (e.g.. Cooper, Potter & Dupagne, 1994), the present work considers
the entire communication field and. further, expands the scope of reference to include
consideration o f quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method articles.
While seeking to investigate issues surrounding qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed-research methodologies, the present work itself employs a mixture o f qualitative
and quantitative research methods. A content analysis was used to determine the relative
frequencies o f the quantitative, qualitative, mixed, and conceptual approaches in the 969
co m m unication journal articles in 15 selected communication journals during the period
of study from 1987 to 1996). A qualitative investigation was then conducted through
relatively unstructured interviews with 37 editors of the 15 selected journals who served
during the 1987 to 1996 period. Triangulation is . . using multiple methods of
measurement, data-gathering, and data-analysis in order to obtain a many-sided view of
the object o f study” (Rogers, 1994, 285) ‘. The present investigation attempted to use a
triangulation o f research methods and findings.
1Denzin (1970, 301) suggested a generic definition of triangulation as .. the use of

multiple methods in the study of the same object. . . ”.
The present investigation compared rhetoric versus reality with regard to
methodological synthesis and triangulation in the field o f communication study. The
present dissertation compared idealized views about methodological openness in
communication study versus the reality o f the output o f the field (as manifested in
communication journal article publication). The real versus the ideal is contrasted later in
the present dissertation by considering the perceptions o f journal editors versus the
content of 15 journals in the field of communication study.
Importance of the Present Investigation for Communication Scholars
The present investigation is of value to communication scholars for several
reasons. The field of communication study comprises both qualitative and quantitative
scholarship. The present dissertation attempts to reveal the true state o f the balance
between these two research methodologies, and the extent of their mixed use. To some
extent the results of this investigation reflects the extent to which communication
scholarship is either polarized or synthesized by research methodology.
The present investigation also attempts to compare the rhetoric o f methodological
synthesis and triangulation with the reality of synthesis and triangulation in the primary
output of the field (journal articles). This objective is achieved by a comparison of the
research methodologies use in 969 published journal articles with the perceptions of 37
co m m unication journal editors. The disparities found between perceptions and realities
are important to scholars in the field o f communication study because they indicate a gap
between (1) what the field attempts to achieve in terms o f methodological openness, and
(2) what the field actually achieves in terms of methodological openness.
p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
The present content analysis of 969 communication journal articles in the period
from 1987 to 1996 reveals the extent to which 15 top journals in the field of
com m u n ic atio n study specialized in particular research methodologies. The resulting
"map" o f journals by methodological leaning serves as a useful tool to communication
scholars (particularly younger scholars) which may aid in their decisions about which
journals to submit their research papers to.
Context
The present dissertation suggests that the discourse surrounding qualitative and
quantitative methods has overestimated both (1) the relative importance ascribed to
qualitative methodology and to mixed methodology studies, and (2) the frequency of
qualitative and mixed-method studies in the field o f communication study". The present
investigation also leads to the conclusion that the field of communication study, at the
turn of the Twentieth Century, remains bound to a suspect paradigm of empiricism based
on prediction and control, a paradigm that still dominates much of social science and that
was inherited from the natural sciences about a century ago.
Ideology and Methodology
Polarization in either qualitative or quantitative research methodologies
demonstrates the extent to which scholars remain faithful to their graduate training and
: Frequency and ascribed importance are not necessarily the same. A few journals may
publish many qualitative and mixed articles and thereby increase the frequency of these
articles in the field o f communication study. However, if publication of qualitative and
mixed methodology articles remains isolated to a few journals and if the use of such
methodologies is not accepted by the larger body o f scholars in the field, then ascribed
im p o rtan ce may remain low. Frequency is a reality, while ascribed importance is a
perception.
the worldview3 embedded in their training. To some extent, the catechism o f a scholar’s
induction into academia remains with him/her during the individual’s career. The present
dissertation argues in part that despite assertions to the contrary, communication study
remains largely divided into qualitative and quantitative methodological camps. The
division is based, in part, on the training of communication scholars, but also on
prevailing ideas about the value of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Polarization by methodology in communication journals may reflect, on the one
hand, focus and specialization, whereas it might also represent differing concentrations
of differently trained scholars and thus the expression o f different methodological camps.
In this division into camps or factions with differing beliefs about knowledge and the
acquisition o f knowledge lies the notion of ideological separation. The notion of ideology
is important to our present discussion because we suggest that there is nothing inherendv
superior about either qualitative or quantitative methodologies as heuristic tools for
conducting communication research since each methodology has strengths and
weaknesses. In fact, scholars such as Denzin (1970) and Potter (1996) argue that the two
methodologies are largely complementary. The belief in the supremacy o f either research
methodology is based on numerous assumptions and canons which, taken together,
resemble religious or ideological tenets.
3 A worldview is a set of constructs that delineate an individual’s perception o f reality. In

the present dissertation, we refer to a worldview as a component of a paradigm (i.e., a
paradigm is composed of a number of worldviews).
Paper Submission and Article Publication4
Articles are published in academic journals after a sequence of decision junctures
involving the author/s, the journal editor, and a paper's reviewers. Figure 1 outlines the
general flow of the journal article publication process. The process typically begins with
an author's research idea. Not all research ideas are pursued. Some are abandoned. Those
ideas that are pursued, give rise to research and to writing a paper (#1). The author (#2)
then makes a decision about whether to submit the paper and where to submit it (#3). A
decision not to submit to a particular journal “A” may result in submission to an
alternative (perhaps less prestigious) journal ‘TB” or to no submission (#6).
If the author decides to submit his/her paper to a scholarly journal, the paper is
sent to the editor o f that journal (#4), who decides on which o f the available reviewers
(#4a) s/he should refer the paper to. If an appropriate reviewer is not available on the
current editorial board o f the journal (as is sometimes the case), the editor will, at his or
her discretion, request a review by another scholar (Hirokawa, 1998).
Reviewers read and evaluate a paper sent to them, often searching for so-called
”fatal-flaws" which might invalidate the study reported in the paper. Randy Hirokawa
(1998), a former editor o f Communication Studies, suggested that the flaws on which
reviewers focus are often methodological. Most commonly, a paper is reviewed by three
reviewers and returned to the journal editor for a decision regarding publication.
4 The term "paper" is used to refer to an unpublished manuscript. The term "article" is
used to refer to a manuscript which has been published (in a communication journal).
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
#1. R esearch
Writing
I6b. A bandoned
Discard —
Article
#2. Author
#5b. R evise/Resubm it
(Submitter)
#6a. 16. D iscard oi
Submit #5c. Reject
Other Elsew here
A lternative
Journal S u b m iss io n
Do not
submit Submit or
re-subm it #5. Editor's
#3. S u b m itte r's #4. Journal
L-re-submit . Decision
jo u rn al ch o ice Editor
preferred
preferred journal
journal
Publish
#4a.
Reviewers #5a. Published
Article
Figure 1. Processes in the Submission of a Research Paper for Publication in a Journal.

Based on the reviewers’ comments, the journal editor makes one of three possible
decisions (#5). S/he may decide (1) to publish the paper as an article, (2) to return it to the
author with a recommendation to revise and resubmit, or (3) to reject the paper. An
author who receives a "revise and resubmit” decision from a journal editor has three
choices. S/he may (1) revise the paper according to the recommendations from the
reviewers and resubmit it to the journal, (2) submit the paper to another journal (with or
without revisions) (#6a) or, (3) discard the paper altogether (#6b).
If s/he decides to resubmit to journal "A” after revision, the paper goes through
the review process again, and may go through a number of further review cycles before
being published or rejected. At any time during the review cycles, the author may decide
to either abandon the paper or to submit it elsewhere. If s/he submits it elsewhere, then
the cycle of reviewing is initiated at the second journal. An author will often initiate a
cycle of reviewing a paper at a journal perceived to be higher in prestige (in the U.S..
usually these are national in scope, e.g.. Communication Monographs). After rejection or
recommendations for substantial changes from a more recognized journal, the author may-
then submit the paper to a journal perceived as less prestigious (e.g., a "regional” journal
such as the Western Journal of Communication).
Methodological Aspects of the Present Studv
The present investigation was conducted in two phases. A quantitative content
analysis of the 15 selected communication journals over the ten-year period from 1987 to
1996 constituted the first phase o f the present study. This quantitative investigation
surveyed the content of approximately 25 percent of all research articles published in the
selected journals in the selected decade of study.
The second phase of the present study is a qualitative investigation o f the
perspectives of journal editors on matters related to research methodology in publication
decisions. A paper may report quantitative research preceding qualitative research, but
this combination is somewhat rare since many mixed-method studies opt for qualitative
research as a first phase, using such research to develop and perfect quantitative
instruments. The opposite approach is used in the present study. Here, quantitative
information was sought first in order to define the parameters of the present study and
then to inform the design o f the following, qualitative, phase. An attempt is made here to
balance the importance o f the quantitative and qualitative modes o f investigation.
The choice of present methodology (i.e., quantitative versus qualitative) is
appropriate to the present subject matter (i.e., quantitative and qualitative methodology).
Thus we use quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to investigate
quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
Method versus Methodology
It is useful to address certain terminological issues surrounding the use o f the
words "method” and “methodology.” The terms “methodology” and "method” are often
used interchangeably in everyday scientific discussions. However, while a “method” is a
“specific form of procedure,” (Oxford English Dictionary. 1991), “methodology” is
defined as the “science of method” or a “body of methods used in an activity” (Oxford
F n p lish D ictionary. 1991). In the present dissertation, in keeping with the dictionary
p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without p erm ission.
definitions above, we found it useful to distinguish between methodology, an overall
approach to conducting research that involves a set of traditions and philosophies, versus
research methods which are techniques o f data-gathering, management and analysis often
associated with, but not necessarily bound to, specific methodologies.
In the present dissertation the term “methodology” is used to refer to the general
research approach, including the worldview and the approach to reality (i.e., objective
versus socially constructed). By comparison, the term “method” is taken to refer to
specific data-gathering and analysis techniques (such as content analysis, focus groups,
etc.). However, where possible, the distinction is further emphasized by the use of the
term “research procedures” to refer to this (lower) level o f “method.” Thus we
distinguish between the overarching philosophical level of methodologies and the
mechanical levels of research procedures. In the context o f these definitions, we use
mixed-method5 to refer to journal articles which incorporated both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies. Articles showing no evidence of either quantitative or
qualitative data gathering or analysis were coded as conceptual.
5 The term "mixed-method" is problematic. The choice o f "mixed-method" over "mixed-

methodology" in the present dissertation is rooted in the notion that it is easier (and far
more frequently done) to combine specific research procedures or activities (such as
survey and interview methods) than to combine fundamental approaches to reality (such
as positivism and interpretivism). While not endorsing the position that the
methodologies are necessarily mutually exclusive, the present dissertation acknowledges
that, in journal publication articles, the manifestation o f mixing most clearly appears at
the level of method. It may be argued, however, that the combination o f specific types of
procedures implies openness to differing conceptions o f reality.
10
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter presents a review o f literature on issues related to the
present dissertation. Definitions of some key concepts are presented. The nature and
scope of the qualitative/quantitative methodological debate in the social sciences are
explored through the perspectives presented in past and current literature on social
science methodology. Literature surrounding the roles and functions of journals in
academia is reviewed, and key perspectives are presented. Relevant literature on Chaos
theory. Media Gatekeeping theory and Uses and Gratifications theory is also reviewed.
Definitions
If definition of the terms of the quantitative/qualitative debate were an easy task,
the debate itself might not be as pronounced and fundamental. Difficulties arise even at
the definitional level, particularly because many terms are defined in different ways by
adherents o f different research perspectives.
An example of a definitional deficiency in the debate over quantitative and
qualitative methodologies is the term “empirical.” To most quantitative researchers (and
some qualitative researchers) “empirical” means or equates to the use of numbers.
Morrow and Brown (1994, 200) noted that: “The terms empirical research and
quantitative research, based on variable analysis, are often simply equated as if historical
11
and ethnographic research was not 'empirical.’” Yet the term "empirical” derives from
the Latin (through Greek roots) empeiria meaning “to experience”!Oxford English
D ictionary 1991). “Empirical” is thus defined as “relying on observation and
experiment, not on theory” fOxford English Dictionary. 1991).
The terms quantitative and qualitative are also not as clear-cut as their dictionary
definitions would lead us to believe. As descriptive words, they are easily distinguishable
and defined. However, within the realm o f social science investigation, their connotative
meanings are heavily loaded. The term “quantitative” is associated with terms such as
“positivistic" and (inaccurately, as we have seen) with the notion of “empirical.” The
term '‘qualitative” on the other hand, is associated with ideas such as "interpretivism” and
“naturalism.”
We therefore define quantitative research methodology as an approach to
investigation which (1) conforms to the ideals of positivism (that reality is objectively
manifest and knowable), (2) which is based on isolation of and operationalization of
discrete variables, (3) which depends on the reduction of phenomena to numbers, and (4)
uses statistical analysis with the aim of generalizing findings from a sample to a
population. By contrast, we define q u alitative research methodology as an approach to
investigation which (1) conforms to the notion that reality is socially and individually
constructed from the meanings ascribed to it by people, (2) which values the context of
social phenomena, (3) which depends on holistic interpretation of meaning, and (4)
emphasizes the importance o f particular cases over the goal of generalization.
12
The Nature of the Methodological Debate
Gordis (1996, 30) quoted the British physicist Lord Kelvin as saying “One’s
knowledge o f science begins when he can measure what he is speaking about and express
it in numbers.” Such an outlook, when transferred to the social sciences (as it has been),
begins to express some of the biases inherent in the dominant quantitative approach of
empirical social science research. In popular thought, the alternative approach, labeled
variously as interpretative, qualitative or naturalistic, has come to embody the antithesis
of the dominant approach.
Along with this rather simplistic division has also come a number of popular
misconceptions. For example, qualitative research is often defined in terms of a lack of
numbers (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Cooper, Potter, & Dupagne (1994) noted, however,
that: “To count or not to count is not the fundamental question in the debate about
quantitative and qualitative methodologies.” Indeed, there is no reason why qualitative
research should eschew counting or the use of numbers. Potter (1996, 91) suggested that:
“The use o f numbers is not the problem per se. What bothers most qualitative
theoreticians is the practice of enumeration, the translation of concepts or qualities into
numerals so they can be analyzed using statistical procedures.”
Qualitative research methodology has also been characterized as new or recently
emergent. Sieber (1973), however, pointed out that before World War II, “fieldwork,”
which he defined as participant observation and informant interviewing: “.. .dominated
social research. Such classics as the Hawthorne studies, the Middletown volumes, the
Yankee City series and the Chicago studies of deviant groups, not to mention the
13
anthropological contributions, attest to the early preeminence of fieldwork." Sieber
(1973) also traced the emergence of quantitative methods after World War II and
suggested the development of a polemic with adherents on either side of the debate over
qualitative and quantitative methodology.
That polemic has survived until today. Methodological choice often has more to
do with institutional and conventional loyalties of a scholar than with the appropriateness
of the research methodology to the subject matter of study. Even today. Trow's (1957)
dictum that: .. The problem under investigation properly dictates the methods of
investigation" is evident more in the breach than in its observance. Denzin (1970. 298)
suggested that: "'Research methods represent lines of action taken toward the empirical
world. Many sociologists assume that their research methods are neutral ‘theoretical
tools' suitable for valid scientific use by any knowledgeable user. . . on the contrary,
research methods represent different means of acting on the environment of the scientist."
So. faced with different approaches to reality and a lack of awareness of the
inherent biases of particular research methods and their attendant worldviews, we begin
to see the nature of the debate and its political6 associations. In discussing the politics of
the debate, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) and Carey (1989) suggested that qualitative
methodology is often seen as a challenge to the basic notion o f truth from objectivity held
dear by positivistic science (as manifest in the physical sciences). Denzin and Lincoln
(1994,4) thus argued that resistance to qualitative methods from the mainstream
6 The debate is political to the extent that it defines groups within the scientific
community and affects relationships of power among those groups.
14
scientific community reflects: “An uneasy awareness that the traditions of qualitative
research commit the researcher to a critique of the positivist project."
Paradigms or Practices?
Thomas Kuhn popularized the use of the term “paradigm" in his 1962 book. The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Critics noted that Kuhn offered multiple definitions
of the concept of paradigm. However, the term '‘paradigm" is generally taken to mean an
overarching scientific perspective that is “sufficiently unprecedented to attract an
enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity," and at
the same time “sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined
group of practitioners to resolve" (Kuhn. 1970).
The differences between quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches
has sometimes been couched in terms of a paradigmatic clash. Reichardt and Cook (1979.
9) suggested that: “. . .Each method-type is associated with a separate and unique
paradigmatic perspective and it is these two perspectives which are in conflict." The
choice of quantitative and qualitative research methods would be of little consequence
were it not for the assumed connection with specific and seemingly mutually exclusive
paradigms. Rist (1977,43) suggested that: “Ultimately, the issue is not research
strategies, per se. Rather, the adherence to one paradigm as opposed to another
predisposes one to view the world and the events within it in profoundly differing ways."
This argument exemplifies the extent to which research methods and methodological
choices are seen as being tied to particular worldviews. Often, then, it is not the
methodological choices which are at odds, but rather the worldviews that inform them
15
(e.g.. the worldview that “reality” is tangible and knowable versus the worldview that
“reality” is a social and mental construct).
To some authors, the debate over qualitative and quantitative approaches to
research, although fundamental to social science, does not constitute a paradigmatic rift in
the sense intended by Kuhn. Morrow and Brown (1994, 199-200), for example, wrote of
the debate in terms of the “conventional discourse of methodology.” Their approach
revealed something of the traditional nature of the distinctions between qualitative and
quantitative methods. They noted that: “Although the strategies are not completely (sic)
mutually exclusive, they typically do have distinct research interests . . . ” The authors
added that: “. . . The gulf between these two research strategies is so fundamental that
there is virtually no prospect that the otherwise laudable goal of improving quantitative
research designs can ever achieve the illusory goal of reconciliation, even though in
certain cases 'multimethod' approaches and 'triangulation' may be possible.”
Morrow and Brown (1994. 202) also identified personal and ideological
dimensions of the methodological debate. They suggested that: “Those who identify
themselves with one category appear to assess the other negatively on the grounds of
some inadequacy.” Closely related to such personal identification are the institutional and
peer influences which help to conventionalize methodological perspectives. Morrow and
Brown (1994, 202) described the conventional outlooks thus:
Notwithstanding many efforts at synthesis, quantitative sociologists often

tend to view qualitative research as imprecise, biased by researcher
subjectivity, and effective for neither prediction nor generalization. At the
same time, qualitative sociologists tend to view quantitative research as
grounded in a naive objectivity, ineffective for the interpretation of insider
actions, and generally unable to describe the social construction of reality.
16
In the language of Weber, one is charged with inadequacy in terms of
causal explanation (Erklaren), while the other is charged with inadequacy
in terms o f interpretive understanding (Verstehen).
Brannen (1992, 10-11) addressed the issue of methodological allegiance from a
paradigmatic perspective and added that:
The existence of two distinct paradigms suggests something about

researchers’ allegiances if not their practices. This is not surprising since
the body of methodology texts which attests to the existence of the two
paradigms is much larger than the body of literature which instructs
researchers in the conduct o f multi-method research.
A related discussion to the paradigm/practice issue centers on the considerable
overlap between the underlying philosophies and the specific practices in the debate over
research methodologies. Bryman (1984, 75), writing about the quantitative/qualitative
debate, noted that: ‘‘One of the difficulties, however, in representing the divergences
between the two methodologies, derives from a tendency for philosophical issues to be
treated simultaneously and occasionally to be confused.” He added (79) that:
What is clear from the various discussions of these methodologies is that

they are being explicated at an epistemological level and an attempt is then
made to establish a link between it and a technical level, i.e., the practice
o f social research. The epistemological nature of the discussion is
occasionally reinforced by recourse to the term ‘paradigm’ - usually in a
Kuhnian sense - to denote the two traditions. In so far as paradigms are
meant to be incommensurable, then it is even clearer that two divergent
epistemological bases are being expounded.
Thus are the two camps of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies
divided. The methodological dimension takes a philosophical flavor with hints of
paradigmatic arguments. The divergence becomes a dichotomy, the dichotomy becomes
paradigmatic, and the paradigm rift becomes a matter of ideology.
17
The '‘Differences” in Qualitative versus Quantitative Methodologies
Many authors provided '‘shopping lists” of basic differences between the
qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Hammersley’s (1992,40) list is typical
in suggesting that the main qualities distinguishing the two research methodologies are:
1. Qualitative versus quantitative data.
2. The investigation of natural versus artificial settings.
3. A focus on meanings rather than on behavior.
4. Adoption or rejection of natural science as a model.
5. An inductive versus a deductive approach.
6. The identification o f cultural patterns as against seeking scientific laws.
7. Idealism versus realism.
Cooper, Potter and Dupagne (1994, 55) presented their list (after Schwandt, 1989)
of differing values “inherent” in each approach (Table 1). Reichardt and Cook (1979, 10)
presented a list o f “attributes” of each “paradigm” (Table 2). Lincoln and Guba (1985, 37-
38) expounded a list of five axioms considered from a positivist7 and a naturalistic view
to show the differences between the world views of the two research methodologies
(Table 3).
7 Positivism is the doctrine that social science should address objective material reality,
which exists and is objectively knowable. Positivism suggests that it is "not only
permissible, but highly desirable for social scientists to use the proven methods of the
physical sciences" (Potter, 1996). The positivist school o f thought was founded by the
French sociologist Auguste Comte who lived from 1796 to 1857 (Anderson, 1987).
"Comte argued that the objects of study in social science are the same as in the physical
sciences" (Potter, 1996).
18
Table I. The Contrasting Values o f Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Methodologies.
Values Inherent in Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies

Quantitative Methodology Qualitative Methodology
1. Prediction 1. Interpretation
2. Primacy of method 2. Primacy of subject matter
.} . Manipulation, control 3. Emergence, portrayal
4. Consensus 4. Pluralism
5. Rationality 5. Rationality, intuition
6. Detachment 6. Personal involvement
7. Impartiality 7. Partiality
Source: Cooper, Potter & Dupagne (1994).
19
Table 2. A Comparison of the Attributes of the Qualitative and Quantitative
Paradigms.
Qualitative Paradigm Quantitative Paradigm

1. Advocates the use of qualitative 1. Advocates the use of quantitative
methods. methods.
2. Phenomenoloeism and verstehen; 2. Logical-positivism; "seeks the facts
"concerned with understanding or causes of social phenomena with
human behavior from the actor's little regard for the subjective states
own frame of reference of individuals."
3. Naturalistic and uncontrolled J. Obtrusive and controlled
observation measurements
4. Subjective 4. Objective
5. Close to the data; an "insider" 5. Removed from the data; an
perspective. "outsider" perspective.
6. Grounded, discovery-oriented, 6. Ungrounded, verification-oriented,
exploratory, expansionist, confirmatory, reductionist,
descriptive, and inductive. inferential, and hypothetico-
deductive.
7. Process-oriented. 7. Outcome-oriented.
8. Valid: "real." "rich,” and "deep’’ 8. Reliable; "hard." and replicable
data. data.
9. Ungeneralizable; single case studies. 9. Generalizable. multiple case studies.
10. Holistic. 10. Particularistic.
11. Assumes a dynamic reality. 11. Assumes a stable reality.
Source: Reichardt & Cook (1979).
20
Table 3. A Comparison of the Axioms of the Positivist and Naturalist Paradigms.
Positivist Paradigm Naturalist Paradigm
Axiom 1: The There is a single tangible reality Naturalist version: There are
nature of reality "out there" firagmentable into multiple constructed realities that
(ontology) independent variables and can be studied only holistically;
processes, any o f which can be inquiry into these multiple
studied independently o f the realities inevitably diverges as
others; inquiry can converge onto each inquiry raises more
that reality until, finally, it can be questions than it answers.
predicted and controlled. Prediction and control are
unlikely outcomes although some
understanding (verstehen) can be
achieved.
Axiom 2: The The inquirer and the object of The inquirer and the "object" of
relationship of inquiry are independent; the inquiry interact to influence one
the knower to the knower and the known constitute another; knower and known are
known a discrete dualism. inseparable.
(epistemology)
Axiom 3: The The aim of inquiry is to develop a The aim of inquiry is to develop
possibility of nomothetic body o f knowledge an idiographic body of
generalization in the form of generalizations that knowledge in the form of
are truth statements free from "working hypotheses" that
both time and context (they will describe the individual case.
hold anywhere and at any time).
Axiom 4: The Every action can be explained as All entities are in a state of
possibility of the result (effect) o f a real cause mutual simultaneous shaping so
causal linkages that precedes the effect that it is impossible to distinguish
temporally (or is at least causes from effects.
simultaneous with it).
Axiom 5: The Inquiry is value-free and can be Inquiry is value-bound by
role of values in guaranteed to be so by virtue of inquirer values, choice of
inquiry the objective methodology paradigm, choice of theory, and
(axiology) employed. context. Inquiry is either
value-resonant (reinforcing or
congruent) or value-dissonant
(conflicting).
Source: Lincoln & Guba (1985).
21
Despite these available lists, scholarly consensus is still elusive on some basic
elements surrounding the comparison of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. For
example, Sjoberg and Vaughan (1979, 240) referred to the dominant (positivistic) current
in modem social science as the '‘natural science model." They suggested that:
Social scientists tend to proceed on the assumption that there is a

reality external to, and independent of, the observer and those
persons being studied and that objectivity or value neutrality is
attainable. They then assume that they are dealing with the ‘facts of
nature? and that after developing and testing theories to explain
these facts they have nothing further to contribute.
However, even this seemingly obvious characterization o f positivist social science
inquiry is not agreed upon by writers on the subject. Brannen (1992. 6) challenged this
perceived association between quantitative social science and the physical (or natural)
sciences, pointing out that some o f the pioneers of social science research did not make
such a connection. She wrote:
While quantitative methods have been associated with

enumerative induction, qualitative methods have been
typically associated with analytic induction. The term
analytic induction, as understood by its original exponents
Znaniecki (1934) and Lindesmith (1938). was defined in
contra-distinction to enumerative induction . . . .
From the preceding, Brannen (1992. 6) challenged the popular misconception of a
necessary philosophical or epistemological link between positivist social science and
traditional natural science. She asserted that:
. . . Contrary to current common-sense beliefs about science, in the view of

Znaniecki and Lindesmith, the main methods of the natural sciences
(which are assumed to be in the quantitative paradigm) are not
synonymous with inferential statistics; rather they involve the process of
analytic induction. In analytic induction the researcher moves from the
data through the formulation of hypotheses to their testing and verification.
22
She also related this misconception about the nature of quantitative research to a
fundamental misconception about qualitative research, reasoning that: '‘Because
enumerative induction is sometimes seen to be wrongly associated with the natural
sciences, analytic induction as applied in qualitative research has sometimes attracted the
criticism of being 'unscientific'" (Brannen, 1992, 6).
Hammersley (1992,46) also characterized the traditional association of
quantitative social science with natural science as a specious association when he
cautioned: “It is common for quantitative methodfo/ogy) to be criticized for taking natural
science as its model. It is worth noting, however, that advocates o f qualitative
methodfo/ogy) have sometimes themselves regarded the natural sciences as exemplary."
He cited Thomas and Znaniecki (1919), the sociological pioneers of case study and life
history methods, as modeling their work in an analogous manner to natural science.
Therefore, despite some general agreement on what characteristics constitute
qualitative methodology and what elements constitute quantitative methodology, there is
little by way of a single unified position among scholars as to the “differences.’' Authors
vary on the level of distinction employed in making the distinction between quantitative
and qualitative methodology. The lists of distinctions presented here and elsewhere in the
literature range in their levels of distinction from procedural distinctions (i.e., what
research procedures are associated with qualita tiv e and quantitative methodologies) to
conceptual distinctions (i.e., what values or axioms are associated with qualitative and
quantitative methodologies).
Multiple Methods
The debate over research methodology and attempts to bridge the gaps between
qualitative and quantitative methodologies, are not new in the social sciences or to the
field of c o m m u n ication study. Some of the early traditions of modem social science
emphasized the use o f both research methodologies. Rogers (1994,284-285) wrote of
Paul F. Lazarsfeld’s8 approach to social science and com m unication research in the 1930s
and 1940s: “The Lazarsfeld tradition of social research sought to combine qualitative and
quantitative methods . . . Lazarsfeld was an early proponent of triangulation - using
multiple methods of measurement, data-gathering, and data-analysis in order to obtain a
many-sided view of the object of study.. . . ”
Sieber (1973) noted that the “historical antagonism’' between qualitative and
quantitative research methodologies has prevented recognition of the possible benefits
that each might have to the other. Yet, the combination of research methods is raised as
an issue today in light of the fact that some scholars have asserted that qualitative
methods have re-emerged in recent years. Cooper, Potter, & Dupagne (1994, 54) cited
Hall (1989), Lindlof (1991), Moffet & Dominick (1987), and Pauly (1991) in concluding:
“It is widely asserted that qualitative methods have re-emerged in mass media research
during the last 15 to 20 years.. . ”. Cooper, Potter, & Dupagne (1994, 54) also suggested
that: “About 20 years ago, quantitative research methodologies reached their peak in the
8 Lazarsfeld was an important figure in communication study. Rogers (1994,246) called

Lazarsfeld "The most important intellectual influence in shaping modem communication
research." Lazarsfeld focused on the study o f mass communication effects. He pioneered
the use o f focus group interviews and developed the "program-analyzer" that is still used
today in evaluating audience responses to media content.
24
United States and provided the primary focus of methodology courses. However, this has
apparently expanded to include non-quantitative methods in recent years (Lindlof, 1991;
Lull, 1990). Young scholars, thus, will be exposed to additional methodological tools and
may even consider using multi-method strategies more frequently/'
Triangulation is “. .. using multiple methods o f measurement, data-gathering, and
data-analysis in order to obtain a many-sided view o f the object o f study” (Rogers, 1994,
285). Denzin (1970, 301) suggested that the generic definition of triangulation as . the
use of multiple methods in the study o f the same o b je c t. . . ” represents only one
manifestation of the process. He identified four dimensions along which triangulation is
possible. Data triangulation is the use o f multiple data-sources; theoretical triangulation
involves the application of a variety of theoretical perspectives to a research problem;
investigator triangulation is the use o f multiple investigators to provide a variety of
perspectives; methodological triangulation is the use o f multiple research procedures to
tackle one problem. Despite these distinctions, Bryman (1984) suggested that the term
"triangulation” most commonly denotes a combination o f research methods.
Denzin (1970. 301) further divided methodological triangulation into "within-
method” and "between-method” triangulation. Within-method triangulation is the use of
multiple measures within the same technique, such as using a number of different scales
in a questionnaire to measure the same concept. Between- or across- method triangulation
is the use of dissimilar research techniques to investigate a single phenomenon. For
example, Denzin (1970, 308) suggested that: “The rationale for this strategy is that the
flaws o f one methodfo/ogy) are often the strengths o f another.”
25
Research methodologies are thus complementary rather than mutually exclusive,
as Denzin’s work suggested. Why, then, is methodological triangulation not more
widespread? The answer must lie in the paradigmatic, philosophical, epistemological, and
political associations surrounding the different classes of research methods as outlined
earlier in the present chapter.
Chaos Theory
An important shift in focus has occurred in the natural sciences (and, to a lesser
extent in the social sciences) with the development of so-called "chaos theory" or the
theory of non-linear systems. Chaos is the propensity of components of dynamic systems
to display non-repeating, congruent, patterned behavior over infinitely repeating cycles of
activity (adapted from Gleick, 1987)9. Chaos theory has implications for the
methodological arguments explored in the present dissertation. Increasing evidence of the
relevance of chaos theory in social sciences (Leifer,1989; Rosser. 1990 and Nijkamp &
Reganni, 1991) indicates that traditional quantitative inquiry may not always address the
richness and “complexity” of social processes. Meanwhile, qualitative researchers have
been aware of the underlying complexity o f social phenomena in their pursuit of
interpretation and in their understanding o f the “richness” in qualitative data, a “richness”
reflected in the new complex quantitative models of dynamic systems. Thus, chaos theory
9 The Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. USA, has been one o f the key institutions in
research and development of the notions o f complexity and chaos. The Santa Fe Institute
was set up in 1984 as an independent research center. According to Baake (1997), "SFI
studies tend to follow living and non-living agents and groups of agents as they emerge,
as they organize themselves into complex communities and networks, and as they adapt,
evolve and leam." SFI research includes topics ranging from the study of stock market
dynamics to the study of the dynamics of extinction.
26
may provide some basis for a re-thinking of traditional approaches to the
quantitative/qualitative methodological divide. New insights from chaos theory may even
indicate the possibility of a “paradigm shift” in the approach to methodology.
Gregersen and Sailer (1993) argued that the failure of social science to predict the
outcomes o f social systems is due to chaos. They suggested that “. . . some social
behavior is hard to predict because it is, in a sense, unpredictable and the underlying
social systems are inherently chaotic.” The applicability of chaos in the study of social
systems is borne out by a number o f social investigations that applied chaos theory in
recent years. Leifer (1989) explored the application o f chaos theory to social systems in a
study of organizational transformation; Nijkamp and Reganni (1991) used chaos theory in
their analysis of spatial dynamics; Rosser (1990) explored the role of chaos theory in
economics.
Chaos or nonlinearity is different from traditional linear concepts of natural
phenomena (Gleick, 1987; Gregersen and Sailer, 1993) which held that physical
phenomena were subject to direct cause and effect relationships defined by simple,
universal laws of motion, attraction, and repulsion. The concept of chaos suggests,
instead that the interplay of simple, direct relationships leads to unpredictability in
systems. Unpredictability is evident from the work of Lorenz (1967). Linear relationships,
taken in mass and repeated over large numbers o f cycles, reveal variations which lead to
non-repeating congruent patterns o f behavior or non-linearity (Gleick, 1987).
Traditional linear models o f natural and social systems suggested (1) that
outcomes in dynamic systems could be predicted as long as initial conditions were
27
replicated, and (2) that deviations from expected outcomes were the result of errors in
control or measurement. The concept of chaos suggests, instead, that complex systems are
highly sensitive to the starting state and that small differences in the starting state lead to
vast differences in outcomes, a sub-concept referred to as sensitive dependence on initial
conditions (Lorenz, 1967, Gleick, 1987).
Non-linear or chaotic systems observed in nature have caused scientists to re
think their attempts at measurement, prediction and control o f systems. Investigations
show chaotic tendencies in social systems also. The very notion of chaos calls for a re
thinking of the now well-established tradition o f quantification in the social sciences as
the sole, primary, or most authoritative method of investigation. If small variations in
each iteration of a system can lead to vastly differing outcomes in social phenomena, then
a sufficiently extended view would bring into question the notions of measurement,
statistical extrapolation, prediction, and control which now form the mainstay of research
in communication study and generally in the social sciences.
One of the most popular conceptual tools used in explaining the essence of chaos
is the so-called “butterfly effect” (a popular term of reference for “sensitive dependence
on initial conditions”). The idea o f the butterfly effect is that a butterfly flapping its wings
in China can influence rainstorms in North America (Stewart, 1991). The example is so
counterintuitive that it appears absurd. However, it captures an important principle of
chaotic systems. Minute variations in system variables vastly affect the system’s
performance. The vast number o f such minute events as a butterfly flapping its wings, and
28
the potential o f each event to influence the system as a whole, render the system
unpredictable.
The term chaos is a broad scientific framework that applies to disorder in systems.
Stewart (1992) wrote: '‘We now know that rigid, predetermined, simple laws can lead not
only to predictable, everlasting patterns but also to behavior so complex and irregular that
it appears to all intents and purposes, random. This phenomenon is called chaos.”
Barrow (1991, 123) wrote:
Chaotic phenomena are those whose evolution exhibits extreme sensitivity

to the starting state. The slightest change in the starting state results in an
enormous difference in the resulting future states. The majority o f
complicated, messy phenomena, like turbulence or the weather, have this
property.
Other examples of chaotic phenomena include fluid motion such as that o f a
stream, cosmic motion such as that o f the planets, and some theorists suggest, even the
fluctuations o f financial markets.
Chaos Theory and Changing Paradigms
The breadth of application of the concept of chaos and the larger body of chaos
theory has meant that many concepts are today being measured in terms o f nonlinear
dynamics. Modem computing power and the spread of the concept of chaos have meant
that the manifestations of chaos have been measured in fields as diverse as ecology,
astronomy, chemistry, and economics (Stewart, 1992). Repeated measurements across
different contexts have supported the basic tenets of the theory and thus strengthened its
position in the scientific community.
29
Chaos brings a new worldview to the study of complex phenomena. According to
the modem popularizer of the concept o f chaos, James Gleick, a Ku h n ian revolution in
paradigm has recently taken place. Gleick (1987,38) wrote: “Chaos has become not just
theory but also method, not just a canon o f beliefs but also a way of doing science.”
Chaos has become an important intellectual tool in understanding a range of phenomena
from economic forecasting to abnormal psychology to the development of landforms.
Chaos theory is also attractive because of its ready applicability to the everyday
world. Items as familiar as mountains and leaves can be shown to exhibit patterns which
follow fractal10 dimensions and are based on chaotic patterns. Gleick alluded to the
pervasiveness o f chaos in natural phenomena as the “geometry of nature”.
History o f Chaos Theory
Barrow (1991) traced the beginnings o f the concept of chaos to James Clerk
Maxwell in the second half o f the nineteenth century. Maxwell was more interested in the
outcomes o f natural phenomena than in the laws that were thought to govern them. Such
a bias was not popular since Newtonian physical laws were the foundation of science at
the time. Newtonian physics and the traditional science have long dictated that complex
phenomena such as wind turbulence, fluid motion, weather systems and populations, be
mapped using equations which define linear “cause-effect” relationships among variables
in the system. Traditionally, scientists attempted to develop models based on the most
10 Feder (1988) defined a fractal as a shape made of parts similar to the whole in some
way. Fractal geometry is concerned with complex shapes in which each component of a
shape is identical to the whole (composite) shape and in which each component shape is
also comprised of component shapes identical to itself.
30
accurate equations they could derive, including as many relevant equations as possible
(Barrow, 1991). The fact that deviations persisted and the phenomena eventually became
unpredictable was explained as being due to errors in measurement and difficulties in
isolating the phenomena from outside influences.
Scientists studied the world based on the dictates of their prevailing paradigm.
They were under no pressure to elucidate the observed departure from their equations or
models. They were under no obligation to explain vastly differentiated outcomes from
m inu te initial changes. They did not have to address these realities because the realities
did not exist as key factors in their conceptual models. Their models explained the
variations as inadequacies of measurement and isolation. Variations would be noted and
corrected, and summarily ignored. Mosekilde, Larsen and Sterman (1991, 199) explained
the paradigm as follows:
Since the days o f Newton the underlying presumption o f most scientific

activity has been that the behavior of a system can be precisely predicated
if the laws of motion are known sufficiently accurately. This mechanistic
worldview implies a conceptual stance in which empirically observable
phenomena follow well-defined trajectories, and in which unpredictability
and randomness can be ascribed to incomplete knowledge o f the relevant
equations of motion or to inforseeable exogenous events.
Much o f the modem thought that formalized chaos as a theoretical position
emerged out o f the work of a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz. His 1963 paper entitled
“‘Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” is considered the first landmark in the modem era of
chaos theory (Casti, 1991). Mathematicians and topologists later developed the concepts
that Lorenz described.
31
In mapping the performance of a computer-based weather model, a small act of
carelessness led Lorenz to a serendipitous discovery. He ran a sequence o f operations on
his weather model, and then ran them again. On the second run they failed to match the
first. He discovered that, on the second run, he had rounded off the initial numerical
parameters for the model by one part in a thousand. This minute change led to a vastly
different result. The notion o f sensitive dependence on initial conditions was bom.
With the aid of computers, Lorenz and others continued to work on mapping the
apparent randomness of dynamic systems. Three-dimensional mapping eventually led
Lorenz to realize that the apparent randomness of the variables, when taken over
sufficient time, displayed non-repeating but closely aligned patterns. In a sense, they were
patterns masquerading as disorder. However, the patterns he found followed neither linear
nor cyclical models, which dominated the mathematics of the time. In three-dimensional
space the behavior of the variables plotted a double non-intersecting loop today called the
Lorenz Attractor.
The literature as cited above asserted that chaos theory has implications for social
science investigation because (1) the perspective of complexity in dynamic systems is
relevant to social systems which feature multiple influences in complex interplay, and (2)
the lesson of unpredictability in dynamic systems questions the traditional goals of
prediction and control in quantitative social science research. Further, chaos implies a
reconceptualization of linear, predictable relationships among social phenomena.
In terms of the present dissertation, chaos theory provides a meta-theoteric
perspective that suggests a need to rethink traditional approaches to quantitative and
32
qualitative research methodologies. Cognizance of non-linear dynamics suggests that
isolation and operationalization o f variables in dynamic systems is an incomplete
approach by itself, and that the complexity of social contexts must also be considered.
Increasing application of chaos theory to social science investigation as noted above
implies that the limitations of (1) simple measurement and (2) simple interpretation may
both become increasingly evident. We argue here that an awareness of complexity
suggests (1) the need for increasingly sophisticated methods of quantitative investigation
to measure not just properties of social systems but the performance of system
components over numerous iterations , and (2) increasing attention to the value of
qualitative investigation to reflect social realities arising from the complex interplay o f
social elements as they interact over numerous iterations. Chaos theory is used here as an
overarching or paradigmatic basis for the present value position that qualitative an
quantitative research methodologies should be more equally represented in
c o m m u n icatio n study as manifest in the content of communication journals.
The Roles and Impacts of Academic Journals
The importance of academic journals increased over the last two decades in the
context o f what Hickson, Stacks & Amsbarv (1992) noted as an increasing interest in
evaluating research productivity during the 1980s and 1990s. Sussman (1993, 163-164)
noted th a t:
The Pantheon o f academia requires that author's (sic) work be recognized

and the major form o f recognition, in addition to presentation at meetings,
is appearing in p rint... Promotion and tenure within the university system
is problematic unless the results of one’s research and scholarly efforts are
demonstrated by publication in refereed journals.
33
So pervasive is the notion o f “publish or perish” that scholars in communication
study have recently initiated debate on the wisdom o f making publication the primary aim
of scholarship. Erickson, Fleuriet, & Hosman (1993, 329) called “inappropriate” the
message being sent to junior academics that “. . . Teaching and scholarship are secondary
to ‘getting one's name in print’. . . . ”
Being published has long been ingrained in academic culture, and journal articles
are considered the “standard outlet” for publications (Kau & Johnson, 1983). The
quantity of journal article publications has become a yardstick for the performance o f
scholars and of academic departments and programs (Hickson, Stacks, & Amsbary, 1989;
Vincent. 1991). Journal article publication has become a political, professional, and often,
personal issue for many scholars.
Vincent (1991, 840) suggested that “Those who publish more generally receive
higher salaries, larger salary increments, faster promotion, and more ‘upper-level’ classes
to teach than those who publish less.” Journal articles enjoy primacy, even among other
forms of publication, as indicators o f success. According to Vincent (1991, 840),
"Chapters in edited volumes and journal refereeing are both seen as indexes o f collegial
recognition rather than actual productivity.”
Researchers have investigated the emotional consequences and impacts on
scholars of having journal submissions rejected. Piercy, Moon & Bischof (1994, 242)
concluded from a study of scholars that the emotional responses experienced as a result of
a journal article rejection were “. .. similar to those associated with more serious losses
34
and disappointments. These feelings included shock, shame, confusion, anger, fear,
discouragement, and depression.”
Journal article publication indicates that a scholar is actively involved in research
and reflects continuing academic development. In U.S. communication study, publication
in a highly-regarded journal with a national audience and a high rejection rate is generally
regarded as an indication of high quality work by a communication scholar. By contrast,
failure to publish is a serious indictment of a scholar’s ability. Erickson, Fleuriet, and
Hosman (1993, 331) suggested that during their terms as editorial staff at the Southern
C o m m u n ica tio n Journal the "compulsion to publish” prompted their receipt of documents
including (inter alia): "A mother pleading her offspring’s tenure woes, a recycled
manuscript first presented as a convention in 1963, insinuated bribes of T il return the
favor,' veiled ‘demands’ for ‘special treatment,’ and a nasty variety of verbal and written
abuse from rejected authors.’’
Communication Theories Applicable to Academic Journal Use
Media Gatekeeping Theory
A gatekeeper is a person who controls the flow of information to others.11 e.g..
newspaper editors, public relations officers, and secretaries. Shoemaker (1991. 1) defined
gatekeeping as "the process by which the billions of messages that available in the world
get cut down and transformed into the hundreds of messages that reach a given person on
a given day.” Shoemaker (1991, 1) also acknowledged more open definitions of
gatekeeping which hold that the gatekeeping process extends beyond the selection
11 See also Rogers, Mohammed, Carr, Matsushima, Scott, & Sorrels (1998).
35
process and “involves every aspect of message selection, handling, and control, whether
the message is communicated through mass media or interpersonal channels.” 12
Today gatekeeping theory is most frequently applied in analysis of the flow of
news in the mass media. The concept (and theory) of gatekeeping, however, has a wider
relevance. According to Shoemaker (1996), “It was in theorizing about ways to change
social norms that Kurt Lewin first coined the word gatekeeping . . . . ” Lewin's
investigation focused in part on the decisions surrounding choices of food from the
grocery store to the dinner table. He noted that certain individuals were more instrumental
than others in the choices of food (i.e., they controlled the decisions about what to
purchase). Lewin (1951) identified channels along which the food passed on its way to
the dinner table and junctures where decisions were made about whether a food would
pass further (gates). Persons who controlled the flows of food along each channel were
identified as gatekeepers.
The underlying premise of gatekeeping analyses is that flows of information (or
any other such commodity) from sources to receivers are controlled by various
individuals or forces, each acting as a gate through which the information or commodity
is either allowed to pass or restricted from passing. In this manner, gatekeepers influence
what information (or some other product) is consumed by an audience.
General application o f the concept o f gatekeeping presupposes a choice of
possible entrants wishing to pass through a gate in order to reach a larger audience. In
co m m unicatio n situations, gatekeeping theory presupposes that more information is
12 See also Donohue, Tichenor, & Olien (1972).
36
with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission
usually available than can be transmitted via a given medium at any one time, resulting in
the need for discrimination among potential items o f information as to what passes
through a gate. Given the high rejection rates in top scholarly journals and the roles of
editors and reviewers in accepting or rejecting what is, and is not, published in journals, a
direct analogy is possible between gatekeeping in the news media and gatekeeping in
journal article publishing. This analogy is illustrated in a comment by Sussman (1993.
163):
Reviewers, while chosen from among ones’ peers, are viewed as being
guardians o f the threshold. Entrance into the most holy confines of
academia depends on satisfying, and in some instances appeasing, these
guardians o f the gate.
Academic journals are primarily a communication medium. Erickson. Fleuriet &
Hosman (1993, 328), for example, suggested that “Publishing is the principle (sic) means
by which researchers disseminate knowledge.. . ”. The relevance o f gatekeeping to
journal publication is evident in Lewis-Beck and Levy’s (1993, 560) observation that
journal editors are “forced by page constraints” to make decisions among the papers
submitted for publication. In fact acceptance rates o f 15 to 20 percent are typical of the
15 communication journals of study in the present dissertation (i.e., these journals
typically reject 80 to 85 percent of all papers submitted for publication).
In the present dissertation, the roles of editors in the communication journal
article publication process (and therefore their roles as gatekeepers) are of primary
concern. The extent to which communication journal editors perceive themselves (and are
perceived by other editors) as being in control o f what is published is investigated in the
qu a lita tiv e phase o f the present dissertation. Emphasis is placed on the extent to which
37
methodological concerns guide gatekeeping choices (and perceptions of those choices)
among editors of 15 selected communication journals.
Uses and Gratifications
Uses and gratifications theory developed, in part, as a response to the classical
"effects" approach in media studies (Raybum, 1996). The uses and gratifications
approach posits, in part, that audience individuals use the media for specific purposes,
often categorized under LaswelFs (1948) three functions of the media: (1) '‘surveillance"
(keeping track of events in society), (2) “correlation’ (to verify one’s own positions and
opinions), and (3) “cultural transmission” (the transmission o f cultural values and ideals
in a society), plus (4) Wright’s (1960) addition of “entertainment” (Blumler, Gurevitch.
Katz, 1974; Rayburn. 1996).
In the uses and gratifications approach, members of the media audience are
assumed to be active participants in the mass communication process, who exercise
choice in their consumption of media content based on the gratifications they expect from
various media sources (Littlejohn, 1996; Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1974). At the same
time, the media are seen as competing with other possible sources of gratification for the
audience members’ attention and use (Blumler & Katz. 1974). The notion of an active
audience in uses and gratifications theory is the main point o f departure from the
conventional view of the media effects model in which a passive audience was acted
directly upon by the media, leading to strong effects on audience individuals. Uses and
gratifications theory has been applied to numerous media contexts since its initial
popularization and continues to be used by mass communication scholars, although
38
numerous weaknesses o f the approach have been identified. Rayboum (1996) cited
problems o f conceptual vagueness and imprecision as the main weaknesses.
Uses and gratifications theory is important to the present dissertation in several
respects:
(1) Uses and gratifications theory proposes an active audience. Journal article
publication involves an active audience (i.e.. scholars who read the journals) which is
also, in the aggregate, the producer o f the content of the medium (i.e., the very scholars
who read the journals are the ones who submit papers for publication.
(2) Active channel selection by audience members is relevant to journal article
publication in an individual communication scholar's choices of journals (channels) for
consumption. Active channel selection is also relevant to the content producers'
(authors') choices o f journals to which to submit their papers.
(3) The audience's use of media to fulfil the functions of surveillance, correlation,
and cultural transmission is evident in scholars' use of journals to survey current research,
to cross-check their own scholarly views and opinions, and to perpetuate the research and
academic cultures surrounding each journal.
Summary of Literature Review
The literature reviewed in the present chapter demonstrated that the debate
surrounding quantitative versus qualitative research methodologies is often couched in
terms o f philosophies and paradigms which are perceived as mutually exclusive. Further,
the debate is often predicated on misconceptions of the relationships among empiricism,
scientific inquiry, and qualitative methodology. The observed emphasis on philosophical
39
and paradigmatic distinctions between quantitative versus qualitative methodologies
serves to mask the potential complementarity of the methodologies (as in triangulation)
and thus negatively influences the pursuit o f mixed-method research.
The literature reviewed in the present dissertation argued that journal publication
is one of the most important yardsticks of quality in academia. Journal article publication
is seen as a measure of excellence in an academic field like communication and as an
indication o f personal advancement of a scholar through the academic ranks.
Three theories were advanced in relation to the present investigation of research
methodologies in communication journal articles. Chaos theory is proposed as a
theoretical (or meta-theoretical) position which informs the present general approach to
scientific inquiry by social scientists. Media gatekeeping theory provides a framework for
analysis of the role of journal editors and reviewers as controllers o f the information
flows in com m unication journal article publication. Uses and gratifications theory
presents the scenario of an active audience of scholars choosing among available journals
(channels) for their own consumption and for the submission o f their papers for
publication.
40
Chapter 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The present chapter outlines the research questions posed in the present
investigation. The present investigation raises questions about the relative incidence of
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in published journal articles as
found in the 25 percent sample o f communication journal articles (N=969) published in
15 selected scholarly communication journals over the ten-year period from 1987 to
1996. The present investigation also explores the perceptions of journal editors about the
role of research methodology in c o m m u n ic a tio n journal article publication by the 15
selected communication journals over the ten-year period. 1987 to 1996.
The choice o f research questions versus hypotheses in the present chapter reflects,
in part, an unw illin g n ess on the part o f the present researcher to be bound by what Potter
(1996) referred to as "a priori expectations.” Potter (1996, 118-119) noted that qualitative
methodology allows for a range o f different expectations in research, from ”a priori” to
“emergent.” The research questions presented below are open-ended, leaving room for
unexpected and unpredicted results. A lack of much prior research regarding the
methodological composition of journal article publication in the entire field of
com m unication study also precludes clearer expectations.
41
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without p erm ission.
Frequency of Methodologies
The first, and most fundamental, research question is:
RQ#1: What is the relative frequency of quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodology articles in 15 selected communication journals
over the ten-vear period from 1987 to 1996?
Operational definitions of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed articles help clarify
RQ #1. Q uantitative articles propose hypotheses and pursue and report atomistic research
(in numerical form), and are generally characterized by statistical analysis and tests of
significance. Q ualitative articles report research in which data are gathered and
interpreted in some social context, using textual data and yielding interpretive results.
Mixed methodology articles use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
C onceptual articles did not exhibit any use of data. These included 'Think pieces,”
‘Theoretical expositions,” and other such articles.
RQ #1 will be addressed by coding the 25 percent sample of communication
journal articles (N =969) published in 15 selected scholarly communication journals over
the ten-year period from 1987 to 1996 on the basis of their research methodologies (as
detailed in the following chapter). RQ #1 will be answered using descriptive statistics
obtained from the present content analysis. Frequency counts will reveal the number of
articles in each methodological classification that were published in the 15 selected
com m unication jo u rn als in the ten-year period from 1987 to 1996. Chi-square tests will
be used to determine if differences observed among the frequencies are significantly
different from the frequencies expected by chance alone.
42
Perceptions o f the Methodological Mix in Communication Journals
Research Question #2 addresses the perceptions of the methodological mix of
communication journal articles by the editors of the 15 selected communication journals.
RQ #2 is:
RQ #2: What are communication journal editors' perceptions o f the
relative prominence of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method
articles in 15 communication journals over the ten-vear period
from 1987 to 1996?
RQ #2 will be answered by the responses o f the communication journal editors.
The editors of 15 selected communication journals in the period from 1987 to 1996 were
asked to indicate the relative prominence o f qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methodology articles in the communication journals they edited during their term/s as
editor. Qualitative analysis of the text of interviews with 34 of these journal editors will
be used to answer this research question.
Perceptions o f the Methodological Mix in Communication Studv
Related to the communication journal editor's perceptions of the frequencies of
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology articles in their own editorial terms, are
their perceptions of the frequencies o f quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies
in the field o f communication study generally. We thus posed Research Question #3 as
follows:
43
RQ #3: What are communication journal editors’ perceptions o f the
relative openness of the field o f communication studv to
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method articles?
Research Question #3 will be answered through qualitative analysis o f the text of
34 interviews conducted with former editors of 15 selected communication journals in the
time period from 1987 to 1996. The answers to RQ #1, RQ #2 and RQ #3 are
fundamental to our basic investigation of the realities and the perceptions o f research
methodologies in com m u n icatio n study (as reflected in journal article publication). The
first three research questions also inform each of the research questions to follow.
Methodological Trends in Communication Studv
We are also concerned in the present dissertation with determining whether
qualitative methods have become increasingly prominent in recent years as several
observers of com m unication study (Cooper, Potter & Dupagne, 1994; Hall, 1989;
Lindlof, 1991; Moffet & Dominick, 1987; Pauly, 1991) have observed. We therefore pose
Research Question #4:
RQ #4: Do qualitative and/or mixed research methods show an increase or
decrease in the 15 communication journals of studv over the ten-
vear period from 1987 to 1996?
Research Question #4 will be answered through the use of descriptive statistics
derived from the present content analysis and through the use of chi-square analysis to
determine whether the distribution of methodologies a 25 percent sample o f articles
44
published in 15 selected communication journal over the period from 1987 to 1996 was
significantly different from the distribution we would expect by chance alone.
Methodological Specialization
An important issue arising out o f the distribution of the research methods reported
in communication journal articles is the extent to which each communication journal in
the field is associated with a particular methodological orientation. For instance, it is
perceived by many communication scholars that Communication Research prefers papers
using quantitative methods while the Quarterly Journal of Speech prefers qualitative
methods. We couch this issue as Research Question #5:
RQ #5: To what extent do each o f the 15 selected communication journals
specialize in publishing articles using quantitative or qualitative
research methodologies?
We will use descriptive statistics from the present content analysis to determine
the frequency of each research methodology orientation in each of the 15 selected
communication journals of study. Using a mathematical index (described in detail in the
following chapter of the present dissertation) we will make inferences about the extent to
which each journal is qualitatively-oriented, quantitatively-oriented, or '‘mixed”. The
closely related issues o f perceptions o f communications journals' methodological biases
are addressed in RQ #6 and RQ #7.
Perceptions of Communication Journals' Methodological Biases
Research Questions #6 and #7 are as follows:
45
RQ #6: To what extent are the 15 selected communication journals
perceived by communication journal editors as having specialized
methodological reputations?
RQ #7: To what extent does a communication journals' specialized
methodological reputation influence author choices in submitting
papers for publication?
Research Question #6 and Research Question #7 are answered through qualitative
analysis o f the text of interviews conducted with 37 editors of 15 selected communication
journals who served as editor in the period from 1987 to 1996.
Associations Between Methodology and Research Procedures
Traditional wisdom and the literature in the field associates particular research
methods with qualitative methodology (like ethnography and in-depth interviewing), and
others with quantitative methodology (such as surveys and content analysis). Denzin
(1970) and other scholars noted that these associations need not necessarily hold, and that
research procedures can sometimes be used in either qualitative or quantitative research.
For example, a quantitative study might use in-depth open-ended interviews which are
later coded and quantified. We pose Research Question #8:
RQ #8: Which research procedures are used in the methodological
classifications o f qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodology
journal articles?
Research procedures are defined as specific data-gathering and analysis tools
utilized in the conduct o f scientific inquiry. Research Question #8 will be answered using
46
descriptive statistics from the present content analysis and chi-square analysis to
determine if the observed distribution of research procedures among different
methodologies is significantly different from that expected by chance alone.
Authors and Methodologies
The investigation of possible associations o f research methodologies with
particular com m unication journals (as addressed in Research Questions #5, #6. and #7)
leads us to ask if particular authors are associated with particular research methodologies.
The methodological concentration of authors who have published four or more articles in
the 15 communication journals of study will be investigated in Research Question #9:
RQ #9: To what extent do individual scholars/authors who published in the
15 selected communication journals use particular research
methodologies?
Research Question #9 will be answered by descriptive statistics from the present
content analysis of a sample of 969 articles published in 15 selected communication
journals during the period from 1987 to 1996.
Qualitative investigation addressed the related issue of editors' and journals'
methodological biases in Research Question #10:
Methodological Reputations of Editors
RQ#10: To what extent are individual communication journal editors
associated with particular research methodologies?
RQ #10 will be investigated through statements from the 37 editors o f the 15
selected com m unication journals (in the period from 1987 to 1996) regarding their own
47
methodological reputations and the reputations of other editors. To what extent does an
editors’ methodological reputation influence the reputation of a communication journal
under his/her editorship.
Journal Article Titles and Methods
We also will investigate the frequency with which authors of communication
journal articles indicated the research procedures they used in their articles’ titles. The
present investigation focuses on the frequency of such indication in article titles in
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method articles in our sample of 969 articles from 15
selected com m u n icatio n journals. We pose Research Question #11 as follows:
RQ #11: Do authors of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology
articles published in 15 selected communication journals differ in
announcing their research procedures in their communication
journal article titles?
Research Question #11 will be answered by a combination o f descriptive statistics
from the present content analysis and chi-square analysis to determine whether the
distribution of research procedure announcements among the different methodologies is
significantly different from that expected by chance.
Sub-Fields and Methodology
Communication study encompasses a number o f different sub-fields. The sub
fields we consider in the present dissertation include interpersonal communication, small-
group communication, mass communication, organizational communication, intercultural
communication, international communication, critical studies of communication,
48
speech/rhetorical communication, feminist studies o f communication, and applied
com m u n ication. The label “fieldwide” is used to categorize articles which focused on
issues in the field of communication study as a whole and the label “other” is applied to
articles which do not fit into any of the other categories. The concentration of quantitative
and qualitative methodology in the various sub-fields o f communication study is of
interest in the present study. Research Question #12 asked:
RQ #12: How does the use of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method
vary among the sub-fields of communication studv?
Research Question #12 will be answered by a combination o f descriptive statistics
derived from the present content analysis of a sample of articles published in 15 selected
communication journals in the period from 1987 to 1996, and the use of chi-square
analysis to determine whether the observed distribution of methodologies among
communication sub-fields is significantly different from that expected by chance.
49
Chapter 4
RESEARCH METHODS
The present chapter details the research methods employed in the present
investigation. First, a general overview is provided o f the research processes involved in
the present dissertation. Details of the quantitative investigation are presented, including
journal selection, sampling, and coding. An outline of the qualitative investigation is also
presented.
Overall Flow o f the Present Research Methods
The general flow o f the present investigation is represented in Figure 2. The
present investigation originated with questions about the research methodologies used in
the field o f communication study. Scholarly discussions of research methodology
appeared to make assumptions about the methodologies used in communication study.
The present investigator, in collaboration with his academic advisors, selected journal
article publication in communication study as the most important single indicator of the
methodologies in present-day communication study. The importance of journal article
publications as indicators of research in an academic field is bome out by the literature
that was cited in the present literature review (e.g., Hickson, Stacks, & Amsbary, 1989;
Vincent, 1991) which suggested that journal article publication is the primary indicator of
50
# 1.
R esearch
Idea
#2. All #5c. Editor of

Communication Journal Not
Journals Interviewed
Identified No
#5. Editors
#4.
' #3. N in period
Accepted >5b. Editor's
Journals 1987-1996) Yes #6. Editor
Journals Decision to
sRanked. Identified & Interviews
(top 15) Participate
Approached
#7.
Triangulation
#5a
#3a. Rejected
' #4a. N Sampled
Journals Yes #6a. Content
Sampling Articles
(not in top 15) Analysis
^ P rocess. (from
1987-1996)
#8. Analysis
No and
Conclusions
#4b. Articles
not Sampled
Figure 2. The Present Research M ethods Used to Investigate the M ethodologies in 969 Articles Published in 15
Com m unication Journals from 1987 to 1996.
a scholar’s success in academia, and is the primary outlet for research in the academic
field o f communication study.
The next phase of the present investigation was to identify the main scholarly
journals in the field o f communication study. The initial identification process depended
largely on (1) whether or not a journal was included in the major listings of
communication journals (e.g., SSCI/JCR listings [1995], The Iowa Guide [1993], Index
to Journals in Communication Studies [1992]) and (2) whether or not the communication
journal was identified as a major journal in past research by communication scholars. A
total of 47 communication journals emerged from the initial step in the identification
process.
The large number o f journals, and past research on journals in the field of
com m u n ication study (e.g., So, 1988; Funkhauser. 1996) suggested the need for
discrimination in selecting a smaller subset of journals for the present investigation. Past
research (e.g., Reeves and Borgman, 1983; Funkhauser, 1996) used a variety of methods
to determine the most important journals in the communication field. The methods of
journal selection used in past research and the present method o f journal selection are
detailed in the following sections o f the present chapter. The present selection process
identified 15 co m m u n icatio n journals, and rejected 32.
Two streams o f research activity were undertaken with the 15 selected
com m u n ication jo u rn a ls. The quantitative portion of the present investigation proceeded
as one stream, and the qualitative portion as another, parallel stream. In the quantitative
52
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission
stream, a content analysis was conducted o f 969 articles sampled from the 15 selected
journals in the ten-year period from 1987 to 1996.
In the qualitative stream, 54 communication journal editors were identified for the
15 selected journals in the ten-year period o f study. 1987-1996. These 54 communication
journal editors were approached for interviews by the present researcher. Some 20
communication journal editors who did not respond or did not agree to participate were
not interviewed (one was deceased at the time of these interviews). The other 34
communication journal editors who agreed to participate were interviewed by a variety o f
means, primarily by e-mail and telephone.
The two streams (but not necessarily the resulting findings) converged as results
of the quantitative and qualitative investigations were considered together and other
supplemental information was brought to bear in a triangulation process. Triangulation
(defined previously as the use of multiple methods of measurement, data gathering, and
data analysis in order to obtain a many-sided view of the object of study) of the results of
the quantitative and qualitative streams guide the present analysis and conclusions.
Prior Research on Methodology in Communication Studv
The prior investigation most similar to the present dissertation is Cooper, Potter
and Dupagne’s (1994), “A Status Report on Methods Used in Mass Communication
Research.” In this article, the authors investigated the research methodologies represented
in eight communication journals, which they identified as “major mass media journals in
the United States” (p. 56) in the period from 1965 to 1989 at three-year intervals. The unit
of analysis in the Cooper, Potter and Dupagne study was the individual journal article.
53
Cooper. Potter and Dupagne’s (1994) choice of journals was related to their focus on the
mass communication sub-field. Thus they chose a smaller set of journals from which to
derive their data-set than in the present dissertation. All 1,326 articles in all issues of their
eight selected journals were coded as (1) quantitative, (2) qualitative, and (3) "both"
(“both" representing what we refer to in the present study as "mixed"). The authors
found the proportion of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research articles in
their sample to be:
1. Quantitative 57.8%
2. Qualitative 35.1%
3. Both 1.2%
Total 100%
Their 1994 study did not code articles as “conceptual." The investigators noted
that they sampled all research articles (excluding book reviews and research-in-brief) but
did not specify how they handled conceptual articles published in their selected journals
of study. In the present study, such articles are coded as “conceptual" if no data-analysis
was evident (i.e., no reference is made to either quantitative or qualitative data). Such
articles are generally “think-pieces" or “position pieces.”
Selection of the 15 Communication Journals of Present Studv
From past studies such as Cooper and others’ (1994), it was evident that journal
selection (sometimes referred to as the determination o f “core journals”) in the
communication field is in part a process o f divination, part discretion, and another part
54
negotiation. Authors’ and researchers’ accounts of how they went about choosing their
set o f journals for study provide insight into this difficult process.
Funkhauser (1996) analyzed how citation analysis is used to evaluate the
prominence of various com m u n ication jo u rn a ls on the basis of how many times each had
been cited. In choosing communication journals for analysis. Funkhauser (1996. 565)
wrote:
Initially, the 19 communication journals covered by the Index to Journals

in Communication Studies through 1990 were included. After
consultations with a three-person panel of my colleagues, including both
humanistic and behavioristic communication researchers, 8 additional
journals were added to make the database more comprehensive.
Reeves and Borgman (1983) undertook a bibliometric evaluation of "core”
journals in the field of communication study. To establish a set of journals to define this
core. Reeves and Borgman (1983,123) proceeded in the following manner:
Initially we selected nine journals that were (1) referenced by SSCI (Social
Sciences Citation Index). (2) concerned primarily with communication
research, and (3) in the judgement o f an informal sample o f members,
were consulted and used as a publication outlet by researchers in the
various divisions of the International Communication Association. Later
empirical analyses showed that these journals were clearly the most
influential in the field.
For his analysis of citation patterns. So (1988) selected the same nine journals
selected by Reeves and Borgman, and added one more journal (he gave no reason for the
addition). Rice, Borgman and Reeves (1988, 258) used “the full list of communication
journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) over the first nine years of
SSCI coverage....”
55
The literature from this past research on communication journals demonstrated a
lack of an agreed-upon “core” of journals in the communication field (Table 4). This past
research also demonstrated certain similarities in the selection processes used by various
investigators:
1. Pre-existing listings were used as a starting point on which to base a final
selections of journals.
2. Empirical criteria were used to determine a selected list of communication
journals for study.
3. Lists of journals were modified to suit the needs of a particular research project
(e.g., shortening or lengthening the list o f communication journals depending on the
scope of the investigation).
4. Lists of communication journals were negotiated with colleagues acting as
judges or key informants.
The present study uses all of these four steps to arrive at a final list of 15
communication journals for analysis.
The Journal Selection Process
The selection process began by obtaining the listings of journals in the field of
com m unication, including the latest available SSCI/JCR listings (1995), The Iowa Guide,
the Index to Journals in Communication Studies and Funkhauser s composite listing of
27 com m u n icatio n journals. These four lists were compared with each other (see Table 4)
in order to determine which communication journals were represented in the majority of
the lists o f communication journals. This process was intended to establish the degree of
56
Table 4. Comparison o f 47 Communication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies.
Iowa Guide Index to Journals SSCI/JCR 1995 Funkhouser's 27 Number

Listings in Journals of Times
Communication Listed
Argumentation & Argumentation &

Advocacy Advocacy 2
ACA Bulletin ACA Bulletin 2
Communication Communication 2
Communication Communication Communication Communication

Education Education Education Education 4

Monographs Monographs Monographs Monographs 4
Communication Communication Communication

Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly 3
Communication Communication
Reports Reports 2

Research Research Research Research 4
Research Research 2
Reports Reports

Studies Studies Studies 3
Communication
Theory 1
Communication
Yearbook 1
57
Table 4. (cont.) Comparison of 47 Communication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies.

Listings in Journals ofTmes
Communication Listed
Critical Studies in Critical Studies in Critical Studies in Critical Studies in

Mass Mass Mass Mass
Communication Communication Communication Communication 4
Cultural Studies 1
European
Journal of
Communication 1
European
Journal of
Disorders in
Communication 1
Howard Journal
of
Communication 1
Human Human Human Human

Research Research Research Research 4
International
Journal of
Intercultural
Relations 1
International
Journal of Public
Opinion
Research
Journal of
Advertising
58
Table 4. (cont.) Comparison o f 47 Communication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies.
Iowa Guide index to Journals SSCI/JCR 1995 Funkhouser's 27 Number

Listings in Journals of T m es
Communication I isfoyt
Journal of
Advertising
Research
Journal of Journal of Journal of

Applied Applied Applied
Research Research Research
Journal of Journal of Journal of Journal of

Broadcasting and Broadcasting and Broadcasting and Broadcasting and
Electronic Media Electronic Media Electronic Media Electronic Media 4

Journal of Social
& Personal
Relations
Journal of
Technical Written
Communication
Journalism
Monographs
Journalism Journalism Journalism Journalism

Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Language
Communication 1
Management
Communication
Quarterly 1
59
Table 4. (cont.) Comparison o f 47 Communication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies.
Iowa Guide Index to Journals SSCI/JCR 1995 Funkhouser*s 27 Number

Listings in Journals ofTmres
I istpH
Communication
Mass
Communication
Review 1
Media, Culture & Media, Culture & Media, Culture &

Society Society Society 3
Media Studies
Journal 1
Philosophy & Philosophy &

Rhetoric Rhetoric 2
Public Culture 1
Public Opinion Public Opinion Public Opinion

Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Public Relations Public Relations

Review Review
Quarterly Journal Quarterly Journal Quarterly Journal Quarterly Journal

of (Speech) of (Speech) of (Speech) of (Speech)
Science
Communication 1
Southern Southern Southern

Journal Journal Journal 3
Speech
Communication
60
Table 4. (corn.) Comparison of 47 Communication Journals Included in Four Past
Research Studies.

Listings in Journals of Times
Communication I istPri
Text and Text and

Performance Performance
Quarterly Quarterly 2
Telecommuni
cations Policy 1
Western Journal Western Journal Western Journal

of Speech of Speech of Speech
Communication Communication Communication 3
Women's Studies Women's Studies Women's Studies

in in in
Communication Communication Communication 3
Written Written
Communication Communication 2
61
acceptance for each one as a major journal in communication study. Seventeen journals
were chosen because they were included in three or more of these four lists. They are:
1. Communication Education
2. Communication Monographs
3. Communication Quarterly
4. Communication Research
5. Communication Studies
6. Critical Studies in Mass Communication
7. Human Communication Research
8. Journal o f Applied C om m unication R esearch
9. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
10. Journal of Communication
11. Journalism (&. Mass Communication) Quarterly
12. Media. Culture & Society
13. Public Opinion Quarterly
14. Quarterly Journal of Speech
15. Southern Communication Journal
16. Western Journal of fSpeech) Communication
17. Women’s Studies in Communication
The present investigator’s initial target of ten communication journals proved too
restrictive because it would mean leaving out several communication journals widely
accepted as being central to the field o f communication study. In a pilot study, the present
researcher attempted to negotiate a list of top journals through consultation with senior
colleagues (a process used in the past research of Funkhauser [1996] and Reeves and
Borgman [1983]). This negotiation process demonstrated wide discrepancies in the
various top ten journals chosen by each colleague. On the basis of the difficulties
encountered in trying to identify the top ten journals in communication study, the present
researcher decided to study the 15 most important journals in the communication field.
The 15 journals could have been chosen out of the 17 initially selected
communication journals on a subjective basis, but to avoid possible bias, the present
62
researcher applied four criteria in the final selection of the communication journals of
study: (1) citation data, (2) circulation, (3) rejection rate of papers submitted, and (4) the
age of the journal. All 17 communication journals that were initially selected were
ranked by these four criteria. Those journals in the top 15 on at least three criteria were
selected for study (Table 5).
The 15 journals are listed alphabetically with the abbreviations used to refer to
them in the present study as follows:
1. Communication Education (Com Ed)

2. Communication Monographs (Com Mon)
3. C om m u n icatio n Q u arterly (CQ )
4. Communication Research (Com Res)
5. Communication Studies (ComSt)
6. Critical S tu d ies in M a ss C om m unication fC S M O
7. Human Communication Research (HCR)
8. Journal o f Applied Communication Research ('JACR')
9. Journal o f B ro a d c a stin g & E lectronic M ed ia fJBEM )
10. Journal o f Communication (JOC)
11. Journalism (& Mass Communication-) Quarterly (JQ)
12. Public O p in io n Q u arterly (PO Q )
13. Quarterly Journal o f Speech (QJS)
14. Southern Communication Journal (SCJ)
15. Western Journal o f ('Speech') Communication (WJSC)
Justifications
There are many ways to approach the journal selection process. The criteria for
selection could include any o f the four factors listed in the final selection process above:
Citation levels, circulation, rejection rates, and age of the journal. However, none of these
criteria on their own necessarily indicate that a journal is important in the field of
communication study.
63
Table 5. Communication Journals Used in Past Research Ranked by the Four
Criteria o f Citation, Circulation, Rejection^ and Age.__________
Top 15 Journals Top 15 Journals Top 15 Journals Top 15 Journals
by Citation__________ by Circulation______ by Rejection________ by Age________
Education Education Education Education
Monographs Monographs Monographs Monographs
Research Research Research Research
Studies Studies Studies Studies
Critical Studies in Critical Studies in Critical Studies in
Mass Communication Mass Communication Mass Communication
Human Human Human

Journal of Applied Journal of Applied Journal of Applied
Broadcasting & Broadcasting & Broadcasting & Broadcasting &
Electronic Media Electronic Media Electronic Media Electronic Media
Journalism (& Mass Journalism (& Mass Journalism (& Mass
Communication ) Communication ) Communication )
Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Media. Culture & Media, Culture &
Society Society
Public Opinion Public Opinion Public Opinion Public Opinion
Quarterly Journal of Quarterly Journal of Quarterly Journal of Quarterly Journal of
Speech Speech Speech Speech
Southern Southern Southern Southern
Journal Journal Journal Journal
Western Journal of Western Journal of Western Journal of Western Journal of
(Speech) (Speech) (Speech) (Speech)
Women's Studies in Women's Studies in
64
Even citation analysis13, which is relatively quantitative, can be criticized for its
inability to adequately represent all journals in the communication field. So (1988, 240)
pointed out that: ‘‘There are 20 journals listed under the category of communication in the
1983-1985 JCR fJoumal Citation Reports I. A closer look at the citations of these journals
reveals that some of them should not be classified as communication journals." However,
the problem is not so much one of over-coverage, as So might seem to indicate, but rather
one of under-coverage of the appropriate journals. Funkhauser (1996, 568) found that the
SSCI/JCR listing (a report on the citation patterns of major social science journals
produced annually by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia) omitted 14
important communication journals in one year of coverage (1990). The 14 journals left
out of the citation analysis represented 47 percent of the communication citations made
that year. Thus citation analysis itself is subject to errors of selection and is questionable
as a sole criterion for the selection o f the most important communication journals.
Similar arguments can be advanced for such other criteria as the age of the
communication journal, circulation figures, and rejection rates. Age as a sole criterion
would omit important research published in relatively newer journals. The use of
circulation figures as a sole criterion would exclude smaller journals which also publish
important communication research. Rejection rates as a sole criterion would favor higher
prestige journals. Therefore, we used a synthesis of four major indicators of journal
13 Ciration analysis is the quantitative investigation o f the frequency with which a source
(such as a journal or an author) is cited in scholarly publications.
65
prominence applied to pre-existing lists of top communication journals as determined by
past research on communication journals.
The 15 communication journals of study were chosen by combining all four o f the
most commonly used selection criteria for communication journals (i.e.. citation data,
circulation, rejection rate, and the age of each journal), and applying these four criteria to
communication journals agreed upon as major journals in past research. The present
study thus sought to obtain the most widely accepted list of top communication journals,
based on the most widely used criteria, and agreed upon in the most common lists
provided by past research.
Data-Collection
Q uan titativ e Procedures
Quantitative data on the relative incidence of communication journal articles
using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methodologies were collected by the
present author through reading and coding all articles in sampled issues of all volumes of
the selected 15 communication journals published in the ten-year period from 1987 to
1996. Data about each article was recorded, including the name of the journal, the volume
and issue in which the article appeared, start and end pages, and author/co-authors.
Articles were coded on the following dimensions:
1. Whether the title announced the research methods used.
2. Research methodology: Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed.
3. Research procedures used: Survey, experiment, interview, etc.
66
4. Sub-field of communication: Organizational communication, mass
communication, etc.
A total of 974 communication journal articles were initially coded. O f this total,
969 remained after a review and clea n in g of the data. Five cases were dropped due to
errors in data-entry including redu n d a n cies and illegal codings. The .V is therefore 969 for
all of the present data-analyses (except for certain multiple response categories such as
authorship and in instances where c e rtain methodological categories, such as conceptual
articles, are excluded from analysis).
Sam pling Procedures
A 25 percent sample size was chosen to be representative of the total number of
journal articles, while leaving the present content analysis of the articles at a manageable
size. A sam p ling p lan was designed using a computer-generated list of random numbers
in the range of 1 to 4 with alternates. This list was used to select one out of every four
journal issues (25 percent of the total) in each o f the ten years o f study. All full articles in
the entire issue of the sampled journals were then coded (excluding book reviews). In the
event of a sampled issue form ing part of a double issue, every other article in the double
issue was coded, starting at either the first or second article as determined by a coin flip.
A parallel sampling scheme was developed for Communication Research, which
published six issues per annual volume in the ten-year period o f study. Use o f the four-
issue scheme would have systematically excluded the content o f that journal’s fifth and
sixth issues in each annual volume. The sampling procedure for Communication
Research was based on a series o f random numbers, ranging from 1 to 6. One issue was
67
selected for each odd-numbered year and two issues were selected for each even-
numbered year during the ten-year period o f study, 1987 to 1996, yielding 15 issues out
o f 60 total issues for the period, a 25 percent sample of the total number o f journal issues.
This procedure used for Communication Research yielded the same proportion of articles
(25 percent) as was sampled from the other 14 selected communication journals of study.
Coding Issues
The coding scheme used in the present study draws on the coding system used in
prior research, with certain adaptations. The general classification of research
methodologies into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods was adapted from the
Cooper, Potter, and Dupagne (1994) study o f methodology in mass communication
journals. The initial coding scheme used in the present study added four more categories:
(1) "‘conceptual,” (2) “numeric,” (3)“convergent,” and (4)“other.” “Conceptual” articles
had no explicit reference to data-collection or to use of a data-set. “Numeric” articles
were ostensibly quantitative articles which did not have explicit hypotheses or tests o f
statistical significance. “Convergent” articles were a type of mixed research methods
articles which not only used, but deeply integrated two or more research methods. Due to
small frequencies and problems with reliably making finer distinctions in a pilot version
o f the present study, the initial methodology coding scheme for the present study was
simplified by subsuming “numeric” into “quantitative,” and “convergent” into “mixed
research method.” This reduction led to the present four categories of analysis:
68
1. Quantitative: Articles that proposed hypotheses that were tested with numeric
data. Quantitative articles generally used statistical analysis and statistical tests of
significance.
2. Qualitative: Articles that reported research in which textual data were gathered
and interpreted in some social to obtain interpretive results.
3. Conceptual: Articles that did not employ any discernible data-set or pursue any
type of data-analysis.
4. Mixed-methods: Articles that displayed evidence o f both qualitative and
quantitative investigation and analysis.
The coding scheme used in the present study for the content analysis of the 969
co m m unication jo u rn al articles, closely resembles the original Cooper. Potter, and
Dupagne (1994) scheme, with the addition of the "conceptual'' category. All 969 articles
sampled in the present content analysis were coded by the author of the present
dissertation.
Inter-coder reliability
Inter-coder reliability is defined as the level of agreement between independent
coders who have classified the same communication content. In the present dissertation,
inter-coder reliability was computed for the sample of 969 communication journal articles
by independent coding (that is, by two coders) o f a randomly chosen 10 percent sub
sample (N = 97) o f the entire data-set o f 969 articles. The 10 percent sub-sample was
coded by a similarly trained colleague of the present researcher, Mr. Kevin Gore, who is
also a Ph.D. participant in the communication program at the University o f New Mexico.
69
The inter-coder reliability exercise was conducted after instruction o f the second coder in
the procedures and criteria used in prior research, in the initial data-coding, and in a
sequence o f practice codings of 25 journal articles selected at random from the 15
selected co m m u n icatio n journals of study. Inter-coder reliability for each coding
dimension was computed using the Holsti (1969) measure of agreed codings divided by-
all codings:
Inter-coder reliability = agreed codings x 100

all codings
For example, the number of agreed codings (by the present author and Mr. Kevin
Gore) on the methodological classification item (i.e.. whether an article was quantitative,
qualitative, mixed, or conceptual) totaled 95. All codings on this dimension totaled 97
(one category per article). Thus intercoder reliability for the methodological classification
item was given by:
95 x 100 = 97.9%
97
Intercoder reliability on the “title of the article indicates method” dimension was
100 percent. For the research procedures dimension which allowed multiple codings
(with a m ax im u m o f two entries per article), inter-coder reliability was 96 percent. For
the “sub-field classification” dimension, which also allowed multiple coding of each
article (with a m ax im u m of two entries per article), intercoder reliability was 93 percent
(Table 6).
Inter-coder reliability was generally high on the various measures used in the
present content analysis o f 969 articles published in 15 communication journals in the
70
Table 6. Inter-Coder Reliability Scores on Four Coding Dimensions o f 969 Articles
from 15 Communication Journals in the Period from 1987 to 1996.
Coding Dimension Inter-Coder

Reliability
(percent o f
agreement)
1. Methodological classification o f articles 98%

2. Article title indicates research method 100%
J. Research procedure used in an article 96%
4. Sub-field of communication in article 93%
71
period from 1987 to 1996. All inter-coder reliability measures in the present content
analysis were above the generally accepted standard o f 90 percent.
Qualitative Data-Gathering
The second phase of the present investigation was a qualitative study of interview
responses from 37 journal editors of the 15 communication journals over the ten-year
period from 1987 to 1996. Unlike many mixed-method investigations which employ
qualitative investigation as a preliminary step toward formulation o f hypotheses, the
present investigation used quantitative inquiry as a formative phase for the later
qualitative investigation. The data from the quantitative content analysis instructed the
design o f the qualitative phase of the investigation, providing the basis for questions
asked of the 37 editors in interviews about their particular journal.
These "interviews" were conducted by a variety of means, including telephone, e-
mail and postal mail, depending on the preference o f the interviewee. The texts o f the
interviews were analyzed for main themes and for coherence with the quantitative
findings about the research methodological biases o f each journal of study.
Identifying Journal Editors
The names of the editors of the 15 selected communication journals in the study
period from 19871 o 1996 were identified from issues of the journals that they edited.
Further data (such as the editors’ postal and e-mail addresses) was gathered from
published directories o f communication association members (the American Association
for Public Opinion Research’s Directory of Members. 1997- 1998. the Association for
Education in Journ alism and Mass Communication Journalism and Mass Communication
72
Directory 1997 - 1998. the International Communication Association’s 1998 Membership
Directory, and the Speech Communication Association Directory. 1997-981. The 15
communication journals sampled in the present study were led by a total o f 54 editors in
the period from 1987 to 1996. There were 13 female editors. Some 57 editorial terms were
encompassed by the sample period. In these 57 terms, two individuals served two terms
(as editors of two different journals), and. in one instance, a journal had two co-editors for
one term.
Most editorial terms in the 1987-1996 sample of 15 communication journals were
for three years. However, the shortest editorial terms were one year in duration, while the
longest was seven years in duration. Table 7 shows the 54 editors with their periods of
service for each communication journal over the 1987-1996 period.
Editor Interviews
Editors’ perceptions were gathered in open-ended interviews guided by a
discussion list o f seven items:
1. What is your methodological orientation in terms o f qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods? Why do you have this orientation?
2. What are your perceptions o f the roles (if any) of qualitative and quantitative
methods in com m unication research, and in publication of communication journal
articles?
3. Do you feel that communication research in general (as reflected in journal
article publication) is equally open to the use of quantitative and qualitative
methods?
73
4. What is your perception of the relative frequency o f quantitative, qualitative
and mixed-method articles in the joumal/s under your editorship in the past or
present?
5. How important are submitting authors' perceptions of a journal's
methodological orientation (i.e.. whether a journal is perceived as "quantitative"
or "qualitative") in submission of articles to the editor for selection? Do you think
authors submit to particular journals because of their perceptions of those journals'
methodological orientation?
6. How important are reviewers' perceptions of a journal's methodological
orientation in recommending action regarding publication o f qualitative or
quantitative articles?
7. To what extent do you think journals can develop reputations as being
qualitative or quantitative? What is the role of the editor in the development of
such a reputation? As an editor, to what extent have you influenced the
methodological reputation of joumal(s) under your editorship?
The 54 editors were told that these seven questions were meant as a general
outline for discussion and they were encouraged to add any comments or issues that they
felt were relevant and important. Letters requesting an interview with the discussion
guides attached were mailed to all 54 editors listed in Table 7. Letters and discussion
guides were also sent via electronic mail to the editors in 50 cases. The journal editors
were invited to respond via e-mail, regular mail, fax, or by telephone at times to be
arranged.
74
Table 7. The 54 Editors o f 15 Com m unication Journals o f Study from 1987 to 1996.
Journal 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1. Com John A. James C. McCroskey Lawrence B. Rosenfeld Douglas M. Tran c
Ed Daly
2. Com Margaret McLaughlin Judee K. Burgoon Charles R. Bantz Dennis S.
Mon Gouran
3. Com Peter R. Monge Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach/
Res Charles R. Berger
4. Com George W. Richard E. Grable Randy Hirokawa J. Kevin Barge
Stud Zcigelmueller
5. CQ James W. Linda Costigan Lederman Virginia P. Richmond Raymie Me Kerrow
Chcseboro
6. CSMC Robert K. David L. Eason Sari Thomas Clil 'ford G. Christians D, Charles
Avery Whitney
7. HCR Joseph N. Capella James J. Bradac 1 Howard Giles Cindy Gallois
8. JACR D. Thomas David U. Arthur P. Bochner William T. Eadie Julia T. Wood
Porter Smith
9. JBEM Alan M. Rubin Alison Alexander W. James Potter Dennis K. Davis
10. JOC George Gerbner Mark R. Levy
11. JQ Guido II. Stcmple, 111 Donald Shaw Jean Eolkerts
12. POQ 1loward Schuman Stanley Prcsser
13. QJS Thomas W. Benson Martha Solomon Robert L. Ivie Barbara
Warnick
14. SCJ Martha Dale G. Leathers Keith V. Erickson Andrew King
Solomon
15. WJC Robert L. John Stewart Peter A. Andersen Sandra Petronio
Ivie
Editors were free to respond in as much or as little detail as they wished, and the
response request also invited participants not to be constrained by the seven items on the
discussion guide. The responses varied greatly in length and depth. Some participants
chose to respond via e-mail with brief answers to the questions, while other editors
provided detailed responses. Responses ranged from a few lines to a few pages. A
number of editors (10) preferred to be interviewed by telephone. The telephone
interviews averaged about 25 minutes in length. E-mail was the most popular channel for
responses. Some 20 editors replied via e-mail. Six editors replied via postal mail.
Response rates
The selected 15 communication journals had 54 editors who served in 55 terms
over the period from 1987 to 1996 (two editors had two terms each in the study period
from 1987 to 1996 and one editorial term used two co-editors). All 54 editors were
targeted for responses. One of the editors was deceased at the time o f the present
investigation, leaving 53 potential respondents. A total of 30 editors responded positively
to the first mailing. O f that number, 18 provided responses via e-mail or regular mail,
four indicated a preference for telephone interviews and were subsequently interviewed,
and six deferred responses to a later date. Five editors, James McCroskey, Martha
Solomon-Watson, Virginia P. Richmond, Andrew King, and Charles R. Berger, declined
to respond.14
14 The editors who failed to respond or refused to participate had varying levels of
methodological polarization in the articles published during their editorial terms in the
period from 1987 to 1996. The category of non-responses and refusals included roughly
equal proportions of editors whose terms were highly quantitative, editors whose terms
(continued...)
76
A reminder was dispatched to the remaining 24 non-respondents after April 12.
1998 (three weeks after the first mailing). Further follow-up was conducted by the faculty
advisor to the present dissertation. Everett M. Rogers, who sent personal reminder notes
to the 13 non-respondents that he knew personally. The second contact and additional
follow-ups yielded an additional 13 interviews (including three interviews from editors
who had deferred earlier) as well as two additional refusals. The final tally of 37
respondents and 17 non-respondents is presented in Table 8.
Text-Reduction
The text o f the editors' responses provided data in varying degrees of richness.
Some responses were very direct and brief, others shared deep insights and personal
feelings. The nature o f the inquiry and the wide variety of response types cast doubt on
the usefulness of the enumeration of responses as a text-reduction strategy (that is to say,
it may not have been useful to simply count how many times something was said).
Instead, the present researcher used an emergent category scheme based on thematic
occurrences, i.e., themes were identified as they presented themselves in the discourse of
the respondents. A summary of the thematic categories is presented in Table 9.
Decision Rules
The present dissertation utilizes a wide range of approaches to data-analysis, and
thus to decisions about each research question. The answers to research questions are
based on textual and thematic analysis in certain cases, and on numeric and statistical
14 (...continued)
were highly qualitative, and editors whose terms features various mixes of qualitative,
quantitative and mixed-method articles.
77
Table 8. Responses o f 54 Editors o f 15 Communication Journals during the Period
1987-1996 to Requests for Interviews by the Present Researcher.
Name Participated Refused to Did Not

Participate Respond
Alexander, Alison *
Andersen. Peter A. *
Avery, Robert K. *
Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J. *
Bantz. Charles R. *
Barge, J. Kevin *
Benson. Thomas W. *
Berger. Charles R. *
Bochner, Arthur P. *
Bradac, James J. *
Burgoon, Judee K. *
Capella, Joseph N. *
Cheseboro. James W. *
Christians, Clifford G. *
C ostigan Lederman, Linda *
Daly, John A. *
Davis. Dennis K. *
Eadie. William F. *
Eason, David L. *
Erickson. Keith V. *
Folkerts, Jean *
Gallois, Cindy *
Gerbner, George *
Giles, Howard *
Gouran, Dennis S. *
Grable, Richard E. *
Hirokawa, Randy *
Ivie, Robert L. *
King, Andrew *
Leathers, Dale G. Deceased
Levy, Mark R. *
78
Table 8. (cont.) Responses of 54 Editors of 15 Communication Journals during the
Period 1987-1996 to Requests for Interviews by the Present
Researcher.
Name Participated Refused to Did Not

Participate Respond
Me. Kerrow, Raymie ♦
McCroskey, James C. 4c
McLaughlin, Margaret *
Monge, Peter R. *
Petronio, Sandra *
Porter, D. Thomas 4c
Potter. W. James 4c
Presser, Stanley 4c
Richmond, Virginia P. 4c
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B. 4c
Rubin, Alan M. *
Schuman, Howard 4c
Shaw, Donald *
Smith, David H. 4c
Solomon, Martha 4c
Stemple, Guido H. Ill 4c
Stewart, John 4c
Thomas, Sari 4c
Trank, Douglas M. 4c
Wamick, Barbara 4c
Whitney, D. Charles 4c
Wood, Julia T. 4c
Zeigelmueller, George W. *
Totals 37 5 12
79
Table 9. Editors’ Responses Concerning the Role o f Research M ethodologies in Com m unication Journal Article
Publication.
Dimension Response Categories
M ost Frequent ............ ................. Least Frequent
1. Editor’s Choose the most Strictly quantitative or Mixed/eclectic Neither/rhetorical

methodological appropriate method to qualitative
orientation research questions
2. Reason/s for Graduate training Experience/maturation Belief/preference Institutional/peer

methodological influences
orientation
3. Perception o f role of Both important/should Quality and Qualitative becoming

qualitative and be complementary appropriateness of relatively more
quantitative methods are more important
methodologies important than
quant/qual distinction
4. Openness o f journals No bias / decreasing Depends on the journal / There is still a

to qualitative and biases journals have specific quantitative bias
quantitative biases
methodologies
5. Perception o f method Generally consistent Editors are constrained

mix under your with data by methodologies of
authorship papers submitted
6. Importance of Very important Sometimes wrong /
submitting authors’ sometimes based on
perception of the specious information
journal
Table 9. (cont.) Editors’ Responses Concerning the Role o f Research M ethodologies in Com m unication Journal Article
Publication.
Dimension Response Categories
Most Frequent --------- ................ Least Frequent
7. Importance o f Very important Their methodological Can be manipulated to

reviewers’ perceptions perceptions are not suit the editor’s
important preferences
8. Extent to which Great extent can and

journals can develop do/perhaps too much
methodological
reputation
9. Role of editor in the Some role but not the Greater influence in Unable to influence in Constrained by
methodological sole role early history o f a journal one term association’s policy and
reputation o f a journal submissions
10. Extent to which you Defer to other’s Attempted to be eclectic No conscious effort to Editors try to step
influenced the estimations influence reputation beyond personal biases
journal’s
methodological
reputation
Note: The most dominant themes for each o f the identified dim ensions, ascertained by frequency and em phasis, are presented
to the immediate left o f the dim ension column. Less dominant themes are presented further to the left.
data in other cases. With regard to quantitative findings, the present dissertation uses
descriptive statistics and employs tests of statistical significance where relevant to guide
decisions about certain research questions. Statistical tests are considered to be supported
at the 5 percent level of significance. The choice of the 5 percent significance level fits
with the general convention in the social sciences (Runyon and Haber, 1988, 265).
Two statistical tests of significance are used in the present dissertation: Chi
square, and the t-test. Chi square is a non-parametric test (i.e., it does not depend on the
assumption that the sample mean is expected to be identical to the population mean)
which compares observed frequencies of the outcomes with chance or "expected"
frequencies. A significant value o f chi-square indicates that the observed distribution is
the result of some factor other than chance. The t-test compares the means o f two
distributions in order to determine whether the difference between the two means is
significant versus being attributable to chance. A significant value for t indicates that the
difference between the means is significant at a stated confidence level (5 percent in the
present dissertation).
The use of statistical tests o f significance would be inappropriate for analyzing
qualitative data. In the present analysis, decisions regarding qualitative research questions
are based on textual evidence from the journal editors’ interviews. Such evidence was
weighed not only in terms of the frequency o f mention of a certain viewpoint, but also in
terms of the emphasis placed on a viewpoint by an interviewee. The interpretation of the
textual data and consequent decisions regarding the qualitative research questions were
subjective choices made by the present researcher on the basis of the available evidence.
82
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
Approaches to the Research Questions
RQ #1 asks: What is the relative frequency of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methodology articles in 15 selected communication journals over the ten-vear period
from 1987 to 1996? This research question will be answered by the use o f descriptive
statistics to establish the frequencies of the three research methodologies among the 969
journal articles sampled in the present study. Chi square will be used to determine
whether the observed frequencies of the various research methodologies are significant
versus due to chance, when compared to the statistical expectation that each of the three
research methodologies are equally numerous in the 969 articles in the 15 communication
journals o f study from 1987 to 1996. The t-test will be used to establish whether the
relative length of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology articles (measured in
pages) differ significantly from one another.
Research Question #2 asked: What are communication journal editors'
perceptions of the relative prominence of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method
articles in 15 communication journals over the ten-vear period from 1987 to 1996?
Research Question #3 asked: What are communication journal editors' perceptions of the
relative openness o f the field o f communication studv to quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-method articles ?
Both RQ #2 and RQ #3 will be answered on the basis of the editors' responses,
cross-referenced against the findings from the content analysis (for RQ #1) o f the 969
journal articles. Text reduction o f the interview data from the editors provides the basis
for answers to RQ #2 and RQ #3.
83
Research Question #4 asked: Do qualitative and/or mixed research methods show
an increase or decrease in the 15 communication journals of study over the ten-vear
period from 1987 to 1996? Chi-square will be used to determine whether the distribution
of methodologies over the ten years from 1987 to 1996 is significantly different from
chance.
RQ #5 asked: To what extent do each of the 15 selected communication journals
specialize in publishing articles reporting different research methodologies? RQ #5 will
be answered by the use of descriptive statistics and the development o f an index of
methodological concentration. The index will be applied to all 15 communication
journals and will indicate their levels o f methodological concentration. Chi-square will be
used to determine if the methodological distributions o f each journal are significantly
different from that expected by chance.
RQ #6 asked: To what extent are the 15 selected communication journals
perceived bv communication journal editors as having specialized methodological
reputations? RQ #7 asked: To what extent does a communication journals’ specialized
methodological reputation influence author choices in submitting papers for publication?
Research questions #6 and #7 will be answered from the responses o f the editors o f the 15
selected communication journals. A decision on the answer to these two research
questions will be based on the present researcher’s interpretation o f the text of all
interviews conducted.
RQ #8 asks: Which research procedures are used in the methodological
classifications of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed? The distribution o f research
84
procedures will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Chi-square analysis will be used
to determine whether the distribution of research procedures by research methodologies is
significantly different from that expected by chance alone. The unit of analysis here is the
individual research article.
RQ #9 asks: To what extent are individual scholars/authors (who published in the
15 selected communication journals') associated with using particular research methods?
It is answered by analysis of data collected in the present quantitative content analysis.
Names of authors were recorded during the present content analysis and the
methodologies of the articles published by each author were also recorded. The 24 most
prolific authors in the sample are selected for analysis of the methodologies used in their
articles and conclusions drawn from the frequencies.
RQ #10 asks: To what extent are individual communication journal editors
associated with using particular research methodologies? and is answered by the textual
data yielded by interviews with 37 communication journal editors in the period from 1987
to 1996.
RQ #11 asks: Do authors of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology
articles published in 15 selected communication journals differ in announcing their
research procedures in communication journal article titles? RQ #11 will be answered
using descriptive statistics and the use o f the chi-square test. Similarly, RQ #12 (which
asks: How does the use of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods varv among the
sub-fields of com m u n icatio n study?"! will also be answered by descriptive statistics and
the use of the chi-square test.
85
with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
S um m ary of Approaches to the Research Questions
In summary, six research questions (RQ #1, RQ #4, RQ #5, RQ #8, RQ #9, RQ
#11, and RQ #12) will be answered by statistical tests of significance and the use o f
descriptive statistics. The other six research questions (RQ #2, RQ #3, RQ #6, RQ #7.
and RQ #10) will be answered by interpretive textual analysis o f the qualitative data
derived from interviews with 37 communication journal editors.
To what extent can the present results be generalized from the 969 articles and the
interviews with 37 journal editors? The major limitation on generalization is the fact that
the selection of the population o f articles was not a random process. As outlined in
previous chapters, the choice o f communication journals from which to sample was not
random but purposive. Inference is possible to the population o f all articles from which
the present 25 percent sample o f 969 was drawn, namely those published in the 15
com m u n ication jo u rn als of study in the ten-year period from 1987 to 1996 since that
sample was randomly drawn.
The aim of most qualitative research is not to generalize but to understand some
particular context. We will not. therefore, attempt to claim generalizabilty from the
present qualitative data but rather to present the unique perspectives of communication
journal editors.
86
Chapter 5
RESULTS
The following chapter presents (1) the main findings from the content analysis of
the 969 articles published in 15 communication journals during the period from 1987 to
1996, and (2) the results o f the interviews with the 37 editors of the 15 communication
journals in the same time period. Results o f these quantitative and qualitative
investigations are organized under the 12 research questions posed in the previous
chapter.
Incidence of Quantitative. Qualitative, and Mixed Methodology Research
Research Question #1 asked “ What is the relative incidence o f quantitative.
qualitative, and m ix ed methodology articles in 15 communication journals over the ten-
vear period?’' The content analysis data revealed that in the total sample of 969 articles,
there were 531 quantitative articles comprising 54.8 percent of all the total; there were
267 qualitative articles, accounting for 27.6 percent of all the articles; 139 articles
representingl4.3 percent o f the total were coded as conceptual; and the remaining 32
articles, making up 3.3 percent o f the total, were coded as mixed-method (Figure 3). The
observed differences in these four frequencies are significantly different from the
“expected” chance distribution o f equal numbers of journal articles in each category (x2-
573.2; p<0.01). These proportions are generally consistent with the findings of prior
87
600
531 ( 54 . 8 % )
i>: ;>:;• r ^ ' : :>:>:>i'A
(/)
Q) 500 ■* • • * ! • * * • • * ♦ , * ! • ; * •,*!
***:*••*•*:•**•f;**f:**f:’•I:*■!*:*•*:*•!*:*•!
•
:’•!•
O > ;j ;• ; • ;} :} ; • ; } .* •: • ; • : • ; •
t; > :• s : •
>•'!*•!*•I K K * * *• K
< 400 • s
• 5 * : • i
: \ : •
: > ; • ; ♦; •
•
IB :>: >:
■ :» j • :» :» : • j • : • j • : • j • j • i • j •
::
> : > s • ; ,• j } : • : • s > : > : . * ; > : > t > : ;
ci— •
: \ :\ i \ :♦:• :• :•1 •
• i • * * \ s \ * \ * \ * \ i \ '•' i • 5 \ •’ •. s \ * •
•; • i j s •; •: •
3
o 300 • : • : • : > : • s> :« : >
• j• j>t
j
j •j• j j
• s • ; • ; ■
:•: •
267 ( 27 . 6 % )
•>.J5\: •\8 > •’J•; : •: si•; •: •>U:•> Js•.• J•. *J:•; J•.• Jt•; •i\■
; ; • ; > ; • i > i ;• t • j i • t ; : •
! » P " , r r ? T ; / r «" 7 T T « ' ! » ' l » ! » 1 * 1 * 1
• J
00 ,• S ,• J • J ,• ! , • 5 / ! ,• 5 ; 5 ■ 5 , * • ,• J ,• ! ; ! ;
00
0) 200 • :> 5
*•:
s ♦ j j :
’• •»• t•J: 5•*•'•:'••J•J•*: ».*'••*'
; i♦: {•*• !•:•*'•:••. J: ••*.!•: •j *:
. * • ' *. **• J♦. «*’*«•’ • • . •
* : • : • : * >*.• * : • : • ;
n 1 s ♦,
> s> *> s> i > *
*• • ! 5 • : • s • s • J •
* > » ; * * I* » t* * ; * ; > i > i > s ;• i «• s ;• * > s
• : • ;: • : ‘ : •. j • : • : • : •
s> «
139 ( 14 . 3 % )
E •
> ;>;>:> ; •:>j> :•: •;>; - ■•s• :•.••!'•\ $\ ii•«*!••s• J•.J• s• J'J>
•j•« • ..’rrT.
■•• :•:>:>:> j>:>sj/ : •:>:;> st;:• KK J; «>;»'i'm
\ • * . * * . S ’ 5 • 5 * . ’• * . 5 * 5 • J • 5 * . S ’ •
D ■ i».
:> j • 00
z 100 > ! > ! I* : > j > ! > s > s > ! > * > s > s > * > * ;
• 1 ‘ I • \ '• ** • • 5 * . 5 * s * 5 *1 • • . t \ I • » * . • •
• •j •{•:>;> i s • ; i s •j! ;••J
•. j • * * S * 1 \ t * J • 5 • . •
j
S* *• •! *• • ! ** I •
.
•
•
s •;
'• *. * \ • *. • \
J • s •.
•.: •.: •.: • ; •
* *. » \ » • ’ •
.•
* *. '• \ • *. • *.
i ,•
•* s • : • : • : • j • . : • ; • J •
• J •• 5
\ •,:\ i•’:•’J•:• :• i• 5•
j • j ;
•
w
i; : •:»:*
>?.• i ; i : : .*•: s• ’; ': •: ’: 5; •: •; * 5: ‘ { * • J; * 5.**1 •* *
:*•;* ;* •;
: • 1
s •; »;«:■ I•5 >; •t 5- ;H
1• lJ• •• l• J• 1• 5• S• S• 5• 5: •• *.*• 5• :•
0
Quantitative Qualitative Conceptual Mixed-Method
Research Methodology of Journal Articles
Figure 3. Research M ethodologies Used in 969 Com m unication Journal Articles Published
from 1987 to 1996.
research (Cooper, Potter, and Dupagne, 1994), given differences in the particulars o f the
coding schemes utilized in the content analysis, different journals of study, and the
different sampling procedures (see Appendix B).
A supplementary investigation was conducted into the amount o f pages afforded
to each research methodology. The articles were also coded as to their length, measured
in total pages (the actual pages varied in size from journal to journal). Quantitative
articles accounted for a total of 8,093 pages, with a mean length of 15.24 pages per
article (Table 10). Qualitative articles accounted for 4,250 pages, with a mean length of
15.92 pages per article (Table 10). Conceptual articles were longeron average. The 139
conceptual articles accounted for 2,239 pages, with a mean length of 16.11 pages per
article. Mixed-method articles had the highest mean length, 19.03 pages per article.
The mean length o f mixed-method articles is significantly greater than that of
quantitative articles (t = -2.584; p<0.05) and significantly greater than that of qualitative
articles (t= -2.122; p<0.05). While qualitative articles were longer, on average, than
quantitative articles, the difference observed is not significant (t= -1.537. p>0.05).
In conclusion, the data from the present content analysis showed that, in a sample
of 969 articles sampled from 15 selected communication journals in the period from 1987
to 1996, more quantitative than qualitative articles were published by a ratio of almost
two to one. The data showed very few multiple methodology articles (only 3.3 percent of
the total) in the sample o f 969 articles in 15 selected communication journals over the
period from 1987 to 1996. Mixed-method articles tended to be significantly longer
89
Table 10. Total and Mean Pages of Journal Articles Using Various Research
Methodologies in 15 Communication Journals over the Ten-Year Period
from 1987 to 1996.
Methodology Used Total Number o f Mean Standard

Pages Articles Number of Deviation
Pages
1. Quantitative 8,093 531 15.24 7.17
2. Qualitative 4,250 267 15.92 5.09
■*"»
J. Conceptual 2,239 139 16.11 6.87
4. Multi-method 609 32 19.03 8.11
Totals 15,191 969 - -
90
than quantitative or qualitative articles, but, contrary to popular belief, qualitative articles
are not, on average, significantly longer than quantitative articles.
Editors’ Perceptions o f the Research Methodology Mix in Communication Studv
RQ #2 asked: What are journal editors’ perceptions o f the relative prominence of
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method articles in 15 communication journals over
the ten-vear period from 1997-1996? Editors were generally accurate in their perceptions
of the proportions of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method articles published under
their editorship. Few of the editors were able to say exactly how many qualitative and
quantitative articles were published in their journal under their editorship. Many editors
noted that a complicating factor in their estimates was that some of the articles published
during their term were accepted by prior editors. However, their general estimates o f the
methodological character of the journals in their editorship terms were roughly consistent
with the quantitative data from the present content analysis o f 969 journal articles.
Guido H. Stemple, a former editor of Journalism Quarterly, noted that journal
editors can only publish from the papers submitted to them and, further, that it is not an
editor’s responsibility to search for papers of any particular methodological orientation.
Stemple wrote:
. . . Those who suggest qualitative articles are not welcome in journals are
assuming something about submissions that they probably have no solid
evidence for. When I was editor o f JQ, I agreed to come to a question and
answer session of the Qualitative Division at the AEJMC convention.
There were about 30 people there, presumably mostly members of that
division. At some point, I asked how many had submitted a qualitative
study to any AEJMC publication. The answer was nobody. Journals
cannot publish what is not submitted, and I don't think it is the job of a
journal editor to go out beating the bushes to drum up articles of a given
nature.
91
Professor Stemple’s editorial term at Journalism Quarterly, as analyzed in the
present study, was from 1987 to 1989. Over these three years, the methodological mix of
this journal as reflected by the present content analysis of the articles published was
approximately 80 percent quantitative, 16 percent qualitative, and 4 percent mixed.
Joseph Cappella noted a similar and poignant example of the same
problem. He wrote:
Under my editorship of HCR. almost all the work was quantitative. I

issued a specific call for a broad array of submissions, including
qualitative ones. I received almost none. The ones that I did receive were
sent to reviewers who were qualitative in their own research programs.
They rejected the few submissions I received.
Cappella’s editorship of Human Communication Research indeed reflected his
perception of a quantitative methodological bias in HCR articles with 100 percent o f the
sampled articles in 1987 and 1988 classified as quantitative. Most other editors were also
generally correct about the methodological mix o f the articles published in their journals
under their editorial terms.
Perception of the Methodological Mix o f Communication Journals
RQ #3 asked: What are editors’ perceptions of the relative openness of the field of
rnm mi ini cation study rn quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method articles? Editors
were somewhat diverse in their perceptions of the research methodologies of the journal
articles published in the field of communication study as a whole.
Journal editors generally attributed little or no role to the choice of qualitative or
quantitative methodology in publication or rejection of communication journal articles.
Julia T. Wood stated: “I do not perceive any pervasive bias toward either methodology (or
92
against either). I think both have value and that is recognized by the presence o f both in
our journals” (Wood was editor of the Journal of Applied Communication Research from
1994 to 1996).
Some editors contended that methodology does not play a role in publication
decisions but that quality and relevance are the important factors. According to Charles
Whitney, editor o f Critical Studies in M ass C o m m u n icatio n since 1996, ” . . . The
specific method is far less important than the quality and incisiveness o f the research
question asked and the strength of the argument and quality of the evidence employed to
answer the question/* Keith V. Erickson, who edited the Southern Communication
Journal from 1991 to 1993, wrote: “As an editor I did not see a 'ro le' that particular
methodology played except that it had to be executed properly and that its findings had to
be meaningful/7 Similarly, Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, who edited C o m m u n icatio n
Education from 1991 to 1993. wrote: “There is no 'role7; the research question is what is
im portant, and what matters is that the approach (quantitative vs. qualitative) be
appropriate for the question.”
However, a minority of editors indicated that there was some role assigned to
research methodology in the publication decision. James Cheseboro, the editor of
C om m unication Quarterly up to 1987, noted that “Both [methodologies] are increasingly
recognized as legitimate procedures for collecting data/information.77 Linda Costigan-
Lederman, editor of Communication Quarterly from 1988 to 1990, alluded to a shift in
emphasis, writing: “I think quantitative prevailed during the ‘70s and ‘80s. I see
qualitative becoming more widely used in the ‘90s.”
93
Methodological Openness o f Journals
Despite the general perception that research methodology played little or no role
in the journal publication process, editors were divided on the question o f whether
com m unication research in general, as reflected in journal article publication) is equally
open to the use o f quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Some felt that both
research methodologies were equally acceptable but noted that the preference for
qualitative or quantitative methodologies varied from journal to journal. In the words of
Dennis Gouran, editor o f Communication Monographs from 1996.: '‘One need only look
at articles across journals to see that both kinds of scholarship appear with regularity —
not necessarily in the same journals, however.” Other editors, including Judee Burgoon
[editor of Communication Monographs from 1990 to 1992] and Linda Costigan-
Lederman, also noted that methodological openness varies by journal. Linda Costigan-
Lederman added that methodological openness depends on the editor of the journal at a
particular time.
Alan M. Rubin, editor o f the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media up to
1988, felt that journal article publication is equally open to qualitative and quantitative
methodologies. He made specific reference to the openness of two journals that he edited.
He wrote: “In editing both the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media and the
Journal o f Communication, the editor, editorial board, and reviewers are open to good
research, regardless whether methodology is quantitative or qualitative.” Keith V.
Erickson, editor o f the Southern Communication Journal from 1990 to 1993, suggested
94
that even journals which “in the past have taken either a quantitative or qualitative
stance" seem to be “more open now.”
Other editors suggested that the use of qualitative methods, while not on an equal
footing with quantitative methods, was increasing in popularity. Robert L. Ivie, editor of
the Quarterly Journal of Speech from 1993 to 1995, wrote: “It is my perception that
journals in communication generally have become receptive to qualitative methods and
that the hegemony of quantitative methods has begun to wane.” Joseph Cappella, editor
nf Human Communication Research from 1987 to 1989, who identified himself as a
quantitative researcher, took the position that: “In communication journals, the pendulum
has clearly swung toward qu alitativ e methods. The quantitative journals are making every
effort to include qualitative research [including special issues in qualitative procedures].”
Yet other editors felt that there was no relenting of the dominance of quantitative
methods. James Bradac. editor of Human Communication Research from 1990 to 1992,
wrote: “I think that there is still a quantitative bias in mainstream American mass and
interpersonal communication research.”
Research Questions #2 and #3 suggest that communication journal editors
perceived that issues of quality and focus are generally more important than
methodological choices in decisions to publish or reject a paper. The editors also
generally, although not unanimously, perceived a greater openness to qualitative and
mixed methodologies in communication journal article publication than is evident from
the current content analysis of 969 communication journal articles published in 15
selected communication journals in the period from 1987 to 1996.
95
Methodological Trends
Research Question #4 inquired " D n qualitative and/or mixed research methods
chnw anv increase or decrease in 15 communication journals over the ten-vear period?”
From the content analysis data, there is little prima facie evidence to suggest a sustained
trend toward increased qualitative or mixed-method research articles in the 15
communication journals in the ten-year period from 1987 to 1996. A frequency count of
the four methodologies in the 969 journal articles by year (Figure 4) shows that
quantitative methodology is consistently most numerous, generally followed by
qualitative, then conceptual, and then by mixed-method articles. The only exception to
this general pattern occurred in 1990 when there were slightly more conceptual articles
than qualitative articles in the sample of journal articles.
The percentage o f the four research methodology classifications by year (Figure 5)
shows that q u an titativ e methods ranged from a high of 61.1 percent (in 1990) to a low of
44.7 percent (in 1995) of total articles for each year. There was, however, no discemable
long-term trend (a decrease or increase o f qualitative and mixed methodology) through
the ten-year period.
Qualitative methodology ranged from a high o f 39.4 percent in 1995 to a low of
15.6 percent in 1990. Conceptual articles peaked at 20 percent in 1990, and were least
numerous at 6.5 percent in 1987. Mixed-method articles consistently represented a low
percentage of total articles per year, ranging from 1.2 percent in 1996 to 6.3 percent in
1993.
96
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
permission.
Year
SHQuantitative ^ Q u alitative BBSConceptual ■M ixed-M ethod
Figure 4. Research M ethodologies Used in a Sam ple o f 969 Com m unication Journal
Articles by Year ofP ublication
P ercen t
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
voo
O
10 %
0%
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total
Year
SSQuantitative ^Q u alitative 6889Conceptual ■M ixed-m ethod
Figure 5. Percentage o f Four Research M ethodologies Used in 969 Com m unication Journal
Articles by Year o f Publication.
The proportions of qualitative and of mixed-method articles increased in the five-
year period from 1992 to 1996 compared to the five-year period from 1987 to 1991
(Table II). The differences observed, however, are rather small and. considered in
conjunction with the fluctuating distribution of research methodologies per year for the
entire ten-year period, do not show a general trend towards an increase in proportions of
either qualitative or mixed-method communication journal articles. Chi-square analysis
for the distribution of the four methodological orientations over the ten-year period from
1987 to 1996 shows that the distribution of the frequencies is not significantly different
from that expected by chance (x2= 37.25; p>0.05). Removal of the conceptual articles
does not influence this finding. With the conceptual category removed (i.e., considering
only quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies), chi-square is: x2= 21.05;
p>0.05.
Thus we conclude that there was no increase in qualitative or mixed methodology
in 969 journal articles published in 15 selected communication journals over the period
from 1987 to 1996 that could be attributed to factors other than chance. This finding is
contrary to the perceptions o f many communication journal editors that qualitative and
mixed methods are increasing in prevalence.
Methodological Polarization of Communication Journals
Research Question #5 asked: “To what extent does each journal specialize in
research methodologies?” The percentage of the different research methodologies by
communication journal is presented in Figure 6. The percentages are more useful here
99
Table 11. Comparison o f Research Methodologies Used in a Sample of
Communication Journal Articles (N=969) in Two Time Periods.
Research Methodology
Period Quantitative Qualitative Conceptual Mixed- Totals

Methods
1. 1987-91 289 133 81 15 518
55.8% 25.7% 15.6% 2.9% 100%
2. 1992-96 242 134 58 17 451
53.7% 29.7% 12.9% 3.8% 100%
Totals 531 267 139 32 969
100
P ercen t
100% 0s
80%
60%
40%
28%
20 %
0%
Journal
^ Q u a n t i t a t i v e Hi Q ualitative ^ C o n c e p t u a l W M ix ed -m eth o d
Figure 6. Percentage o f Research M ethodologies Used in 969 Com m unication Journal Articles
Published from 1987 to 1996 by Journal o f Publication.
than the actual numbers of articles in each category as there is a wide range in the number
o f articles published in each journal. The data show that the communication journals of
study varied widely in the research methodologies used in the articles they published.
Seven of the journals had more than 50 percent quantitative articles, compared to only
three with more than 50 percent qualitative articles. No journal had as much as 50 percent
o f its articles coded as conceptual. The highest percentage o f mixed-method articles was
12.7 percent in the journal Human Communication Research (HCR). The observed
differences among the various methodologies by journal are significant (x2= 391.48;
p<0.01).
The level o f quantitative/qualitative research methodology concentration was
measured by scoring '‘-1" for each quantitative article and “+1" for each qualitative article
encountered in a communication journal, and then dividing the sum of these scores by the
total number of research articles coded for that journal in the present sample o f 969
articles. Conceptual articles were removed from computation o f this index since they did
not use a discernible empirical methodology. Mixed-method articles were scored as "0"
since they used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (no attempt was made to
specify differences in levels of use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the
mixed-method articles). Hence this measure directly indicates the relative prominence of
qualitative and quantitative methodologies in each journal o f study.
Calculation o f this measure may be illustrated by the example of POO. O f its 50
articles in the sample, 47 were quantitative, one was qualitative and two were conceptual.
102
Adding the scores for quantitative and qualitative, and treating the conceptual articles as
missing, the score is -46. The total score of -46 is then divided by the 48 articles with a
research methodology score (i.e., 50 minus the two "missing” conceptual articles)
yielding a score of -0.958. The high negative score indicates that the content of this
journal is highly quantitative. Figure 7a displays the results of the quantitative/qualitative
scale.
Figure 7a shows that Communication Education (Comm Ed), Communication
Research (Comm Research), and Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) are highly quantitative
in their research methodologies, and that Critical Studies in Mass Communication
(CSMC) and the Quarterly Journal o f Speech Communication (QJS) are highly
qualitative in their research methods. The index score for HCR should be treated with
some caution because it includes zero scores for 12.7 percent of its articles which are
mixed-method. HCR has the highest proportion of mixed-method articles of the 15
selected communication journals. Communication Monographs (Comm Mon), the
Journal o f Applied Communication Research (JACR), the Journal of Communication
(JOC), and the Western Journal o f Speech Communication (WJSC) all fall close to, or
under, scores of 0.1 which indicates a fairly equal mix of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies in the articles sampled from these communication journals.
Figure 7b shows the number o f qualitative and quantitative articles measured in
the sample of 969 communication journal articles by journal of publication. Qualitative
articles appear to the left of the center line, and quantitative articles to the right. Figure 7b
does not take into account the numbers of conceptual or mixed-method articles published
103
Qualitative 1
0.862
Methodological Polarization
0.475
0.5
0.26
0.091 0.054
iiuninu
-0.098 -0.105
„ -0 333
0.5 -0.408
-0.637
-0.915 -0.865
Quantitative -0.967 -0.958
CL
»8».
O O
Vo.
O
So.
O
Lo .
^
>CL “K <*>
^Q_ ^Q ^
CL.
Q dL
UQ ,
h,
%
Journal
Figure 7a. Q ualitative/Q uantitative M ethodological O rientation o f 15 Com m unication Journals.
CommSt 22 10 Quantitative
TJ
d) Qualitative
sz CSMC 22 1
w
S
3
QJS 31 r 0
Q. 22
to CommMon 12
0)
g JACR 14 19
1 WJSC 18 17
o
<u JOC 19 18
E
_3
O JBEM 10 “ I 33
o >
Ui HCR 0 45
n
~o
1
< >
CommEd 1 45
O)
c
0] POQ 1 47
I—
SCJ 31 _ 18
<n
al CommRes 59
cl _
3 CQ 19 41
O
JQ 29 r 155
200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200
Figure 7b. N um ber o f Qualitative and Q uantitative Articles per Journal in a Sample o f 969 Journal Articles in 15
C om m unication Journals Published from 1987 to 1996.
in each journal. It also does not correct for the wide variations in the number of research
articles published by each journal.
Chi-square analysis o f the quantitative/qualitative distribution o f articles
published in the 15 selected communication journals over the period from 1987 to 1996
shows that ten of the journals have methodological preference significantly different from
that expected by chance. Communication Monographs, the Journal o f Applied
Communication Research, the Journal of Communication, the Southern Communication
Journal, and the Western Journal of Speech Communication show qualitative/quantitative
methodology splits that are not statistically significant. These five journals were also the
lowest scoring journals on the methodological orientation index presented in Figure 7a.
Thus ten of the 15 com m unication jo u rn als of study showed statistically
significant methodological preferences in the articles they published over the ten-year
period from 1987 to 1996. This finding lends support to the notion that journal article
publication in communication study is relatively polarized by research methodology.
Journals' Methodological Reputations
Research Question #6 asked: ‘T o what extent are communication journals
perceived as having methodological reputations?” Editors generally agreed that the
methodological reputation of a journal (and its editor/s) was an important factor in
authors' choices of which journals to submit a paper to. Judee K. Burgoon wrote: “I am
sure that perceptions of editorial receptivity and a journal’s publication history influence
submission patterns.'' Joseph Cappella wrote that “ . . . Perception is very important.
Authors, including me, will not submit to journals they fear will be uninterested in their
106
work or send it to reviewers who do not share their assumptions.” James Bradac also
considered a journal’s methodological reputation to be important, but noted that the
reputation can work against journals’ attempts to be methodologically open-door. He
wrote:
I do think authors are influenced by their (often accurate) perception of a

journal's methodological orientation —the kinds of research the journal has
published in the past. Assuming topical appropriateness, it may actually
be advantageous for an author to go against a journal's apparent
methodological orientation, because this orientation to some extent
reflects historical accident and inertia. Good editors are often looking for
something different. The 'open-door’ policy won't have a chance to work
if authors focus on the journal's history.
Thus we conclude that interviewed editors of communication journals perceived
that com m u n ication journals can develop methodological reputations and that those
methodological reputations are received as an important factor in the journal publication
process.
Journals’ Reputations and Submitter Choices
Research Question #7 asked: “To what extent does a communication journal's
methodological reputation influence author submission choices?” Some editors suggested
that awareness of a journal’s methodological reputation and careful consideration of the
implications o f this reputations for a scholar’s submissions are important factors to an
author in submitting a paper. Barbara Wamick, editor of Communication Monographs
from 1990 to 1992, wrote:
I think that the issue of methodological orientation is probably important

to most authors' decision about where to submit. And I think it should be.
It is pretty vital to submit strategically so as to avoid losing time in a
review process that will not be fruitful.
107
Lawrence B. Rosenfeld noted that: '‘Smart authors familiarize themselves with the
journals to which they send their work—o f course they select journals that 'fit' with the
content and methodological approaches of their work.’’ Julia T. Wood suggested that
journals' methodological biases appear to be diminishing - a perception which was not
confirmed by the present quantitative content analysis.
Interviewed com m u n ication journal editors therefore felt that the perceptions of
com m u n ication jo u rn a ls’ methodological reputations influence authors' paper submission
choices and form a part o f submission strategy decisions.
Reviewers' Methodological Orientations
The editors’ views of the role o f reviewers' perceptions o f a journal's
methodological orientation fit into three categories: (1) those editors who felt that
reviewers' perceptions were not important since editors assign reviewers to a paper, (2)
those editors who felt that reviewers' perceptions were important or very important in the
publication/rejection decisions, and (3) those editors who saw the potential for the
editor's choice of reviewers to influence a paper’s review outcome (this third category
sometimes overlapped with the second category).
James Bradac stated: '‘Assuming that the editor sends a given manuscript to
appropriate reviewers, the main question should be: Is the manuscript a good one?
Reviewers sometimes comment on ‘fit’ with the journal, but in my experience rarely on
methodological grounds —even when the submission deviates from the journal’s
methodological orientation.” Lawrence B. Rosenfeld also noted that, in his experience.
108
reviewers’ perceptions of a journal’s methodological biases were ''not at all” important in
the review process of a paper.
James Cheseboro, on the other hand, felt that “The reviewer’s perception of a
journal’s method is extremely important.” Barbara Wamick expressed the same view.
adding: “There were instances where the reviewers’ consensus was that the piece should
be sent elsewhere, and that consensus was very related to the methods question.”
Many editors stressed, however, that reviewers’ perception o f the journal’s
methodological orientation is not an important issue because it is often the role of the
editor to select reviewers who are best suited to evaluate each paper (except where there
is a random assignment of reviewers to papers). Thus most respondents felt that papers
are (or at least should be) reviewed by reviewers who are methodologically consonant
with the paper’s methodology. A reviewer’s objections to a paper are unlikely to be based
on methodological issues but rather on issues o f quality.
Most of the editors who were interviewed stated that the stronger influence on the
outcome of the review process lay not in the reviewers’ methodological orientations or
their perceptions of the journal’s methodological orientation, but in the power of the
editor to choose reviewers. One editor ventured a hypothetical scenario in which an editor
could use reviewer choice to influence a paper’s rejection or acceptance:
. . . The power of the editor is in selecting the reviewers. So, for example,
if I get a piece and I don’t like it, and I don’t wanna see it published, what
I would do is that I would send it to people who are critical of that kind of
work, so that they send me back scathing criticism of that article [paper]
and I can say 4Well, I’m sorry, the reviewers didn’t like your piece. See
you later.’ On the other hand (and I’m talking all hypothetical here - 1
certainly don’t do that - I’m saying that if I wanted to, I could) at the same
time, if I like the piece, I would submit it to reviewers who I know are very
109
sympathetic to that kind o f research, and who are likely to come back with
a favorable review and I could publish it.
The role of reviewers in general and the impact of reviewers’ methodological
orientations were not agreed upon among the communication journal editors interviewed.
There appears to be great variation in the editors’ experiences with reviewers and the
review process. Some editors perceived of reviewers as wielding great power in the
editorial decision process and in shaping methodological reputations, while other editors
saw the editor’s freedom to pick reviewers as the chief determining factor in the decision
process.
Role of the Editor in a Journal’s Methodological Reputation
The responding editors o f communication journals generally agreed that journals
can develop reputations as being qualitative or quantitative. There were differing
perceptions of the role of the editor in the development of such a methodological
reputation. James Bradac suggested that the influence of the editors’ methodological
orientation would, in part, depend on the person who was editor. Bradac also added to the
notion of journals’ methodological orientation by suggesting two further dimensions,
namely (1) that journal publishers or an associations’ publication committee are likely to
appoint editors who fit the journal’s methodological bent'5, and (2) that an editor’s
reputation may also influence paper submissions. James Bradac wrote:
Clearly, journals develop a methodological reputation. I expect editors

are chosen to some extent on the basis of their fit with a journal’s
established methodological reputation. The extent to which an editor's
15 An editor of a journal is often chosen from among scholars who have published articles
in that journal and/or who have served on the editorial council of that journal.
110
methodological bias affects acceptance or rejection of manuscripts (which
ultimately affects methodological reputation) probably varies from person
to person. I haven't made any conscious attempt to influence the
methodological orientation o f the journals I have edited. It is possible that
my own reputation as a quantitative researcher has influenced authors'
submissions.
George Gerbner, editor of the Journal of Communication up to 1991, echoed
Bradac" s mention of the role of the reputation of the editor and suggested that editors
should make clear statements in the journals about what type of papers they want to
receive (i.e.. regarding research methodology).
Randy Hirokawa, editor of Communication Studies from 1992 to 1994, suggested
that an editor in a usual three-year term could probably not affect the methodological
tradition of a communication journal, although he agreed that an editor could affect the
methodological tone of a journal for the period in which s/he serves as editor. He gave the
following example:
. . . If 1 was (sic.) a heavy quantoid, and I became the editor of

Communication Studies. In a three-year period of time, even if I published
only quantitative pieces, that would not change the perception of the
readership of Communication Studies until after my editorship. So where
people would begin to say 'Uh-oh - there seems to be kind of a shift in
methodological bias or preference' would be when the next editor takes over.
I think in order for the tradition to be changed, I believe you have to have a
succession of editors probably two or three in succession who all have the
same methodological orientation so that what the readership is seeing is
approximately nine years of continuous emphasis on a particular
methodological orientation for that tradition to take into effect.
Lawrence B. Rosenfeld expressed a similar view:
Do journals have such reputations? Certainly. To what extent is the

reputation BECAUSE of a particular editor? Little. I believe the
reputation of a journal—both its content and methodological
biases—supercede any one editor, although an editor adds her or his own
shape to the current iteration.
Ill
Guido Stemple added that a journal’s reputation is. to some extent, up to the
journal itself. He wrote: “If a journal wants to put on its cover ‘devoted to qualitative
research in mass communication.’ then I suppose that is what it will become. I don't
think that is what a journal should try to do, however.”
A number of other editors added to the issue o f an editor’s influence by
mentioning that editors of communication journals are generally constrained by the
o rg a n isa tion that owns the journal. Burgoon wrote: “. .. in large measure, journals that
are produced by professional associations have some boundaries set by the association
itself.” Keith V. Erickson noted that: “Most organizations set standards for their journals.
It is not capricious or merely the whim of the editor.” Barbara Wamick spoke o f a
slightly different locus of influence. She wrote: “Editors in our field have considerable
leeway from their professional associations, but their colleagues put tacit constraints on
them.” Wamick’s statement suggests that some level of social pressure is brought to bear
upon editors by their peers.
The length of editorial terms (generally three years) was perceived as another
limitation on the extent to which an individual editor might impact a journal’s
methodological reputation. Findings of the present content analysis generally support the
notion of a persistence of methodological composition among individual journals across
editor terms.
However, there are two caveats regarding this general viewpoint. One is that a
num ber of editors (four in the present sample of 54) have had editorial terms well in
excess o f three years. The other caveat is that, within the limitations o f our sampling
112
process, we have observed one distinct methodological turning-point in one journal that
was coincident with an editor change. Further, the methodological composition o f the
journal in the observed case also showed a distinct change of composition after the end of
that editor's term.
The specific instance referred to here is that of the editorship of Communication
Monographs by Judee K. Burgoon from 1990 to 1992. The methodological composition
of the published research articles in the journal changed from being 100 percent
qualitative in the year prior to the start o f her term (1989) to being 100 percent
quantitative in all three years o f her editorial term. The present data also showed a
number of other similar, although not as distinct, changes that occurred coincident with
editorial terms (see Table 12).
Professor Burgoon’s editorship is a special case because, in the majority o f other
editorial terms, the notion that a single editor is unlikely to change the methodological
face of a journal was supported. Considering this special case o f a distinct methodological
change being coincident with an editorial change and lasting only for that editor’s term,
we must also note that the present sample of 969 articles included only articles published
in 25 percent of the issues of the 15 selected journals in the 10-year period from 1987-
1996. The nature of the sampling process dictated that not all articles published in each
editor’s term in each journal were coded. Thus, a finding that 100 percent of the sampled
articles for any editor were quantitative does not necessarily indicate that the editor
published no qualitative, mixed, or conceptual articles in his/her editorial term. However,
113
Table 12. M ethodological Orientation o f Articles in 15 Com m unication Journals by Editor Term from 1987 to 1996.
Journal 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Com John A. Jarnes C . M c C r oskey Law i encc B. Rost nfeld Douglas M . T r ank
Ed D aly
Quant 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I 80.0% 100%
Qual I 20.0%
M ix
Com M a rg i ir e t M e La ughlin Jut lee K . Burgoi»n Ch arles R. Ban Iz Dennis S.
Mon G o u ran
Quant 75% 33.3% 0% 100% 100% 100% 66.7% 75% 25% 75%
Qual 25% 66.7% 100% 33.3% 25% 50% 25%
M ix 25% .
Com Peter R . M o nge Sand ra J. Ball-Rc kcach/
Res C Itarlcs R. Bet•ger
Quant 100% 100% 88.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Quali 11.1%
M ix
Com Georg e W . R i chard E. G ra lie R andy H iro k a v m J .K e v in Barge

Stud Zeigcln luellcr
Quant 60% 50% 25% 25% 100% 57.1%

Quali 40% 50% 75% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42.9%
M ix 25%
CQ James W . Linde Costigan Lcderm an V irg in ia P. Richm ond R aym ie M e. K e rro w
Chcscboro
Quant 50% 40% 83.3% 100% 100% 100% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 50%
Quali 50% 60% 0% 28.6% 57.1% 42.9% 50%
M ix 16.7% 14.3%
C SM C R obert K . David L. Eason Sari Thomas C lifftird G . Christians D. C harles

Avery W hitney
Quant 25%
Quali 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 50% 100% 100% 75%
M ix 25% 50%
Table 12. (cont.). M ethodological Orientation o f Articles in 15 Com m unication Journals by Kditor Term from 1987 to
1996 (continued).
Jo urnal 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
HCR Joseph N . Capella 1 James J. Bradac 1 H o w ar d Giles 1 C i ndy Gallois
Quant 100% 100% 71.4% 100% 83.3% 80% 100% 80% 75% 80%
Quali 0% 0 0 0% 0% 0%
M ix 28.6% 16.7% 20% 20% 25% 20%
JACR D. David A rth u r P. Bochner W illia m F. Eadie Julia T . Woeid
Thom as H.
P orter Smith
Quant 50% 75% 0% 0% 50% 60% 25% 80% 25% 75%

Quali 50% 0% 100% 100% 25% 20% 50% 20% 75% 25%
M ix 25% 0% 0% 25% 20% 25% 0% 0% 0%
JBEM A lan M . Rubin A ison A lexander V /. James Pottf r Dennis K . Davis
Quant 42.9% 100% 66.7% 75.0% 75% 50% 40% 100% 100% 83.3%
Quali 57.1% 33.3% 0% 25% 50% 20% 16.7%
M ix 25% 40%
JOC George G erhn er M ark R. Lev y
Quant 40% 25% 88.9% 75% 40% 33.3% 50%

Quali 20% 75% 11.1% 0% 40% 66.7% 100% 50% 100% 100%
M ix 40% 0% 0% 25% 20% 0%
JQ G u id o H . Stcmplc, I I I Donald Shaw Jean Folkerts
Quant 77.3% 76.9% 85.7% 84.6% 87% 100% 87.5% 64.7% 68.8% 83.3%
Quali 18.2% 15.4% 14.3% 15.4% 13% 12.5% 29.4% 18.8% 16.7%
M ix 4.5% 7.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% 12.5%
POO to w a rd Schuman Stanley Press er
Quant 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Quali 20%
M ix 0%
T ab le 12. (con t.). M eth od ological O rientation o f A rticles in 15 C om m un ication Journals by Editor 'Perm from 1987 to
1996 (contin u ed ).
Journal 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
QJS Thom as W . Benson M a rth a Solomon Robert L. Ivie B arb ara

W a m ic k
Quant
Quali 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
M ix
SCJ M a rth a D ale G . Leathers | K eith V. Erickson A nd rew K ing
Solomon 1
Quant 50% 33.3% 33.3% 100% 66.7% 33.7% 16.7%
Quali 50% 66.7% 66.7% 100% 100% 16.7% 66.7% 100% 83.3%
M ix 16.7%
WJC Robert L . John Stew art Peter A. Andersen Sandra Pctronio
Ivie
Quant 16.7% 50% 40% 75% 100% 66.7% 50% 50% 33.3%
Quali 83.3% 50% 60% 100% 25% 33.3% 50% 25% 66.7%
M ix 0% 25%
our 25 percent sample provides an estimate of the relative prominence o f the different
research methodologies16.
Further investigation o f the change in methodological composition o f articles
published by Communication Monographs under Judee K. Burgoon revealed mention of
methodological considerations in her "Editor's Remarks" section of the inaugural issue of
her editorship (1990, 57, 1). After stating that Communication Monographs was "First,
devoted to publishing only those works that propose, test, modify, or amplify human
communication theories, models, and constructs..." Professor Burgoon went on to
comment that:
Communication Monographs is, second, a social science journal. This

means that the work being submitted must be open to scientific scrutiny
and test. It does not mean that only empirical or quantitative work it
acceptable. On the contrary, work that advances a theoretical position, that
introduces a provocative hypothesis, that refines a method for testing
theory, or that addresses a metatheoretic issue is highly appropriate. A
distinction that is sometimes made is between the context of discovery and
the context o f validation, both of which contribute to the scientific
enterprise. Within the context of discovery, there are no rules as to how-
one arrives at an interesting conjecture or hunch; it may be the result of
observation, intuition, logical analysis, or even divine inspiration. Thus
questions and hypotheses may be derived from empirical or nonempirical
grounds, from quantitative or qualitative analyses, and from methods
ranging from rhetorical analysis to ethnography to laboratory
experimentation, to mention but a few. The key, however, is that the
16 Further investigation of all the research articles published under Professor Burgoon" s
editorship of Communication Monographs revealed that a small number o f the articles
used qualitative methodology. Excluding the initial issue o f the editorial term (because
articles in that issue may have been approved by a prior editor), qualitative articles
accounted for 9.8 percent of all articles published in Professor Burgoon" s editorial term at
Communication Monographs in the period from 1990 to 1992. During this confirmatory
investigation, the present author found that five of the 11 issues of Communication
Monographs published from June 1990 to December 1992 contained exclusively
quantitative research articles.
117
resultant propositions, contentions, or hypotheses must be testable.
Because, ultimately, science operates within the context of validation. The
scientific method is, after all, a system for putting claims to test and
arriving at higher-order statements that together form, or begin to form, a
theory. Within the context of validation, again a variety of methods are
admissible, the overriding consideration being the degree to which they
comport with the principles o f valid scientific research.
Concretely, this means, that research, arguments, and issues that have as
their ultimate aim the development of testable theory about human
com m unic atio n processes are appropriate for Communication Monographs.
Manuscripts related to rhetorical theory, for example, may be within the purview
of CM. if they give rise to claims that could be verified scientifically. However,
rhetorical criticism, historical analyses, and analyses of particular events or
speakers, which have as their primary objectives the illumination of an event,
occasion, or behavior, or which are designed to demonstrate the applicability of a
particular technique or critical stance, are more appropriate for OJS.
Professor Burgoon’s printed comments are cited in detail here to maintain the
intended context o f the original statement in which she attempted to clarify the position of
Communication Monographs particularly with regard to the foci o f other SCA-owned
journals. However, her insistence on testability and validation might have served to signal
a stronger quantitative bias in her editorial term, a contention bome out by the present
quantitative data from our content analysis. Burgoon’s editorial statement also reflected
the "quality over method” ideal in its assertion that “A variety of methods are admissible,
the overriding consideration being the degree to which they comport with the principles
of valid scientific research.” Again, the ideal did not seem to hold true in the reality of the
methodological orientation of the present sample of journal articles published in
Communication Monographs under her editorship.
The attempt to direct certain types of scholarship to certain communication
journals may, on one hand, be a reflection of journals and publishers to target ceratin
118
segments of the total readership in the communication field. On the other hand, such
direction may be a reflection of the continuing methodological divisions.
We may see Professor Burgoon’s editorial statements (and others like it) as being
indicators of the continuing methodological divisions in communication study. While
there is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable about journals specializing in terms o f
methodological content, the important point to be made in the context o f the present
research is that such specialization often reflects the reality that there is relatively little
mixed-method research, fewer outlets for mixed-method research, and quite possibly, less
respect for mixed-method researchers.
Most editors were reluctant to estimate their own impact on the methodological
reputation of the journals they edited. A number of the respondents suggested that they
would defer to others’ estimations of their impacts.
Thus, communication journals are perceived as having methodological reputations
and those reputations exert some influence on paper submission choices. Editors are
perceived as having some impact on a journal’s methodological reputation but that impact
is thought to be limited by the duration of editor terms (usually three years). Associations
which own and publish communication journals also exert some influence on the
journals’ methodological reputations through policies and through the associations’ editor
choices.
Research Procedures and Methods
Research Question #8 asked: Which research procedures are used in which
methodological classifications of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed? Figure 8 shows the
119
P ercen t
120 %
£h*
&
h-
100 % O)
a>
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 % o'
to 3in$ u>
°9 o>8'
o o O
0%
/O' /O Q
CU °Q
1o,
%
% % ft
%9*
%<& Q. \% % %
©A
Ox %v?
Research Procedures
^ Q u an titative ^ Q u alitative M M ixed-M ethod
Figure 8. Percentage U se o f Research Procedures U sed in 830 Com m unication Journal Articles by the
Research M ethodology o f the Articles (excludes 139 conceptual articles from a sample o f 969
articles).
breakdown o f research procedures used in articles in each methodological classification.
Experiments, surveys, and content analysis are the most frequently reported research
procedures in quantitative journal articles, while text analysis, participant observation and
depth interviews were most frequently found in qualitative journal articles. Mixed-
method articles favored focus group interviews and in-depth interviews, with smaller
percentages using surveys and content analysis.
Multiple procedures in a single article were coded (with a maximum of two per
article17) as "‘procedure 1" and “procedure 2 /’ Some 102 o f the 969 communication
journal articles in the present sample used more than one research procedure. Of these
102 multiple procedure articles, 30.4 percent were quantitative, 43.1 percent were
qualitative, and 26.5 percent were mixed-method. The distribution of research procedures
by the research methodology of articles reveals a pattern significantly different from the
expected (chance) distribution (x2= 707: p<0.01).
Thus we conclude that some polarization of research procedures by
methodologies was observed (that is to say, particular research procedures were closely
associated with particular research methodologies) in the present sample of 969
communication journal articles published in the period from 1987 to 1996.
Authors and Research Methodologies
Research Question #9 asked: “To what extent are individual scholars/authors
associated with using particular research methodologies?” O f the 969 articles coded, 503
17 A limit o f two was chosen in order to keep the data manageable and because the great
majority o f articles did not use more than two main procedures (in such cases, often
employing one main procedure along with a supplemental procedure).
121
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
were single-author publications. The remaining 473 articles were dual or multiple author
publications18. A total of 1,116 authors were represented as lead or second authors in the
present sample of 969 co m m u n icatio n journal articles published in the period from 1987
to 1996. Only 186 of the authors (16.67 percent o f the total number of authors) published
more than one article (as lead or second author) in the present sample. Some 24 of the
authors (2.2 percent) had more than three articles in the present sample. Figure 9 shows
the frequency of numbers o f articles published in the sample for the 24 most prolific
authors19. The names of the most prolific authors in the present sample are presented in
Appendix A.
Author consistency in using particular methodologies appears to be quite high. Of
the 24 most prolific authors in the present study20 (i.e., those who were lead or second
18Articles can have multiple authors. To simplify the data-analysis in the present study,
only the first and second authors of the 969 articles sampled from 15 communication
journals in the period from 1987 to 1996 were recorded and analyzed. Thus no distinction
is made between articles with two authors and articles with more than two authors. The
distinction between authorship categories in the present analysis is limited to single
versus multiple (including dual) authorship.
19The cut-off point of three articles per author in the sample to define the most prolific
authors is an arbitrary choice. It provides a convenient group of the 24 most prolific
authors. Using two articles as the cut-off would make the group quite large, while using
more than three as a cut-off leaves too few authors for a meaningful analysis. This
general procedure of identification o f a baseline for prolific publication and
determination of a manageable group of authors was followed by Piercy, Moon, and
Bischof (1994) in their study of prolific authors in the field of family therapy.
20 It is important to note that (1) the 969 articles in the present sample represent only 25
percent of all articles published in the study period from 1987 to 1996, (2) the present
study deals with only 15 o f some 47 communication journals, and (3) some
com m unication scholars also publish in fields outside o f communication study.
122
1,200
1,000 930
£o 800
*5 600
aA>
to E
3
z 400
200
27 13
0
8
No. of Articles Published per Author
Figure 9. Number o f Articles per Author in a Sample o f 969 Articles from 15 Com m unication
Journals in the period 1987 to 1996 ( N = l , l 16).
author on more than three articles) only one author (William Benoit) published both a
quantitative and a qualitative article. None of the 24 most prolific authors published a
mixed-method article.
Some 56 of the authors o f the 969 sampled articles (5 percent) published mixed-
method articles. Six of these mixed-method article authors ranked in the top 4.6 percent
of the authors by the total number of publications in the sample (that is, had three or more
publications). Of the 56 authors who published mixed-method research in the present
sample of 969 articles, only seven authors published a mixed-method article on their own.
In all other instances, mixed-method articles were the results of multiple authorship.
Mixed-method articles were the exception even among those who had ever published
such articles. In the present sample, only one author among the 56 who published mixed-
method papers had more than one mixed-method article published. Other articles by the
authors of mixed-method pieces authors were either qualitative or quantitative, but not
both.
We answer Research Question #9 by asserting that, from the present data, authors
of communication journal articles in the present sample of 969 articles published in the
period from 1987 to 1996 showed strong alignment with either qualitative or quantitative
methodology. Frequently-published authors in the present sample published either
qualitative or quantitative journal articles, but rarely both.
Editors and Methodologies
Research Question #10 asked: To what extent are journal editors associated with
particular research methodologies? Previously in the present chapter, we reported
124
findings regarding communication journal editors’ perceptions of the methodological mix
in the 15 communication journals of study, and the editors’ perceptions of the
methodological openness of the communication field. We prefaced our investigation of
these two perceptions with an inquiry as to the journal editors’ own methodological
orientations. The editors reported a variety of methodological orientations. Some were
quantitative, others were quantitative, a few were mixed, and several noted that they
might actually fall outside of the categorization scheme (e.g., they perceived o f
themselves as rhetoricians who were neither quantitative nor qualitative). Their dominant
response was that appropriateness of research methodologies to research questions in a
journal article was the primary concern. This appropriateness doctrine was professed in a
number o f cases by journal editors who considered themselves to be either qualitative or
quantitative. However, one editor noted that the greater importance of the appropriateness
o f a paper’s content over methodology is a “stock answer” (i.e., the response is probably
offered for its social appropriateness rather than its accuracy).
Editors were generally quick to distinguish (implicitly or explicitly) between their
own personal methodological orientations and their actions in the capacity of journal
editor in deciding on the publication or rejection of papers submitted to their journal21.
Thus editors who professed being either qualitative or quantitative often stated their
methodological orientations in terms of their own research, and not in terms o f a more
general preference. Alternatively, editors indicating a preference for either type of
21 This answer is what we might consider an "ideal" response as discussed later and it
may be possible that editors may not be able to accurately evaluate the influence of then-
own orientations on their editorial decisions.
125
methodology (qualitative or quantitative) cautioned that they were more methodologically
open in their editorial duties than in their own research activities. A minority o f editors
expressed concern at a philosophical level over the possibility o f possessing a “mixed”
methodological orientation. For example, Lawrence B. Rosenfeld observed that:
‘Approach,’ ‘methodology,’ and ‘method’ are distinct—and while I believe

it is philosophically absurd to ‘mix’ approaches (e.g., if you employ a
quantitative approach you need to believe that there is an objective reality,
and if you employ a qualitative approach you do not—how can the two
mutually exclusive approaches be ‘mixed’?), there is no issue at the (low)
level o f ‘method’ (i.e., no method is strictly quantitative or qualitative, but
the researcher's approach makes it so).
Reasons for the editors’ methodological orientations varied. Many editors
indicated that their initial (graduate) training was a major factor in determining their
methodological orientations, other editors offered more specific personal reasons for their
methodological orientations such as a preference for predictive models or a preference for
holistic understanding o f social reality. For example, one editor who perceived her work
as “primarily quantitative,” suggested that the quantitative approach “. . . better lends
itself to hypothesis testing and confirmation and hence to making generalizations.”
Another editor suggested that his initial training in the physical sciences was related to his
research being quantitative. Yet another editor, who characterized his orientation as
“quantitative” noted his preference for “. . . a testable, deductive form of empirical
inquiry” in his own work.
One editor, Charles Whitney, attributed his self-professed “eclectic” orientation to
his graduate training. He noted:
I tend to be a methodological eclectic, favoring no approach strongly over

another, though all other things being equal, I prefer mixed-method studies
126
to others, for reasons of concurrent/convergent validity or 'triangulation.'
This orientation springs from my doctoral training in the 1970s, the
majority of which was ‘dominant paradigm’ quantitative research, but my
doctoral dissertation was a mixed-method study (nonparticipant
observation in two case studies with quantitative content analysis of both
text and fieldnotes) and my sense o f how best to approach the research
questions I think are important. . . “
Editors who described their methodological orientation as '‘mixed” or stressed the
im po rtan c e o f using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies generally also
stressed that both methodological approaches can contribute to advance knowledge.
Randy Hirokawa suggested that:
There is no universally correct method of research . . . a research question, any

research question can be researched in a variety of different ways - some of
which are more defensible than others but that there is no one and only one
way to address a research question.
David Smith, editor of the Journal o f Applied Communication Research in 1988,
suggested that “The method should fit the research question. Neither method answers all
questions. Quantitative research is better at telling us what is going on. Qualitative
research is better at telling us what things mean to people.” He also noted:
Years ago I wrote about the idea o f carefulness as the key to good
research. That means that standards for good research may vary with
method, but that whatever the method, the standards for that method must
be carefully implemented.
Methodological Maturation
A number of the editors either alluded to, or expressed directly, the notion of
experience and maturation during their careers as adding to, and modifying, their initial
~ Professor Whitney received his Ph.D. degree from the School of Journalism and Mass
Communication at the University of Minnesota.
127
methodological preferences. The concept of methodological maturation was explored by
Hirokawa (1998), who suggested that methodological maturation is an idiosyncratic
process, happening at different rates and in different ways to different scholars. Hirokawa
(1998) characterized methodological maturation as a process in which a scholar moves
from initial dependence on the research methods and approaches in which s/he is trained
and reliance on the views and beliefs of his/her initial mentors, toward greater confidence
in applying research methods and perspectives that may be more relevant to the research
questions that s/he is asking. He said:
I think that maturity comes about in a very idiosyncratic way. I don’t think
that anyone can put a timeline on maturity. Some people mature faster than
others. What I’m referring to is the development of trust in yourself. Very
early in your career, you trust what your advisors and your mentors tell you.
You trust your heroes, you trust the people whose work you read and who you
model your work after. There comes a point where you begin to recognize that
the kinds of questions that you’re asking require methodological decisions that
go beyond how you’ve been trained or what you feel comfortable doing. So
you’ve gotta re-tool yourself. You gotta go back and read some things - all of
that becomes part and parcel with what I call the maturation process where
people become more comfortable in what you do and why you do it and begin
to deviate from the ways in which they might have been trained.
Julia Wood referred to such a process (without using exactly the same
terminology) in her own career. She recounted:
My doctoral mino r was quantitative methods and I relied on those for the
first 5 years of my career. I discovered that more in-depth and qualitative
analysis was more appropriate to the kinds o f questions I was asking about
personal relationships.
Institutional Factors
Some respondents suggested that institutional factors played a role in the
development o f their, and other scholars’, methodological orientations. The
methodological orientation of other scholars in one’s academic department and the
128
overall character o f an academic department were seen as factors influencing a scholar
after his/her graduate training. Thus a scholar trained in quantitative methods who is
surrounded by a group o f similarly-trained scholars is perceived as less likely to explore
alternative research approaches than a similar scholar surrounded by, for example, a
group of qualitative or eclectic scholars.
Our answer to Research Question #10 is that editors practice research
methodologies acquired in graduate training, and thus they are associated with particular
research methodologies. However, some evidence suggests that other influences,
including methodological maturation, and institutional factors, may impact the fidelity of
an editor to a particular methodology.
Methodology and Announcement of Research Procedures
Research Question #11 asked: ‘‘Are there differences bv research methodology in
procedures being announced in communication journal article titles?” Article titles were
coded as to whether they announced the research methodology or research procedures
they used. The titles indicated the research methods employed in an article in only 7.8
percent o f the sample o f 969 communication journal articles. For quantitative articles, 8.5
percent o f the articles announced their methodology or procedures in the tide, 7.9 percent
of qualitative articles proclaimed their methodologies or procedures in their tide. Some
21.9 percent of mixed-method articles announced their research procedures or
methodology in their title. However, the actual number o f mixed-method articles is small
(N= 32).
129
We conclude that onlv a small proportion of journal articles (7.6 percent)
announce their methodologies or procedures in their titles, but that mixed-method articles
are relatively more likelv to announce their methodologies or research procedures.
Methodology Across Sub-Fields o f Communication
Research Question # 1 2 asked: How does the use o f quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-methods vary am ong the sub-fields o f Communication studv? The sub-field
categories used in the present analysis were: (1) Mass Communication. (2) Interpersonal
C om m unication, (3) Group Communication, (4) Intercultural Communication, (5)
International Communication, (6) Organizational Communication, (7) Critical
C om m unication, (8) Speech/Rhetoric. (9) Feminist Communication, (1 0 ) Applied
C om m unication, (11) fieldwide, and (12) others. Figure 10 shows that the Interpersonal
Communication sub-field used quantitative methodology in 80.6 percent o f the 101
articles coded as interpersonal in the present sample of 969 communication journal
articles. High proportions o f quantitative methodology articles were also found in Mass
Communication (63.3 percent) and Intercultural Communication (66.7 percent)13.
However, in Intercultural Communication, the actual number of articles coded to that
23 A quantitative orientation in intercultural communication might appear counterintuitive

since much o f the tradition o f intercultural communication is associated with
ethnographies and other qualitative methods. The seeming paradox is explained in part by
the context o f the journal publication scenario in intercultural communication. Much of
the specialized intercultural communication publication in the field o f communication
study has its nexus in the privately-owned and mainly quantitative International Journal
of Intercultural Relations. Within the last decade, the Howard Journal o f Communication
has become an important outlet for qualitative scholarship in intercultural
com m unication. Because these two journals publish main ly intercultural communication
articles, relatively fewer articles in intercultural communication are published in the 15
m ainstream co m m unication journals of study in the present dissertation.
130
Percent
100 %
£
80%
5h-?
60% in
40% O'
O'
O'
O'
20 % O'
O'
*y nn
0% & m 2 i ' .
A /> Q
Oj \ %a* %
&
\ O'- % 0, \ aO'
% %
% 49-
'b
S ub-field
SB Q u a n tita tiv e [^ Q u a lita tiv e S3 C o n c e p tu a l U SM ixed-M ethod
F ig u re 10. Percentage o f Research M e th o d o lo g y in a S am ple o f 9 6 9 A rticles From 15 C o m m u n ica tio n
Journals in the Period from 1987 to 1996 by C o m m u n icatio n S ub -F ield .
sub-field was relatively small (33). The Speech/Rhetoric and Feminist Communication
sub-fields displayed high levels of qualitative methods (60.5 percent and 57.6 percent,
respectively). Organizational Communication showed the highest proportion of mixed-
method articles (13.1 percent).
These data show that certain sub-fields of communication studv are indeed
associated with certain research methodologies. Quantitative methodology was notably
high in the Mass Communication and Interpersonal Communication sub-fields, while
qualitative methodologies were high in the Speech/Rhetoric and Feminist
Com m unicatio n sub-fields. Organizational communication is the least polarized by
research methodology, with the highest proportion o f mixed-method articles of any o f the
ten sub-fields o f communication study.
132
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The present chapter discusses the findings of the preceding quantitative and
qualitative analyses of 969 articles published in 15 selected communication journals from
1987 to 1996 and interviews with 37 editors o f the 15 selected journals in the same
period. Theoretical positions advanced previously are applied to the present findings, and
conclusions are suggested regarding the relative roles of quantitative and qualitative
research in communication study.
Purpose of the Present Investigation
The debate over quantitative and qualitative methodology has been evident in
communication study, as it has been more generally in the social sciences. The present
investigation focused on the suspected disparity between the reality of methodological
composition of communication research versus an idealized perception o f a balance of
qualitative and quantitative research in communication study. The present dissertation
attempts to establish the frequency o f quantitative and qualitative research methodologies
in the field of communication study as reflected in the content of 15 selected
communication journals over the ten-year period, 1987 to 1996. While there are previous
investigations of quantitative/qualitative methodology distribution in sub-fields of
133
communication study (e.g., Cooper, Potter & Dupagne, 1994), the present work considers
the entire communication field and, further, expands the scope of reference to include
consideration of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research articles.
While seeking to investigate issues surrounding qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methodologies, the present work itself employs a mix of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. A content analysis was used to determine the relative
frequencies of the quantitative, qualitative, mixed, and conceptual methodologies in the
969 com m unication journal articles in 15 selected communication journals during the
period o f study from 1987 to 1996. A qualitative investigation was then conducted
through relatively unstructured interviews with 37 editors of the 15 selected journals who
served during the 1987 to 1996 period. Triangulation is “. . . using multiple methods of
measurement data-gathering, and data-analysis in order to obtain a many-sided view of
the object of study” (Rogers, 1994, 285). The present investigation attempted to use
triangulation.
The present investigation also compared the ideal rhetoric of methodological
synthesis and triangulation with the reality of synthesis and triangulation in the primary
manifestation of the output of the field. This comparison of real versus ideal is achieved
later in the present chapter by comparing of the perceptions of journal editors versus the
content of 15 journals in the field o f communication study.
Summary of the Present Findings
RQ #1 asked: What is the relative frequency of quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed -method articles in 15 communication journals over the ten-vear period from!987
134
to 1996? The present investigation found that in a sample of 969 communication journal
articles, there were 531 quantitative articles (54.8 percent), 267 qualitative articles (27.6
percent), 139 conceptual articles (14.3 percent) and 32 (3.3 percent) mixed-method
articles. There is an approximately 2-to-l bias in favor of quantitative research
methodology, and a very small incidence of mixed-method research.
RQ #2 asked: What are journal editors' perceptions o f the frequency of
quantitative qualitative, and mixed-method articles in 15 communication journals over
the ten-vear period from 1997-1996? The editors generally had accurate perceptions of
the methodological mix of articles published in the journals under their editorship. The
actual mix varied widely from completely qualitative or completely quantitative to
various combinations.
RQ trJ asked: What are editors’ perceptions of the relative openness of the field of
communication studv to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method articles? Editors’
perceptions of the relative incidence o f the quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methodologies in communication journals varied widely. Most editors suggested that
research methodology plays little or no role in decisions about whether to publish or
reject a paper submitted to a journal for publication. Estimates of the methodologies of
com m unication research articles published in communication journals varied widely.
Many editors suggested that there has been an increase in the proportion of qualitative
research published, and some suggested that qualitative and quantitative research are now
equally represented in communication study. The present content analysis shows that
neither perception is accurate.
135
RQ #4 asked: Do qualitative and/or mixed research methods show anv increase or
decrease in 15 communication journals over the ten-vear period from 1987 to 1996? The
present quantitative data indicates no sustained increase in either qualitative or mixed
research appearing in 15 communication journals in the 10-vear period from 1987 to
1996. The data showed fluctuations (including rises) in the levels of both qualitative and
mixed-method research from year to year, but no sustained trend toward an increase in
either.
RQ #5 asked: To what extent does each of the selected communication journals
specialize in different research methodologies? The present quantitative data showed that
the 15 com m unication jo u rn a ls varied widely in the research methods used in the articles
they published in the period from 1987-1996. Seven journals published more than 50
percent quantitative articles, compared to only three journals publishing more than 50
percent qualitative articles. The highest percentage of mixed-method articles was 12.7
percent in Human Communication Research (HCR).
RQ #6 asked: To what extent are communication journals perceived as having
methodological reputations? The journal editors generally agreed that a journal develops
a methodological reputation, some more so than others. The present content analysis
provided evidence of methodological polarization in journals which supports the editors'
perceptions that journals develop and maintain methodological reputations.
RQ #7 asked: To what extent does a communication journals' methodological
reputation influence author submission choices? The methodological reputation of a
journal (and of its editor/s) is an important factor in an author’s choice of which journals
136
to submit a paper to. Some editors suggested that a journals1 methodological reputation is
an important factor that submitting authors consider. One editor suggested that journals'
methodological biases appear to be diminishing. The present content analysis does not
support this perception.
RQ #8 asked: Which research procedures are used in the methodological
classifications of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed? Experiments, surveys and content
analysis were most frequently found in quantitative journal articles, while text analysis,
participant observation and depth interviews were commonly found among qualitative
journal articles. Mixed-method articles more commonly used focus group and in-depth
interviews with smaller percentages of surveys and content analysis.
RQ #9 asked: To what extent are individual scholars/authors associated with using
particular research methods? The present quantitative analysis found that authors
consistently use particular research methodologies. A total of 1,116 authors were
represented in the 969 articles in the present investigation. O f the 24 most prolific authors
in the sample (i.e.. those who were lead author on more than three articles) only one
author used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. None of the 24 most prolific
authors published a mixedi-method article. Fifty- six authors in the present data set (5
percent o f the total) published mixed-method articles.
RQ #10 asked: To what extent are journal editors associated with using particular
research methods? Journal editors self-perceive a variety of methodological orientations
and suggest various reasons for their personal methodological orientations. However, the
journal editors generally distinguished between the methodological orientation in their
137
own research, and their methodological orientations in their capacity o f journal editor.
Journal editors almost unanimously took the position that quality of research and
appropriateness o f research methods to answer research questions were the overriding
considerations in their editorial decisions to accept or reject a paper. They suggested that
these considerations of quality and appropriateness superceded the methodology of the
paper. The journal editors also stressed that an editor is constrained in terms of his/her
impact on a journal by reviewers’ decisions, policies o f the publishing organization, and
the length o f the editorial term.
RQ #11 asked: Are there differences bv research method in procedures being
announced in communication journal article titles? Some 8.5 percent of quantitative
articles a n n o u n c e d their research procedures in their title, compared to 7.9 percent of
qualitative articles and 21.9 percent of mixed-method articles. Only a small percentage of
articles (less than 9 percent of the 969 articles in the present sample) announced their
research methodologies in their titles.
RQ #12 asked: How does the use of quantitative. Qualitative, and mixed-methods
vary among the sub-fields of Communication studv? Interpersonal Communication used
quantitative methodology in 80.6 percent of the articles published. High proportions of
quantitative methodology articles were also found in the Mass Communication sub-field
(63.3 percent) and the Intercultural Communication sub-field (66.7 percent). The
Speech/Rhetoric and the Feminist Communication sub-fields displayed high levels of
qualitativ e methods (60.5 percent and 57.6 percent, respectively). Organizational
Com m u n ication showed the highest proportion of mixed-method articles (13.1 percent).
138
Discussion
Emergent Perspectives
The present research yielded some unexpected perspectives. One o f these is the
idea that methodological openness (or acceptance of the validity o f both quantitative and
qualitative methods) does not necessarily imply openness to using both together. Thus,
even if researchers in the com m u n ication field are more open to methods other than those
in which they were trained, they may not necessarily subscribe to the notion that the
methods are compatible because of persisting views that the worldviews of the two
approaches are mutually exclusive.
Another novel perspective arising the present research is the distinctions between
"real and ideal'" and "public and private” discourse as an analytic device in explaining
the differences between the actual methodological composition o f the field and the
misleading discourse surrounding that composition.
The public/private and real/ideal distinctions and the openness/triangulation
distinction were, to an extent, developed by the present researcher. One new perspective
which emerged unprompted from the discourse of participating editors was that of
"methodological maturation.’" Methodological maturation is a process of gradual opening
of a scholar’s methodological outlook over time. The process o f such opening might
result from realization that one’s initial training and prior research expertise might not be
adequate for some of the research questions which one asks in one’s own research.
Methodological maturation is important because it could be a contributing factor in
transformation of the methodological composition of research in the field of
139
communication study. Methodological maturation was mentioned or alluded to by four
editors without prompting and in separate interviews.
The Current Status of Qualitative an d Quantitative Methods
The present data suggest that no sustained rise in qualitative or mixed research
methods could be observed in the ten-vear period o f studv (1987 to 1996). Published
articles in communication study have continued to be mainly quantitative (54.8 percent)
with a smaller proportion of qualitative articles (27.6 percent) and few mixed-method
articles (3.3 percent). This finding contradicts popular notions among some editors of a
rise in qualitative methodologies, at least in communication study for the time period
under consideration. Further, evidence of methodological polarization was found in
journals, authors, and the research procedures utilized in communication journal articles.
The present findings suggest strongly that, for all of the rhetoric about the
desirability o f triangulation and the need to adopt multiple research perspectives,
communication study continues to be divided along methodological lines. The present
data indicate that qualitative and quantitative methodologies still occupy distinct and
separate places in communication studv. If 100 percent is absolute methodological
polarization, five of the 15 selected communication journals showed methodological
specialization in either quantitative or qualitative research approaching 100 percent. The
other ten journals displayed various degrees o f methodological diversity in their
published research articles. However, only three journals approached an equitable mix of
qualitative and quantitative research.
140
Prior research, particularly by Cooper, Potter and Dupagne (1994), offers little
about the use of qu alitative and quantitative methods by communication journal (they
reported only aggregate figures for the frequencies o f methodologies in all o f their
journals of study from 1965 to 1989). It is thus impossible to accurately compare the
present findings with the research of Cooper, Potter and Dupagne (1994) to determine if
the methodological orientations particular journals or of communication study as a whole
has changed in the present period of study (1987 to 1996) compared with the period from
1965 to 1989.
Editors’ Methodological Orientations
We noted that editors distinguished between their own personal methodological
orientation and their orientation as a journal editor. Many editors also distanced
themselves from possessing a methodological orientation by phrasing their responses in
terms of their “research” or '"work” rather than their personal philosophy. To the extent
that the journal editors spoke of their own methodological orientations, they attributed
those orientations primarily to their graduate training. Other factors accounting for
methodological orientation included institutional setting (i.e., the level o f methodological
diversity in the scholar's immediate academic environment), and the maturation of a
scholar's methodological preferences during his/her career.
The concept of methodological maturation was an important and unanticipated
result from the qualitative phase of the present investigation. This notion indicates that,
despite the general evidence of strong methodological polarization among some scholars
and in some journals, methodological orientations are not necessarily fixed over time.
141
The notion of methodological maturation was raised independently by more than one
editor.
Another distinction which emerged from the present investigation was the
difference between openness to both qualitative and quantitative methodological
orientations versus openness to their combination (i.e., mixed-methods). While few
communication journal editors expressed any clear objection to a methodological
orientation other than their own, some objected to the combination of research
methodologies. One editor called such combinations “philosophically absurd.” The “open
but separate” distinction implies that it is possible for communication study to become
equally open to qualitative and quantitative research, but still be divided into separate
camps. The objection to mixing methodologies occurs at the philosophical level rather
than the operational level; that is to say, at the general level of methodological
orientations but not necessarily at the level of using specific research methods. Therefore,
those scholars who object to mixing qualitative and quantitative methodologies argue that
the conflict is one of worldview rather than one of research procedures.
Implicit in the argument against mixing methodologies is a return to the notion of
mutual exclusivity of the quantitative and qualitative “paradigms.” By extension, one may
argue that an individual scholar cannot conduct research which falls into both categories
(either in one or in separate studies) because the philosophies of the two approaches are
mutually exclusive. This argument o f philosophical exclusiveness also denies the validity
of the concept of methodological maturation o f a scholar except in the special (and,
142
perhaps, exceedingly unlikely) case in which a scholar suddenly changes from one
worldview to the other in spontaneous "‘maturation.”
The Real Versus the Ideal
The initial impetus for the present study grew, in part, from the notion that a
disparity existed between the objective reality versus the ideal perceptions o f the
methodological composition of communication study. Prior studies in subfields such as
mass communication indicated a high frequency of quantitative research, a lower
frequency of qualitative research, and a paucity of mixed-method research (Cooper.
Potter. & Dupagne, 1994). Editors' interviews in the present study (and in their published
editorial statements during the period from 1987 to 199624) often reflected either a
perception or an aspiration of methodological openness (and equity) that was not borne
out by the findings of the present content analysis of 969 articles from 15 communication
journals over the ten-year period from 1987-1996.
This disparity between the real versus the perceived ideal provides justification for
the initial concerns that prompted the present investigation, and an important dimension
for analysis. The disparity between perceived ideal versus the real also provides an
opportunity for the methodological triangulation25 process in the present study.
24 Editorial statements (published at the commencement of editorial terms) in the 15

selected communication journals of study were surveyed and the contents o f the
statements making mention of methodological orientations were used as a supplemental
device in the interpretation o f the text of editor interviews.
25 As outlined previously in the present dissertation, triangulation is the use of multiple

research methods to address an object of study (Denzin, 1970; Rogers, 1994).
143
Convergence of the quantitative and the qualitative findings is not necessarily
important for triangulation in the present analysis. Further, journal editors' (sometimes
careful) distinctions between their methodological orientations and their research actions
as individuals versus their actions in the official capacity o f communication journal editor
revealed that a public/private dimension was perhaps important in their discourse.
The present research revealed that the editors o f communication journals in the
ten-year study period (1987 to 1996) varied widely in their perceptions o f the
methodological openness o f the communication field and, in many cases, reverted to
idealistic statements comprising one or more of the following ideas:
1. Methodological choices are not important in journal article publication
decisions.
2. The quality and focus of research are the more important considerations in
journal publication decisions.
3. Methodological openness has been increasing in published articles in
communication journals.
Thus “openness” was an ideal, public expression, while methodological
orientations and personal philosophies about research were private and real.
In their roles as communication journal editors, most respondents in the present
study professed methodological openness as an ideal, but many admitted to having been
144
limited by the reality of what kinds of papers were actually submitted to their journals. A
number of editors (e.g., Stemple and Cappella) also related anecdotes regarding their
efforts at securing a more methodologically diverse submission of papers which met with
little success. Their ideal aspirations were not matched by the reality of the journal article
submission process.
Editors stood behind the notion that “quality” research, whatever the research
methodology used, is acceptable (and desirable) and that focus and scholarly quality are
more important than methodology choice in evaluating a paper for publication in a
journal. One editor noted that this opinion serves as a “stock” answer, lending credence to
the notion that the "quality over method” is a public and ideal presentation of the
methodological orientation issue.
The ideal o f methodological openness implies that there should be an openness to
mixed-method research and to triangulation. Findings from the qualitative phase o f the
present investigation showed that many communication journal editors profess that
qualitative and quantitative methods are both acceptable; however, the present data from
a content analysis o f 969 co m m u n ication journal articles showed continued polarization
o f several com m unicatio n journals and a paucity of mixed- method research. The seeming
incongruence of the present qualitative findings versus the present quantitative findings
with respect to the acceptability o f different research methodologies may be explained
through the ideal/real distinction. The ideal of methodological openness in journal article
145
publication is not matched bv the reality o f research methodology orientations in
communication journal article publication.
The real/ideal and private/public dimensions o f certain key issues are summarized
in Table 13. The existence of the public/private and ideal/real distinctions suggest that the
methodological divisions in communication study may continue and thrive, hidden from
general notice.
Importance of the Hidden Methodological Divide
The ideal positions of (1) equal openness to qualitative and quantitative
methodologies and (2) supremacy of research quality over methodological choice, enjoy
prominence over the persistent realities o f methodological division and imbalance. The
prominence of the ideal over the real is not without consequences. We suggest that
prominence and acceptance of the ideal positions in communication study masks
continuing methodological polarization and the perpetuation of the methodological
orientation divide. The idealized rhetoric o f openness in the face of a reality of continued
methodological division serves to reduce awareness o f the divide and thus hamper the
development of the methodological aims o f triangulation and mixed-method research. If
communication scholars perceive that there is widespread use of multiple research
methods, and the public statements promote methodological openness, then there is no
impetus to change the status quo, although that status quo in reality is one in which there
is continued dominance of quantitative research methods, limited acceptance of
146
Table 13. Three Issues Surrounding Research Methodology in Communication
Journal Article Publication on the Real/Ideal and Public/Private
Dimensions.
I. Ideal II. Real

I. Public From editors’ interviews From content analvsis and
editors’ publication statements
1. Scholars in the field are 1. Divisions by

open to methodological methodological orientations
diversity. persist in the field.
2. Journals demonstrate equal 2. Journals demonstrate

openness in the field/Quality publication of twice as many
more important than method. quantitative as qualitative
articles and few mixed.
3. Multiple methodology 3. Multiple methodology

research is desirable. research is rare.
From editors’ interviews From editors' interviews
II. Private
1. Journals are open to ail 1.Editors own methodological
kinds of research. orientations are based on their
graduate training.
2. Editors attempt to balance 2. Editors publish articles from

methodologies in publications. the papers submitted to them.
Editors are constrained by
reviewers’ biases, publisher’s
policy, etc.
3. Multiple methodology 3. Multiple methodology

research is desirable. research is difficult and
requires multiple research
competencies.
147
qualitative research methods, and a demonstrable minority of attempts at mixed, multiple-
method, or triangulated research26.
Methodological Reputation
Editors generally acknowledged that journals have methodological reputations27 which,
the journal editors suggest, are functions o f history (what the journal has published in the
past), policy (explicit rules set by the publishing organization), and, to some degree, the
editor (including his/her stated publication agenda and his/her methodological
26 The interplay of perceptions, positions o f dominance, and majority and minority issues
in the qualitative/quantitative debate is strongly reminiscent of the issues surrounding
prejudice and stereotyping o f social groups. The qualitative and quantitative camps in
academic society define themselves as in-groups and are suspicious of "the other." As in
plural societies, there are appreciable numbers of members in each group, and some
social prominence to each, but mixing is fairly limited, particularly in fundamental social
processes such as marriage. In the same way, we find qualitative and quantitative article
publication being well represented but mixing (i.e. the "intermarriage" of methodologies)
being rare. Methodological maturation as identified in the present dissertation loosely
parallels the development o f tolerance among social groups.
27 The Editors' Foreword in the June, 1997 issue of Human Communication Research (p.
451) offers an example of a journal’s recognition of its own methodological reputation
(and independent, external validation of some of the findings from the present research).
The co-editors o f that issue o f HCR noted that "Over time, through what it publishes, a
journal develops a substantive and methodological profile. Once established, that profile
largely shapes the journal’s future course, influencing the scholars who consider
submitting their work and the people who regularly read the journal. Often this tacit
profile has more impact on what appears in the journal than its espoused scope and
mission."
The editors also noted how pervasive and persistent such a reputation can be,
pointing out that: "Recent editors have worked hard to broaden the scope of articles
submitted to the journal, and these efforts have been successful in attracting a wider range
of content areas than in the past. The perception that HCR publishes only quantitative
research, however, has not yet changed, and very few articles using qualitative
methodologies have been submitted."
The foreword cited here appears in a special issue of HCR (23 [4]) that was
intended to signal a change in the journal toward a broader methodological base.
148
reputation). Some journal editors noted that the nature and extent of research
methodology reputation varied by journal. The impact of any single editor was generally
thought to be limited due to the carryover of accepted articles from the previous editor
and to the three-year editorial terms generally imposed by journals.
The interrelationships emerging from the various insights and perceptions of the
communication journal editors and the results o f the present content analysis suggest a
need for a detailed model of influences on the methodological reputation of a
communication journal. Such a model is suggested in Figure 11. The main loci of
influences on a journal's reputation are the journal’s tradition, the editor(s), the
publishing o rg an ization, the authors who submit papers, and the communication field at
large. The various influences act upon one another and upon the communication journal
to establish and perpetuate a methodological reputation.
The publishing org anizatio n ’s policies and its choice of editor influence the
methodological tradition of a communication journal. The editor’s own research, his/her
published statements upon assuming editorship of the journal, and his/her actual
methodological orientation also affect the methodological reputation of the
c o m m u n ic a tio n journal. The editor’s published statement and past research also influence
the submitting authors’ perceptions of the communication journal, as do the general
perceptions o f the journal in the field. The existing perceptions of the journal’s
reputation affect what kinds o f papers are submitted, and the submission trends influence
what is published and, in turn, perpetuate the methodological reputation of the journal.
149
Publisher
Journal
Policy of
Choice of editor *— Publishing
Organization
Past Editors’
Orientations
Journal's
Methodological
Editor Publication
History
Editor's
Previous Work/ Journal's
Own Orientation Methodological
Reputation
v " Field
Editor's TTt
Methodological
Reputation General fieidwide
Perception of a
What is
Journal's
Submitted
Editor's Methodological
Policy Orientation
Statement
Submitting author's
perceptions of
Journal's
methodological
Submitting author's
orientation
perception of editor’s
methodological orientation
Submitting author's
Author methodological
orientation
Figure 11. Model of Interrelationships among the Main Influences on the

Methodological Orientation o f a Communication Journal.
150
The multiplicity of processes and sub-processes presented in the present model (see
Figure 11) argue in favor of the view that the power of an editor to influence a journal’s
methodological reputation in one editorial term is somewhat limited.
Theoretical Contributions
The present study advances communication theory in several ways. At the
metatheoretical level, the present findings argue for a greater awareness of the continuing
divisions between the qualitative and quantitative paradigms in communication study.
The present study argues that this continuing division, particularly because it is hidden,
perpetuates the polarization of communication study.
The division at the level o f methodology is related to the theoretical aspects of the
field of communication study. One of the criticisms of communication study has been
that o f conceptual immaturity. The field is not only ill-defined in terms of focus, but also
has been said to lack coherent, unifying theory. Continuing divisions along
methodological lines serve to underscore the conceptual immaturity and theoretical
deficiencies of the field.
At the level o f specific theories, the present findings provide support for the media
gatekeeping and uses and gratification theories as adapted from mass communication
contexts. The present findings are examined in the context of the two theories with a
view to analyzing how editors act as gatekeepers in communication journal article
publication and how communication scholars utilize communication journals.
151
Chaos Theory and the Case for Qualitative and Quantitative Investigation
Chaos is not just a communication theory. Yet we cannot escape its consequences
for communication study. Human society is fluid, dynamic, and subject to random
influences The very notion of communication in the context of human society invokes the
concept of chaos. Such a conceptualization, however, would require communication
scholars to give up trying to identify and explain isolated phenomena in society (e.g.,
what effects did a particular television program have on viewers at a particular time?).
Chaos theory builds a case for qualitative investigation because if we accept that we can
never adequately isolate, measure, or correct for the interplay o f complex variables in
physical phenomena, then it follows that the same holds true (perhaps more so) for ill-
defined. less discrete, social variables. Thus chaos builds an implicit case for studying
social phenomena in their particular social contexts and as dynamic realities rather than as
isolated variables in traditional quantitative social science investigations.
Nonlinearity in complex systems certainly existed in the past if it exists today.
However, the tools of measurement in the past determined that phenomena be interpreted
in the context of the measurement capabilities of the past. Faster computer systems enable
social scientists today to more completely map social systems. Such measurement
capability is to the benefit of quantitative analysis. However, in the context o f chaos
theory, the results of such measurement should be seen not as a snapshot o f reality, but
rather as iterations of emergent realities from the interplay and continuous variation of the
elements o f the social system. Thus an understanding o f chaos theory and its relevance to
social research implicitly suggests an understanding of social systems as both measurable
152
p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
and complex. Chaos theory allows us to conceive of social realities which we can
quantify, but only in the context of an underlying complexity bound up in the complex
and changing interplay among elements in the system. Chaos theory points us to the need
for quantitative investigation using the most advanced techniques of measurement and
statistical analysis. It also, simultaneously, points us to the need for qualitative
investigation with an awareness of the contextual and complex nature of social realities.
Chaos theory takes us only to the point of suggesting that both qualitative and
quantitative methods and some combination of them might be an appropriate direction for
the study o f certain social phenomena, perhaps including human communication. Precise
measurement of the co m m u n ication process at the level required to measure chaotic
behavior has not been successfully conducted and published in a major communication
journal at the time of the present dissertation.
Media Gatekeeping Theory
Gatekeeping theory focuses on the roles of individuals who control access and the
flow of information in media channels. In the present study, we chose to apply the
principles of this mass media theory to the communication journal publication process.
The influence of journal editors on the methodological composition of communication
journals appears to be a less direct process than traditional media gatekeeping theory
would imply. While communication journal editors possess the final power to accept or
reject a submitted paper, their power is circumscribed by inputs from reviewers, the
traditions o f the journals they edit, and the policies of their publishing organization. The
role of a paper’s reviewers is, perhaps, the most important single factor distinguishing the
153
roles of editors of academic journals from their news media counterparts. Nevertheless,
the journal editor is a gatekeeper.
The model of influences on a journal's methodological reputation suggested in the
present study shows that the journal editor in the role of gatekeeper is subject to a variety
of interconnected influences. Communication journal editors (like newspaper editors)
function to keep a high percentage of information (in the form of submitted papers) from
being published. However, the gatekeeping process in journal publication is complicated
by the blind review process and is constrained by considerations o f research methods,
quality and appropriateness rather than considerations of proximity, timeliness, or
salience (as are newspaper editors). Journal editors themselves assigned differing roles to
journal editors as gatekeepers. Some editors suggested a strong role o f the editor, while
others suggested that journal editors played a “rubber-stamp" role (in that the editor only
summarizes the reviewers’ decisions regarding a paper’s publication).
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Journals as co m m u n ication media also fit into three of the four functions
suggested by uses and gratifications theory. Segmentation of communication journals by
research methodology and by communication sub-field suggest the existence o f
competing channels for the audience of scholars in communication study. An active
audience includes potential submitters of papers who seek the channels (communication
journals) which offer them the closest fit (i.e., the greatest level of correlation) and submit
their papers to those channels (journals). Editors’ advice to potential submitters o f papers
includes close scrutiny o f the publication habits and traditions of the various journals, a
154
type of surveillance. Also, the demonstrated maintenance of a particular content and
research methodology bias in many communication journals suggests a certain level of
cultural maintenance. It is doubtful that any scholar either publishes or reads
communication journals for “entertainment” uses or gratifications, as conceived in the
uses and gratifications theory o f mass communication.
Reflexivitv about Shortcomings of the Present Investigation
The present investigation, like all others, has weaknesses. The necessary process
of the selection of 15 journals, for example, may have led to the exclusion o f certain
important communication journals, particularly newer ones, and we thus may have
analyzed an overly traditional picture o f the field o f communication study. Consequently,
we may have missed certain new trends in the field.
The present sampling process, while necessary in the face of limited research
resources, may have denied the present researcher a complete perspective o f the published
research in the 15 selected com m u n ic a tio n journals. Editor term analyses, for example,
remained tentative and sketchy because the content analysis covered 10 years and 15
communication journals, and was based on a 25 percent sample of the articles published.
Hence, the sampling process yielded rather small numbers of articles for each editor-year.
These small numbers in each editor-year severely reduced the confidence in the present
analysis of methodological orientation in a journal by editor.
Every attempt was made to encourage the 53 editors of the 15 communication
journals in the 10-year period of study to respond to the present researcher's requests for
interviews. A positive response rate o f 70 percent (N=37) from these 53 editors was
155
achieved. Although sample size was not a critical issue in the present qualitative
investigation of the editor interviews, and a positive response rate of 70 percent for
voluntary responses to a mailed request is considered respectable in communication
research, a higher response rate would have been welcomed.
A number of editors were wary o f being quoted in the present dissertation. One
editor refused to participate for fear of being misquoted. One editor participated on
condition that any statements attributable to him be approved by him before it could be
included in the present dissertation. Another editor participated but refused to have any of
her comments or the name o f the journal attributed in the present dissertation. Such
reluctance on the part of past editors (who are all senior scholars in communication study)
was surprising to the present investigator.
A conceptual weakness of the present investigation was evident from a few
editors’ responses. The qualitative/quantitative distinction utilized in the present
dissertation failed to adequately account for scholarship in the field which does not, or
does not consider itself to, fall in either o f these two categories. As a result, a small
number of editors noted that they felt somewhat constrained by the
qualitative/quantitative distinction because they defined themselves as conducting
hum anist or rhetorical scholarship rather than quantitative and qualitative research.
Generally, the humanist and rhetorical scholars opted for the qualitative option but their
discomfort with the classification scheme indicated a perceived force-fitting of the data.
A related strength o f the present dissertation was the specific definitions of
qualitative and quantitative research offered by the present study. A number o f editors
156
commented that the criteria offered for the methodological definitions were more explicit
than they sometimes encountered. Another strength of the present definitions is that they
enhanced intercoder reliability on the methodological classification dimension by
delineating the research methodologies clearly.
Among the other strengths of the present investigation was the fact that, in
attempting both a quantitative and qualitative exploration of quantitative and qualitative
methodology, we exemplified the very point o f the present investigation, the importance
of multiple research perspectives. Triangulation was used to show the suspected disparity
between the real versus the ideal methodological composition of communication study.
Future Research
No research project exhausts all o f the issues that it raises. Many important issues
were raised but not explored in the present investigation. One such issue is that o f how
communication scholars make choices from the range of available communication
journals28 in deciding where to submit a given paper. Some editors suggested that authors
are well-advised to be familiar with the communication journals before making paper
submission decisions. Further investigation is required to determine how, and on what
bases, scholars actually determine which communication journal to submit a paper to.
28 A novel factor influencing authors’ choices o f journals for submission of papers is the
recent proliferation of electronic journals. The number of electronic journals was
estimated at close to 8,000 in early 1998. Electronic journals are seen as a protest to rising
costs of traditional publication. The impact o f such electronic journals (on academia in
general and on communication study in particular) will have to be considered in future
studies of journal submission choices.
157
perhaps with specific reference to younger scholars who may not be familiar with the
methodological traditions of editors and communication journals.
Another research issue not explored in the present study is what motivates a
scholar to aspire to, and accept, the position of communication journal editor. Further
work in this direction might focus on the extent to which the position of editor carries
prestige and the extent to which the implied or real power as gatekeeper is attractive to
scholars in the com m unication field. Further studies might also investigate the views of
past editors on the benefits and costs o f being journal editor.
In the present study we gleaned information about the methodological orientation
o f journal article publication in com m u n ication study versus editors' perceptions of the
methodological orientation of journals in communication study. We considered what
articles actually are published, and investigated methodological orientations related to the
content of these articles. A less easily accessible data-set are those papers which are not
published in a com m unication journal due to rejection by the editor. An analysis of the
journal article review process and percentage rejections of papers by research
methodology might yield a more accurate picture o f what research is conducted in the
co m m u n ication field, what proportion of papers using each methodology is published,
and the reality of the journal article rejection process.
The methodological maturation alluded to by several of the editors also appears to
be worthy o f further investigation in the context of the methodological composition of
research in com m unication study. Methodological maturation, if widespread or on the
increase in communication study, might signal a change in the observed methodological
158
composition of the field if it influences the methodological orientation pattern o f paper
submissions, acceptance, and publication. Also, methodological maturation as a process
affecting senior scholars might be contrasted with more eclectic methodological training
of new scholars, in both quantitative and qualitative methodology (identified as a trend by
editors in the present study).
Parallel to the issue of methodological maturation is the issue of diversified and
eclectic methodology training offered in graduate programs o f communication study.
Some journal editors suggested that training in both quantitative and qualitative methods
at the graduate level is becoming the norm in U.S. universities. Further research could
establish the extent to which this perception of an increased openness in Ph.D. training
programs is actually occurring (i.e., how much o f the perception is real and how much is
ideal?).
Conclusions
The findings o f both the quantitative and qualitative phases of the present
research, and the triangulation of these two streams, indicated that quantitative research
dominates the field o f communication studv. The present data indicated that perceptions
of the relative importance of qualita tiv e research, and the extent to which quantitative and
qualitative approaches are used together in the field, are generally overstated.
In summary, research in communication study is still mainly quantitative, despite
perceptions to the contrary and indications of potential future changes. We found that the
publicly expressed ideals surrounding the desirability of multiple research methods tend
to overstate the equality of methodological composition of communication journal
159
articles and mask the persistence of underlying methodological divisions. As one
interviewed editor noted, communication study is “lagging behind” the rest of the social
sciences in the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
Perhaps the identified trend toward more diverse methodology training in graduate
programs in com m u n ication study or the methodological maturation of scholars might
herald real changes in the methodological orientation of communication study in the years
to come. Whatever the mechanism of change, the development of communication study
as a coherent academic field depends on the removal of traditional, irrational, and
unproductive divisions such as the mass/interpersonal division, the critical/empirical
division, and the division of concern in the present dissertation, the
qualitative/quantitative division.
160
APPENDICES
A: Most Prolific Authors in a Sample of Communication Journal Articles in the

Period from 1987-1996 by Number of Articles Published and Research
Methodology Used in Those Articles.........................................................................163
B: Comparison of the Relative Frequency o f Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed-

Method Articles in 8 Communication Journals in the Periods 1965 to 1986 and
1987 to 1996........................................................................................................... 165
APPENDIX A
MOST PROLIFIC AUTHORS IN A SAMPLE OF COMMUNICATION JOURNAL
ARTICLES IN THE PERIOD FROM 1987-1996 BY NUMBER OF ARTICLES
PUBLISHED AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY USED IN THOSE ARTICLES.
162
Most Prolific Authors in a Sample of Communication Journal Articles in the Period
from 1987-1996 by Number of Articles Published and Research Methodology Used in
those Articles.
Author Quantitative Qualitative Conceptual Total

Articles Articles Articles Articles
Pfau, Michael 9 0 0 9
Beatty, Michael, J. 7 0 0 7
Riffe, Daniel 6 0 0 6
Behnke, Ralph, R. 4 0 1 5
Benoit William 4 1 0 5
Burgoon, Judee, K. 5 0 0 5
Dionisopolous, George 0 4 1 5
Lacy, Stephen 5 0 0 5
Manusov, Valerie 5 0 0 5
Plax, Timothy, G. 5 0 0 5
Stacks, Don, W. 2 0 3 5
Booth-Butterfield, Melanie 4 0 0 4
Browne, Stephen 0 4 0 4
Buller. David, B. 4 0 0 4
Cantor. Joanne 4 0 0 4
Carlson. Cheree, A. 0 4 0 4
Goldzwig, Steven 0 J 1 4
Hickson. Mark 2 0 2 4
Kearney, Patricia 4 0 0 4
Kim, Min-Sun 4 0 0 4
Levine, Timothy 4 0 0 4
McComack, Steven 3 0 I 4
Price, Vincent 4 0 0 4
Roloff, Michael _4_ _0_ _0_ 4
Totals 89 16 9 114
163
APPENDIX B.
COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF QUALITATIVE,
QUANTITATIVE AND MIXED-METHOD ARTICLES IN 8 COMMUNICATION
JOURNALS IN THE PERIODS 1965 TO 1986 AND 1987 TO 1996.
164
Comparison of the Relative Frequency o f Qualitative. Quantitative and Mixed-
method Articles in 8 Communication Journals in the Periods 1965 to 1986 and
1987 to 1996.
Time Quantitative Qualitative Mixed- Conceptual Total

Period Articles Articles method Articles
Articles
1965-1986 643 (56.7%) 411 (36.2%) 80 (7.1%) - 1134(100%)

1987-1996 334 (57.0%) 150 (25.6%) 23 (3.9%) 79(13.4%) 586 (100%)
Note: The above comparison is based on data for eight communication journals:
Communication Monographs Communication Research. Critical Studies
in Mass Communication. Human Communication Research. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Journal of Communication. Journalism
(&. Mass Communication! Quarterly, and Quarterly Journal o f Speech.
Data for the 1965 to 1986 time period were taken from Cooper, Potter, &
Dupagne (1994). Data for the time period from 1987 to 1996 were selected
from the present content analysis o f 969 communication journal articles
published in 15 communication journals in the time period from 1987 to
1996.
165
p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
REFERENCES
American Association for Public Opinion Research (1997). Directory of Members

1997-1998. Ann Arbor, Michigan: AAPOR.
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (1997).

Journalism and Mass Communication Directory. Charleston, University o f Southern
Carolina: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Baake, K. (1997). What Is the Santa Fe Institute? Santa Fe, NM: The Santa Fe
Institute, <http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/research/focus/whatissfi.html>
Barrow, J., D. (1991). Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate

Explanation. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Benson, Thomas W. (1998). Correspondence.
Blumler, J. G. & Katz, E. (Eds.) (1974). The Uses o f Mass Communication:

Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bochner, Arthur P. (1998). Telephone interview.
Bradac. James J. (1998). Correspondence.
Brannen, Julia (Ed.) (1992). M ixing Methods: Q ualitative and Quantitative

research. Hants, England: Avebury Ashgate.
Bryman, A. (1984). "The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A

Question of Method or Epistemology?" British Journal of Sociology. 35. 1: 75-93.
Burgoon, Judee K. (1998). Correspondence.
Capella, Joseph N. (1998). Correspondence.
Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as Culture: Essavs on Media and Society.

Boston: Unwin Hyman.
166
Casti, J. (1991). “Chaos, Godel and the Truth.” In J. Cash, & A. Karlqvist, (Eds.)
Bevond Belief: Randomness. Prediction and Explanation in Science. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press.
Cheseboro, James W. (1998). Telephone interview.
Cooper, R., Potter, W. J., & Dupagne, M. (1994). “A Status Report on Methods
Used in Mass Communication Research,” Journalism Educator. 48 (4): 54-61.
Costigan Lederman, Linda (1998). Correspondence.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction

to Sociological Methods. London: Butterworths.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). "Introduction: Entering the Field of

Qualitative Research." In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook o f Qualitative
Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donohue, G.A.. Tichenor, P. J. & Olien. C. N. (1972). Gatekeeping: Mass Media

Systems and Information Control. In F. G. Kline & P. J. Tichenor "(Eds.), Current
Perspectives in Mass Communication Research (pp. 41-70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Erickson, K. V., Fleuriet, C. A.& Hosman, L. A. (1993). "Prolific Publishing:

Professional and Administrative Concerns." Southern Communication Journal. 58 (4) :
328-338.
Erickson, Keith V. (1998). Correspondence.
Feder, J. (1988). Fractals. New York: Plenum Press.
Froyland, J. (1992). Introduction to Chaos and Coherence. Bristol, UK: Institute

o f Physics Publishing.
Funkhauser, E. T. (1996). “The Evaluative Use o f Citation Analysis for

C om m unication Journals”, H u m an Communication Research. 22 (4): 563-575.
Gerbner, George (1998). Correspondence.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
Gordis, L. (1990). An Introduction to Epidemiology. New York: Hafher.
Gouran, Dennis S. (1998). Correspondence.
167
Gregersen, H. & Sailer, L. (1993). "Chaos Theory and Its Implications for Social
Science Research." Human Relations. 46 (7): 777-802.
Hall, S. (1989). “Ideology and Communication Theory.” In B. Dervin, L.

Grossberg, B. O’Keefe & E. Wartella (Eds.) Rethinking Paradigm Issues (Volume 1)
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). “Deconstructing the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. In

Julia Brannen (Ed.). Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Hants,
England: Avebury Ashgate.
Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W. & Amsbary, J. H. (1989). “An Analysis of Prolific

Scholarship in Speech Communication, 1915-1985: Toward a Yardstick for Measuring
Research Productivity,” Communication Education. 38: 231-236.
Hirokawa, Randy (1998). Telephone Interview.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
International C o m m u n ication Association (1998). 1998 Membership Directory.

Austin, TX: ICA.
The Iowa Guide : Scholarly Journals in Mass Communication and Related Fields
(1993). Iowa City: Iowa Center for C o m m u n icatio n Study, School o f Journalism and
Mass C om m unication, University of Iowa.
Ivie, Robert L. (1998). Correspondence.
Kau, J. B. & Johnason, Linda L. (1983). Regional Science Programs: A Ranking

Based on Publication Performance.” Journal of Regional Science. 23:177-186.
Kerr, R. A. (1992). “From Mercury to Pluto, Chaos Pervades the Solar System.”
Science. 257. 33.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions (Second Edition),

Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). “The Structure and Function of Communication in

Society.” In Lyman Bryson (Ed.). The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute for
Religious and Social Studies.
168
Leifer, R. (1989). “Understanding Organizational Transformation Using a
Dissipative Structure Model,” Human Relations. 42 (10): 899-916.
Levy, Mark R. (1998). Telephone interview.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers.

New York: Harper.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. & Levy, D. (1993). “Correlates o f Publication Success: Some

AJPS Results.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 26 (3): 558-561.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.
Lindlof, T. R. (1991). “The Qualitative Study of Media Audiences.” Journal o f

Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 35 (1): 23-42.
Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories o f Human Communication. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.
Lorenz, Edward N. (1967). The nature and theory o f the general circulation of the
atmosphere. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
Lorenz, Edward N. (1993). The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of

Washington Press.
Lull, J. (1990). Inside Family Viewing. London: Routledge.
Matlon, Ronald J., Ortiz, Sylvia P. (1992). Index to Journals in Communication

Studies through 1990. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Me. Kerrow, Raymie (1998). Correspondence.
Moffet, E. A. & Dominick, J. R. (1987). “Statistical Analysis in JOB. 1970-85:

An update,” Feedback. 13-16.
Morrow, Raymond A. & Brown, David D. (1994). Critical Theory and

Methodology. Contemporary Social Theory. Volume 3, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mosekilde, E., Larsen, E., & Sterman, J. (1991). “Coping With Complexity:
Determinstic Chaos in Human Decisionmaking Behavior.” In J. Casti, & A. Karlqvist,
Bevond B elief: R andom ness. Prediction and Explanation in Science. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press.
169
p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Nijkamp, P. & Reggiani, A. (1991). “Chaos Theory and Spatial Dynamics/’
Journal o f Transport Economics and Policy. 81-86.
Oxford D ictionary of Current English (1991), Great Britain: Oxford University

Press.
Pauly, J. J. (1991). “A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Qualitative Research in Mass

Communication,” Journalism Monographs. 125.
Piercy, Fred, P., Moon, Sidney, M. & Bischof, Gary, P. (1994). “Difficult Journal
Article Rejections Among Prolific Family Therapists: A Qualitative Critical Incident
Study.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 20 (3): 231-245.
Potter, W. James (1996). An Analysis of Thinking and Research About

Q ualitative Methods. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Potter. W. James (1998). Telephone interview.
Rayburn, J. D. (1996). "Uses and Gratifications." In Michael Salewan & Don

Stacks (Eds.). An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reeves, B. & Borgman, C. L. (1983). “A Bibliometric Evaluation of Core

Journals in Communication Research”, Human Communication Research. 10 (1):119-
136.
Reichardt, C. S. & Cook. T. D. (1979). “Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative

Methods.” In C. S. Reichardt, & T. D. Cook (Eds.). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
in Evaluation Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rice, R., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, B. (1988). “Citation Networks of

Communication Journals, 1977-1985." Human Communication Research. 15 (2): 256-
283.
Rist, R. C. (1977). “On the Relations among Educational Research Paradigms:

From Disdain to Detente,” Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 8: 42-47.
Rogers, E. M. (1994). A History of Communication Study: A Biographical

Approach. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E., Mohammed, S., Carr. H., Matsushima, A., Scott, K.& Sorrells, K.,
(1998). Communication Workbook. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B.(1998). Correspondence.
170
with p erm ission o f th e copyright o w n e r. Further reproduction prohibited without p erm ission
Rosser, J. Barkley, Jr. (1990). “Chaos Theory and the New Keynesian
E con o m ic s . ’’Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies. 58 (3): 265-291.
Rubin, Alan M. (1998). Correspondence.
Runyon, Richard, P. & Haber, Audrey (T988~). Fundamentals of Behavioral

Statistics ('Sixth Edition). New York: Random House.
Shoemaker, Pamela, J. (1991). Communication Concepts 3: Gatekeeping.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shoemaker, Pamela, J. (1996). “Media Gatekeeping.” In Michael B. Salewan &

Don W. Stacks (Eds.). An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research.
Mawah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Sieber, S. D. (1973). “The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods.”

American Journal o f Sociology. 78 (6): 1335-1359.
Sjoberg, G. & Vaughan, T. R. (1979). “Human Rights, Reflectivity, and the

Sociology o f Knowledge.” In Snizek, W. E., Fuhrman, E. R, & Miller, M. K. (Eds.).
Contemporary Issues in Theory and Research: A Metasociological Perspective. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Smith, David H. (1998). Correspondence.
So, C. Y. K. (1988). “Citation Patterns o f Core Communication Journals: An

Assessment o f the Developmental Status of Communication”, Human Communication
Research. 15 (2): 236-255.
Speech Communication Association, 1997. 1997-1998 Speech C om m unication

Association Directory. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
SSCI Journal Citation Reports/Journal Citation Reports (19951. Philadelphia:

Institute for Scientific Information.
Stemple, Guido H. Ill (1998). Correspondence.
Stewart, I. (1991). “Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos.” New
Science. 25: 141-148.
Stewart, I. (1992). “Does Chaos Rule the Cosmos?” Discover. 13: 56-63.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics o f Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
171
Tracy, K., & Gallois, C. (1997). "Editors’ Foreword." Human Communication
Research. 23 (4): 451-452.
Trow, M. (1957). "Comment on Participant Observation and Interviewing: A

Comparison." Human Organization. 16: 33-35.
Vincent, R. C. (1991). "Telecommunications Research Productivity of U.S.

Communication Programs: 1984-1989." Journalism Quarterly. 68 (4): 840-851.
Wamick, Barbara (1998). Correspondence.
Whitney, D. Charles (1998). Correspondence.
Wood, Julia T. (1998). Correspondence.
Wright, C. R. (1960). "Functional Analysis and Mass Communication." Public

Opinion Quarterly, 24: 605-620.
172
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET ( Q A - 3 )
✓
l i i * 2 .8
1.0 Hi 1 3“.2 IM
2.2
|JO 2.0
l.l
1.25 1.4 1.6
150mm
A P P L I E D A IIWJGE . Inc
- 1653 East Main Street
- Rochester. NY 14609 USA
-= = ~— Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989
O 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All Rights R eserved

An Analysis of Research Method PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

An Analysis of Research Method PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

IN 15 MAJOR COMMUNICATION JOURNALS

FROM 1987 TO 1996

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

The University of New Mexico

UMI Microform 9839215

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

This dissertation is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and

A p p ro v e d b y the D isse rta tio n C om m ittee:

As ever, for Wends, the inspiration.

For Sarah, sunshine incarnate.

For Sis and Nabs.

in honor o f Professor Thomas F. Camey

in memory o f Professor Stuart H. Surlin

IN 15 M AJOR COMMUNICATION JOURNALS

FROM 1987 TO 1996

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

The University of New Mexico

The present dissertation investigated what research methodologies were used in

articles published in 15 selected communication journals over a recent decade. The

investigation comprised (1) a content analysis of a 25 percent sample (N=969) articles

editors o f the 15 journals in the same period.

The sample o f 969 communication journal articles included 54.8 percent

these research methodologies from 1987 to 1996.

Communication journal editors perceived that qualitative research methodologies

analysis o f the 969 articles.

Communication journals are polarized by methodology. Few journals published

an even mix o f quantitative and qualitative articles. Journal editors perceived

com m u n icatio n journals as having methodological reputations (a perception supported

influencing the methodological reputations of communication journals.

used text analysis, participant interviews, and depth interviews.

a quantitative article. None of the 24 most prolific authors published a multi-method

Interpersonal, Mass and Intercultural Communication were highly quantitative.

Speech/Rhetoric and Feminist Communication were highly qualitative. Organizational

Com m u n icatio n used the most mixed method research.

The present research indicated that openness to quantitative and qualitative

research methodologies does not necessarily imply openness to combining these

methodologies. Input from responding editors also explored “methodological

maturation.” the opening of a scholar’s methodological outlook over time.

LIST OF F IG U R E S ......................................................................................................... xii

C hapter 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

C hapter 2: LITERA TU RE R E V I E W ............................................................................ 11

C hapter 3: RESEA RCH Q U E S T IO N S ..........................................................................41

C hapter 4: RESEA RCH M ETHODS ............................................................................50

C hapter 6: SUMMARY AND D ISC U SSIO N ...............................................................133

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 161

Table 1. The Contrasting Values of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Figure 1. Processes in the Submission of a Research Paper for Publication in a

The present dissertation arose out of a presentation on the false dichotomy

between quantitative and qualitative methodologies given by the author in a graduate

continuing methodological divisions in the field o f communication study might indeed

pursued the present investigation in a pilot study o f research methodologies in

the quantitative phase of the present dissertation.

Discussions with committee members also prompted an investigation of the views

of editors of com m unication journals on methodological issues. Initially, the editors’

independent of the content analysis findings. The editors of the 15 selected

of my supervisor, Professor Everett M. Rogers. Professor Rogers sparked the initial

beyond the eminence of his work.

I extend thanks to my committee members. Dr. Bob Gassaway, Dr. Kenneth

My perpetual gratitude goes to my wife Waheeda (Wends), without whose