Advertisement

Doing Media Policy Research

  • Manuel Puppis
  • Hilde Van den Bulck
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter takes you through the various steps of doing an analysis of media and communication policy and aims at helping readers to learn or improve the craft of doing media policy research. It distinguishes between three major steps in the research process: planning, executing and reporting, each of which are dealt with in further detail. With respect to planning a research project, scholars need to select a research topic, formulate research questions, and state a problem, develop (hypo-)theses, make decisions regarding research design, choose methods for empirical analysis, deal with sampling and write up a research plan. Next, while executing the plan, theoretical concepts require operationalization and data need to be collected, prepared and analyzed. Finally, reporting on research projects not only involves writing a research report and publications but also to reach out beyond the scientific community. The chapter also pays attention to the crucial issue of research ethics.

References

  1. Bauer, J. M., Kim, S., Mody, B., & Wildman, S. S. (2005, May 26–30). The role of research in communications policy: Theory and evidence. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Conference of the International Communications Association, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 43–80). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.  https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braman, S. (2008). Policy research in an evidence-averse environment. International Journal of Communication, 2, 433–449.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Mixed methods research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 527–529). Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.
  8. Cummings, C. L. (2017). Measurement levels. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 941–943). Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n327.
  9. Daniels, J., & Thistlethwaite, P. (2016). Being a scholar in the digital era: Transforming scholarly practice for the public good. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Flick, U. (2006). Triangulation. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social research methods (pp. 306–307). London: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116.
  13. Fuchs, C. (2017). From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics towards critical digital and social media research! European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herzog, C., & Ali, C. (2015). Elite interviewing in media and communications policy research. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 11(1), 37–54.  https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.11.1.37_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ICA Ethics Task Force. (2018). ICA code of ethics. Retrieved from http://blogs.cornell.edu/humphreys/ica-ethics-task-force/.
  16. Jackson, P. (2000). Writing up qualitative data. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research training for social scientists (pp. 244–252). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2012). Communication policy research: Looking back, moving forward. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 9–29). Bristol; Chicago: Intellect.Google Scholar
  18. Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2018). Moving beyond self-castigation: Let’s reinvigorate communication policy research now! Journal of Communication, 68(2), 327–336.  https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karppinen, K., & Moe, H. (2012). What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 177–193). Bristol; Chicago: Intellect.Google Scholar
  20. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. LSE GV314 Group. (2014). Scholars on air: Academics and the broadcast media in Britain. British Politics, 9(4), 363–384.  https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2014.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks, P. G. (2017). Research question. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0215.
  23. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks; and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 17–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris, P. L. (2017). Triangulation. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1782–1784). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n633.Google Scholar
  26. Mouton, J., & Marais, H. C. (1988). Basic concepts in the methodology of the social sciences. Pretoria: HSRC Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Napoli, P. M., & Friedland, L. (2016). US communications policy research and the integration of the administrative and critical communication research traditions. Journal of Information Policy, 6, 41–65.  https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.6.2016.0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Napoli, P. M., & Gillis, N. (2006). Reassessing the potential contribution of communications research to communications policy: The case of media ownership. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 671–691.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5004_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks; London; and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Patzelt, W. J. (2003). Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft. Grundriss des Faches und studiumbegleitende Orientierung (5th ed.). Passau: Wissenschaftsverlag Richard Rothe.Google Scholar
  31. Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S., & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news in the nano-technology debate. Understanding of Science, 18(5), 512–530.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507084202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puppis, M., & d’Haenens, L. (Eds.). (2009). Media diversity in small states - limited options for media regulation? [Special Issue]. International Communication Gazette, 71(1–2).Google Scholar
  33. Puppis, M., & d’Haenens, L. (2012). Comparing media policy and regulation. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 221–233). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Reh, W. (1995). Quellen- und Dokumentenanalyse in der Politikfeldforschung: Wer steuert die Verkehrspolitik? In U. von Alemann (Ed.), Politikwissenschaftliche Methoden. Grundriss für Studium und Forschung (pp. 201–259). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothbauer, P. M. (2008). Triangulation. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 893–894). Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.
  36. Saldaña, M. (2017a). Sampling, random. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0227.
  37. Saldaña, M. (2017b). Sampling, nonrandom. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0224.
  38. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smulowitz, S. (2017). Sampling, qualitative. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0226.
  40. Steiner, L., & Rosen, J. (1994). Scholars in the public sphere. Making things more public: On the political responsibility of the media intellectual. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11(4), 362–388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039409366911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2018). The ethics of using social media data in research: A new framework. In K. Woodfield (Ed.), The ethics of online research (pp. 189–207). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  42. Van Dessel, L. (2016). Confidence in the use of nautical instruments: Risk analysis. Antwerp: University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy.Google Scholar
  43. von Alemann, U., & Tönnesmann, W. (1995). Grundriss: Methoden in der Politikwissenschaft. In U. von Alemann (Ed.), Politikwissenschaftliche Methoden. Grundriss für Studium und Forschung (pp. 17–140). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Daniels, J., & Thistlethwaite, P. (2016). Being a scholar in the digital era: Transforming scholarly practice for the public good. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Matthes, J., Davis, C. S., & Potter, R. F. (Eds.). (2017). The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Woodfield, K. (Ed.) (2018). The ethics of online research. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Puppis
    • 1
  • Hilde Van den Bulck
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Communication and Media ResearchUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations