Advertisement

Comparative Research

  • Frank Esser
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter highlights the particular advantages of comparative international approaches for media policy research. It starts by explaining the basic logic and main objectives of comparative analysis. Further sections of the chapter are devoted to different design types and related methodological procedures. Finally, special attention is given to the question of how to avoid various types of cultural bias. All these points are illustrated by the concrete example of a comparative international study on media (self-) regulation.

References

  1. Downey, J., & Stanyer, J. (2010). Comparative media analysis: Why some fuzzy thinking might help. Applying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to the personalization of mediated political communication. European Journal of Communication, 25(4), 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eberwein, T., Fengler, S., Lauk, E., & Leppik-Bork, T. (Eds.). (2011). Mapping media accountability—In Europe and beyond. Cologne: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Esser, F. (2014). Methodological challenges in comparative communication research: Advancing cross-national research in times of globalization. In M. J. Canel & K. Voltmer (Eds.), Comparing political communication across time and space (pp. 17–33). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (Eds.). (2012a). Handbook of comparative communication research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (2012b). On the why and how of comparative inquiry in communication studies. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 3–22). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Fengler, S., Eberwein, T., Mazzoleni, G., Porlezza, C., & Russ-Mohl, S. (Eds.). (2014). Journalists and media accountability: An international study of news people in the digital age. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J. G. (1990). Comparative research: The extending frontier. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication (pp. 305–328). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphreys, P. (2012). A political scientist’s contribution to the comparative study of media systems in Europe: A response to Hallin and Mancini. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, new methods, new subjects (pp. 141–158). Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  11. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research. European Journal of Communication, 18(4), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. 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).Google Scholar
  16. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis and related techniques (pp. 87–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology, 21(5), 679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roessler, P. (2012). Comparative content analysis. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 459–468). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Sartori, G. (1994). Compare why and how? In M. Dogan & A. Kazancigil (Eds.), Comparing nations: Concepts, strategies, substance (pp. 14–34). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In J. W. Berry, Y. P. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 257–300). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Verhulst, S. G., & Price, M. E. (2008). Comparative media law research and its impact on policy. International Journal of Communication, 2, 406–420.Google Scholar
  24. Vliegenthart, R. (2012). Advanced strategies for data analysis: Opportunities and challenges of comparative data. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 486–500). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Wirth, W., & Kolb, S. (2004). Designs and methods of comparative political communication research. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political communication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 87–111). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wirth, W., & Kolb, S. (2012). Securing equivalence: Problems and solutions. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 469–485). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. d’Haenens, L., Sousa, H., & Trappel, J. (Eds.). (2018). Comparative media policy, regulation and governance in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of comparative communication research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Esser
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations