Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Doing Media Policy Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braman, S. (2008). Policy research in an evidence-averse environment. International Journal of Communication, 2, 433–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Daniels, J., & Thistlethwaite, P. (2016). Being a scholar in the digital era: Transforming scholarly practice for the public good. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICA Ethics Task Force. (2018). ICA code of ethics. Retrieved from http://blogs.cornell.edu/humphreys/ica-ethics-task-force/.

  • Jackson, P. (2000). Writing up qualitative data. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research training for social scientists (pp. 244–252). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks; and New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mouton, J., & Marais, H. C. (1988). Basic concepts in the methodology of the social sciences. Pretoria: HSRC Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks; London; and New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, W. J. (2003). Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft. Grundriss des Faches und studiumbegleitende Orientierung (5th ed.). Passau: Wissenschaftsverlag Richard Rothe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van Dessel, L. (2016). Confidence in the use of nautical instruments: Risk analysis. Antwerp: University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, J., & Thistlethwaite, P. (2016). Being a scholar in the digital era: Transforming scholarly practice for the public good. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, J., Davis, C. S., & Potter, R. F. (Eds.). (2017). The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Malden; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodfield, K. (Ed.) (2018). The ethics of online research. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Media Research, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Manuel Puppis

  2. Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    Hilde Van den Bulck

Authors
  1. Manuel Puppis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Van den Bulck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    Hilde Van den Bulck

  2. Department of Communication and Media Research, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Manuel Puppis

  3. Department of Communication Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Karen Donders

  4. Department of Communication Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Leo Van Audenhove

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Puppis, M., Van den Bulck, H. (2019). Doing Media Policy Research. In: Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K., Van Audenhove, L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation