Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lost in Translation: the Methodological Challenges of Comparative Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

Zusammenfassung

This chapter addresses a range of methodological challenges that arise in designing a comparative study of online government communications. While this chapter often refers to the methodological challenges involved in designing a comparative content analysis of government websites and social media pages, concepts such as equivalence and bias and reliability and validity are critical concepts that must be considered in all comparative research designs regardless of the empirical method employed. This chapter will use a content analysis of online government communications as an example of the challenges that arise in comparative studies more generally.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Andeweg, R. (1993). A model of the cabinet system: the dimensions of cabinet decision-making processes. In J. Blondel & F. Müller-Rommel (Hrsg.), Governing Together: The Extent and Limits of Joint Decision-Making in Western European Cabinets, London, (S. 23-42). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The crisis of public communication. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, J. G., McLeod, J. M., & Rosengren, K. E. (1992). Comparatively speaking: Communication and culture across space and time. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borucki, I. (2014). Regieren mit Medien. Auswirkungen der Medialisierung auf die Regierungskommunikation der Bundesregierung von 1982-2010. Opladen: Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2011). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: theory, practice and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation. New Media & Society, 12, 745–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Core executive studies in Britain. Public Administration, 68(1), 3-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, F. (2014). Methodological Challenges in Comparative Communication Research: Advancing Cross-National Research in Times of Globalisation. In M. J. Canei & K. Voltmer (Hrsg.), Comparing Political Communication across Time and Space: New studies in an Emerging Field (S. 15-31). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (2012). On the Why and How of Comparative Inquiry in Communication Studies. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research (S. 3-22). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foot, K. A., Xenos, M., Schneider, S. M., Kluver, R., & Jankowski, N. W. (2009). Electoral web production practices in crossnational perspective: The relative influence of national development, political culture, and web genre. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Hrsg.), Routledge handbook of In-ternet politics (S. 40-55). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2000). A proposed methodology for studying the function and effectiveness of party and candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review, 18(3), 301-319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2009). European political organizations and the internet: mobilization participation and change. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Hrsg.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (S. 25–39). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, K. (2003). Executives in Comparative Context. In J. Hayward & A. Menon (Hrsg.), Governing Europe. Oxford Scholarship Online. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199250154.001.0001/acprof-9780199250158-chapter-5. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/0199250154.003.0005

  • Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). Political communication—Old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 625(1), 164-181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Bacha, C. (2013). Government communication in Germany: Maintaining the fine line between information and advertising. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel (Hrsg.), Government Communication (S. 45-58). New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2004). Just Public Relations or an Attempt at Interaction? European Journal of Communication, 19, 507–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyling, T., & Jünger, J. (2013). Facepager (Version Version, f.e. 3.3). Retrieved from Source code available from https://github.com/strohne/Facepager

  • Keyling, T., & Jünger, J. (2016). Observing Online Content. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Hrsg.), Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2014). Rechtlich-normative Rahmenbedingungen der Regierungskommunikation: ein Thema für die Publizistik-und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Publizistik, 59(3), 269-284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korte, K.-R. (2002). Regieren in Mediendemokratien Politische Akteure in der Mediendemokratie (S. 21-40). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronewald, E. (2014). Inhaltsanalyse 2.0: International vergleichende Inhaltsanalyse von Social Media. In H. Sievert & A. Nelke (Hrsg.), Social-Media-Kommunikation nationaler Regierungen in Europa: Theoretische Grundlagen und vergleichende Länderanalysen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauf, E., & Peter, J. (2001). Die Codierung Verschiedensprachiger Inhalte: Erhebungskonzepte und Gütemaße. In W. Wirth & E. Lauf (Hrsg.), Inhaltsanalyse: Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale (S. 199-217). Köln: Herbert von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research. European Journal of Communication, 18(4), 477-500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2012). Challenges to Comparative Research in a Globalizing Media Landscape In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research (S. 415-429-22). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2016). Different Governments, Different Approaches: Political Participation in the Online Sphere. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference 2016, Prague. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/569d6a29-04d5-4736-b546-91eba15e601e.pdf.

  • Nitschke, P., Donges, P., & Schade, H. (2014). Political organizations’ use of websites and Facebook. New Media & Society, 18(5), 744-764. doi: 1461444814546451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitschke, P., & Murphy, K. (2016). Organizations as an Analytical Category: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Hrsg.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2011). Political Communication. In D. Caramani (Hrsg.), Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J., & Lauf, E. (2002). Reliability in cross-national content analysis. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 79(4), 815-832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfetsch, B., & Esser, F. (2012). Comparing political communication Handbook of comparative communication research (S. 25-47). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, P. (2012). Comparative content analysis. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research (S. 459-468). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russmann, U. (2011). Targeting Voters via the Web: A Comparative Structural Analysis of Austrian and German Party Websites. Policy & Internet, 3(3), 1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, P. (2010). Inhaltsanalyse (Vol. 2671). Konstanz: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K. (2009). Communicating politics in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2013). Government Communication. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., Canel, M. J., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2011). Communicating Governments A Three-Country Comparison of How Governments Communicate with Citizens. The International Journal of Press /Politics, 16, 523-547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, M. (2010). Regierungskommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert: ein Vergleich zwischen Großbritannien, Deutschland und der Schweiz. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, W., & Kolb, S. (2004). Designs and methods of comparative political communication research. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Comparing political communication: Theories, cases, and challenges (S. 87-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliber-ation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244-261.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Kim Murphy

Authors
  1. Kim Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Murphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin , Berlin, Germany

    Juliana Raupp

  2. Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jan Niklas Kocks

  3. Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Kim Murphy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Murphy, K. (2018). Lost in Translation: the Methodological Challenges of Comparative Studies. In: Raupp, J., Kocks, J., Murphy, K. (eds) Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20589-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20589-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-20588-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-20589-8

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation