Introduction to the Course & the Place of Paradigms & Models in Research Design Jan Marontate CMNS 801: Design and Methodology in Communication Research School of Communication. Simon Fraser University Fall 2008

Today’s Class Session n Brief Introductions n Syllabus (Handout #1) n 1st Exercise and “Special Topic Assignment” (Handouts 2 & 3) u Research Interests & Methodological Backgrounds u Choosing Topics and Scheduling Presentations n Paradigms & Models in Research Design (Historical and Contemporary Approaches to Methodology)

On-line Resources n Course materials (Resources Folder)   n Bill Trochim’s Research Methodlogy website u

Empirical Research Methodology in the Social Sciences (20th-c. conventions) n Process involving u methods u logic of inquiry (assumptions & hypotheses) n produces u laws, principles and theories that can be tested F (Karl Popper & notion of falsifiability for politically engaged scholars interested in the fight against genocide in the early 20 th century)

The Research Process Babbie (1995) Social Science Research, p. 101

Methods & Fundamental Assumptions u “Savoir, pouvoir, prévoir” (Auguste Comte) F To know, to be able (to have power), to predict the future and plan for it F To know, to be able (to have power), to predict the future and plan for it F Knowledge as power (to acquire skills for social action, change, forecasting) u “décrire, comprendre, expliquer” (Gilles Gaston Granger) F describe, understand and explain F Knowledge as understanding

Classification of Theories to Understand Different Approaches n Paradigms, other typologies (like quantitative vs. qualitative) n direction of reasoning (induction, deduction, abduction) n level of ‘reality’ (micro, macro) n forms of explanation n theoretical frameworks n degree of abstraction

Identifying Styles of Research: Example of Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches (common about yrs ago but still used) Neuman (2000: 16) Quantitative vs. Qualitative ObjectiveSubjective VariablesProcesses and events ReliabilityAuthenticity Value-Free Explicitly Stated Values Independent of ContextAware of Context Many cases or subjects Few cases or subjects Statistical Analysis Other qualities Detached ResearcherInvolved Researcher

Research Paradigms n Sets of shared patterns in a scholarly community about what constitutes worthwhile research (Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions) u What problems are worth investigating? u What constitutes an answer? n Different views on how approaches are grouped (cf. Lincoln & Guba)

Assumptions about nature of people & knowledge for use in classifying approaches (Burrell & Morgan)* Subjective vs.Objective Assumptions n n ontology : nominalism realism n n epistemology : anti-positivism positivism n n human nature: voluntarism determinism n n methodology: ideographic nomethetic (laws) (idiographic=unique, singular) *Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1982) “In search of a framework”, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemen, pp

Assumptions about Order/Conflict n Order/regulation) vs. Conflict/Radical Change) n Stability/solidarity Change/emancipation n IntegrationConflict n Functional coordination disintegration n consensus coercion n need satisfaction deprivation

Four Paradigms (Burrell & Morgan) radical humanist radical structuralist interpretive functionalist Conflict/radical change Order/stability/regulation subjective objective

Four Paradigms in Communications Research (Baxter & Babbie 2004)* n Positivism F Once widely taught as same as science F early religious aspect F association with quantitative research n Systems Paradigm n Interpretive Approaches F Verstehen F association with qualitative research F direct observation, context, meaningful action F holistic n Critical Theory Approaches * Baxter & Babbie (2004) The Basics of Communication Research, Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth.

Questions to Ask about Research (Neuman 1999)* 1. reasons for research 2. nature of social reality 3. nature of human beings 4. role of common sense 5. Ideas about what theory looks like 6. explanation that is acceptable 7. good evidence 8. place for values *W. Lawrence Neuman (1999) Social Research Methods. Qaultiative and Quantitative Approaches.Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Example: Positivism n 1. Why conduct research? u instrumental orientation u to predict and control n 2. Nature of Social Reality? u has order u fundamentally unchanging u can be discovered using science n 3. Nature of Human Beings? u self interest, pleasure seeking, rational u operate on basis of external causes, probability u mechanical model of man n 4. Science and common sense? u separate

Positivism (cont’d) n What constitutes Explanation or Theory? u science nomethetic (universal laws) u causal relationships, universally valid n 6. How to judge explanation u use reason : no logical contradictions u Observation, Replication n 7. Good evidence? u observations, empirical knowledge u can be communicated n 8. Social/Political Values? u value-free science u objectivity

Concepts associated with Positivism n Objective Reality that can be studied scientifically (logic & empirical observation) n Variables n Relationships between variables n Quantitative Reasoning

Interpretive Approaches n Why conduct research? u to understand meanings n 2. Nature of Social Reality? u importance of human consciousness u socially constructed u multiple social realities possible n 3. Nature of Human Beings? u people use meanings, have reasons u laws (?) n 4. Science and common sense? u must study common sense, pragmatic

Interpretive Approaches n 1. Why conduct research? u to understand meanings n 2. Nature of Social Reality? u importance of human consciousness u socially constructed u multiple social realities possible n 3. Nature of Human Beings? u people use meanings, have reasons u laws (?) n 4. Science and common sense? u must study common sense, pragmatic

Interpretive Approaches (cont’d) 5.. What constitutes Explanation or Theory F ideographic F “thick” descriptions), semantic relationships F Rules in interpretive traditions= shared beliefs 6. How to judge explanation– as understanding F makes sense to others F Heuristic framework 7. Good evidence? F in context, has meaning for social actors (evocative) 8. Social/Political Values? F does not try to be value free, state biases

Critical Theory as a Paradigm n Why conduct research? u discover structures u change world, action oriented u knowledge is power (from below) n 2. Nature of Social Reality? u changing u conflict (not always visible-myths, false consciousness) n 3. Nature of Human Beings? u have potential but can be mislead u potential realized through collective action n 4. Science and common sense? u idea of objective reality, underlying truths but science can be instrument of oppression

Critical Theoretical Approaches (cont’d) n 5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory u combination of determinism and voluntarism n 6. How to judge explanation u capacity to describe social conditions and promote change n 7. Good evidence? u material conditions separate from subjectivity but facts not neutral n 8. Social/Political Values? u everpresent, promotes activism

“Dimensions” of Research Neuman (2000: 37) Purpose of Study Intended Use of Study Treatment of Time in Study Space Unit of Analysis ExploratoryDescriptiveExplanatoryBasicApplied -Action -Action -Impact -Impact -Evaluation -EvaluationCross-sectionalLongitudinal -Panel -Panel -Time series -Time series -Cohort analysis -Cohort analysis - Case Study - Case Study - Trend study - Trend study -dependent individual -independent family household household artifact artifact (media, (media, technology) technology)