Numbers or Narratives? Exploring Research Methods in Mass Communication

When you're studying mass communication theory, there are a couple of ways to approach it. There are two distinct methods: quantitative and qualitative research. Each has its own strengths, but what sets them apart? And how do they contribute to our understanding of mass communication? Let's explore this by taking a closer look at two studies—one quantitative and one qualitative.

Qualitative Research: The Numbers Game

Quantitative research is all about numbers, using statistical methods to collect and analyze data to give us measurable evidence. According to Simply Psychology, the goal is to produce solid, empirical data that can be measured and expressed through numbers. It's often used to test hypotheses, spot patterns, and make predictions.

In a research study by The Agenda-Setting Journal on agenda-setting in the age of social media, they looked at how social media influenced Costa Rica's 2018 presidential election. They wanted to see if social media could have the same impact on public agendas as traditional media.

Using intense quantitative research, they summarized the data through charts, graphs, and correlation networks. The study looked at the number of social media users at that time, how often users saw posts about candidates, and the level of engagement with election-related posts compared to posts about other topics like local news or technology. This helped them draw conclusions about the impact of social media on the election.

After performing quantitative research through polls and statistical analysis, they found that social media didn't have a direct agenda-setting effect. However, they discovered that the impacts of social media communication went beyond traditional linear and hierarchical agenda-setting because it's omnipresent and expands beyond our previous understanding of agenda-setting.

A graph from The Agenda-Setting Journal’s article

The study found a relationship between social media use and political participation. This provides a clear, measurable link between our online activities and real-world actions.

Qualitative Research: The Human Element

On the flip side, qualitative research focuses on people's experiences and perspectives. It aims to understand the 'why' and 'how' behind human behavior.

As Qualtrics puts it, qualitative research usually involves studying language – words, their meaning, concepts, and opinions. It analyzes the why – what a group thinks and why they hold a certain opinion. This data can be gathered from interviews, social media mining, audio or video clips, and more.

In Internet Research’s article on webmasters as mass media gatekeepers, researchers had in-depth interviews with university webmasters. They wanted to understand how personal preferences, biases, skills, and outside factors like organizational constraints and heavy workloads can influence the information shared on the internet. This can affect how content is presented and controlled.

The sentiment analysis and findings were interesting and provided useful insights. However, the article noted that the study's application is limited since the interviewees weren't diverse enough for generalizations. Instead, they gave specific information based on their own experiences, which couldn't be used to form hypotheses. Feelings expressed in qualitative data are more descriptive than numerical. They add depth and richness to research findings, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the human experience.

Scribbr

Comparing the Two

So, there are two ways of looking at research. Both methodologies made valid contributions to mass communication. One study gave us solid numbers on how much people use social media and how it's linked to political participation. The other study took a closer look at how our own personal biases affect what we see online.

As Scribbr explains, if your goal is to confirm or test a theory or a hypothesis, opt for the quantitative approach. If you want to explore or understand an idea, then go for the qualitative approach.

However, the nature of their contributions differs. Quantitative research identifies trends and relationships on a large scale. It gives us the 'what.' Qualitative research explores the human experience. It provides us with the 'why.'

Clarity Matters

When it comes to clarity, both studies did a great job presenting their findings. However, I found the quantitative study to be easier to understand because it used solid numbers and clear statistics.

The qualitative study, although more interesting, required more mental effort to understand its point. It's worth noting that the qualitative study is unique to the interviewees who took part and cannot be generalized for future use.

In Conclusion

Quantitative and qualitative research methods play crucial roles in mass communication research. They offer different yet complementary perspectives. The real key isn't about picking one over the other, but about appreciating how they blend together to give us a deeper understanding of the world of mass communication.

What are your thoughts on research? Do you agree that quantitative research is easier to interpret? Or do you think that qualitative research is more valuable?

Share your insights, experiences, and questions in the comments section below. Let's continue the conversation and gain a deeper understanding of how research methods work together.

“The Medium is the Message”: Understanding How Technology Shapes Society

What do you think about the impact of technology on our daily lives, particularly in the field of mass media? Technology’s potential to alter society is significant, and Marshall McLuhan, a renowned media theorist, had intriguing thoughts on how technology shapes our society, which he referred to as technological determinism. As Communication Theory puts it, technological determinism is the idea that technology shapes social change and determines the course of history.

For instance, when the weekly newspaper was invented, it allowed everyone within a nation to receive the same news every week. This made people feel like they were part of the same shared culture, which in Helpful Professor’s words, changed human society forever.

Let's explore three aspects where McLuhan was on point and three areas where his ideas might fall short.

Helpfulprofessor.com

Three Strong Points

Thought-Provoking Concepts: McLuhan's critical and cultural ideas were thought-provoking and challenged conventional effects thinking about technology's impact, especially in the 1960s, when the impact of technology on communication was not understood. His catchy phrases like "the medium is the message" and "global village" sparked intense discussions and encouraged us to reconsider how media and technology shape our culture. He brought fresh perspectives to the table.

“The medium is the message”: According to Study.com, McLuhan’s famous statement, “The medium is the message,” implied that it's not just about what the message says; it's about how the message is delivered. McLuhan argued that the medium through which information is conveyed is equally significant, if not more so, than the content itself. Different mediums have unique characteristics that shape our interpretation and understanding of the message. Whether we're reading a newspaper or watching it on TV, the medium influences how we perceive and react to the message, altering its impact and meaning.

“Global village”: McLuhan recognized that technological advancements don't just change our routines; they can also profoundly transform entire societies. According to Study.com, McLuhan described the global village as a situation where all people worldwide would be more connected through modern technology. He shed light on how technology affects our social structures, values, and interactions. This has proven true in the age of social media, where anyone can connect, share experiences, and access information, even when they are not physically close.

Three Limitations to Consider

Oversimplification: Some of McLuhan's ideas oversimplified the complex relationship between technology and society. He presented technology as the sole driving force in society, neglecting the fact that society also influences technology. Understanding the give-and-take relationship between society and technology helps us see the full picture.

Freewill: McLuhan's ideas downplayed individual agency and assumed that society takes a passive role in communication and technology. His ideas assumed that society, for the most part, doesn’t have a say in the advancement of technology and communication. In Understanding Media, McLuhan left “little room for freewill,” according to Pacific Standard. It’s important to remember that our choices and actions play a big role in shaping technology and its effects on our lives.

Cultural Context: McLuhan's ideas were mostly based on Western societies, so they may not apply the same way in different cultures. The impact of technology can vary depending on factors like socioeconomics, politics, and cultural norms. To truly understand its effects, we need to consider the unique cultural contexts where technology is used.

Conclusion

I believe that McLuhan’s global village concept has proven true in the age of the internet and social media. In that sense, it’s clear that technology has completely changed the way that we communicate. Social media has created a more connected and interactive experience, as he predicted.

It can’t be denied that technology has a significant impact on society, but to claim that it is the sole driving force is a narrow view. It's important to consider how society reacts to new technologies. We can take the Metaverse as an example. Despite the availability of cutting-edge technologies like the Metaverse and Web 3, society has largely rejected them. Even major corporations like Google and Meta, who promised to improve communication through these advancements, have not been successful in their efforts.

What are your thoughts on McLuhan's ideas? Do you agree with his emphasis on the medium and its influence? Or do you think there are other factors at play?

Share your insights, experiences, and questions in the comments section below. Let's continue the conversation and gain a deeper understanding of how technology shapes our world.

Mastering Persuasion: Leveraging the Elaboration Likelihood Model

My last two posts explored how I interpret mass media through different communication theories. This week, let's shift gears and focus on creating persuasive appeals using approaches in mass communication.

One model that sheds light on how people process and evaluate persuasive messages is the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). The ELM explains two main routes our minds can take when encountering persuasive information: the central and peripheral. The central route creates a long-term attitude change, while the peripheral route creates a short-term attitude change. By understanding the two main routes our minds can take when encountering persuasive information, we can craft more effective and impactful persuasive arguments. So, how can we tailor our messages to engage both actively involved and passively listening audiences?

Central Route

Study.com states that the central route model uses complex, persuasive messaging, resulting in long-lasting attitude changes. This is because when people process a persuasive message through the central route, they take the time needed to understand all aspects and details before forming their opinion. When we take the central route, we carefully consider the message’s content, weigh the arguments, and think critically about the information presented. The central route requires an elaborate thought process and a high level of cognition. People who are either not motivated to hear the message or cannot clearly receive it are unlikely to bother actively processing it. They will likely instead rely on peripheral cues and passive listening.

Peripheral Route

In Khan Academy’s video below, it’s noted that when we take the peripheral route, we are less likely to deeply process the message's information. Instead, we rely on superficial characteristics and cues, like how attractive the speaker is, how impressive the PowerPoint looks, or how many points the speaker made, to determine whether we agree with the speaker’s argument. This route is more likely to lead to temporary persuasion because it's based on surface-level factors that can easily change. For example, you might be swayed by the person's appearance, the use of attractive visuals, or the presence of a celebrity endorsement without analyzing the actual content of the message.

What impacts how we evaluate persuasive messages?

The ELM suggests that our processing route depends on our motivation and cognitive ability to process the message. Motivation refers to how interested and engaged we are in the topic or the message, and ability refers to our cognitive resources, such as our knowledge and mental energy, to think deeply about the information. Simply Psychology shares that a person is most likely to process a message critically through the central route if they have both high motivation and the ability to do so.

As the Khan Academy video pointed out, outside of the audience’s interest, investment, or processing level, motivation and cognitive ability can also be impacted by changing personal or environmental factors. This could include the audience’s mood, how well they slept, how hungry they are, or if the room is too warm or loud. This makes it hard for communicators to predict how an audience may process their argument or how invested they will be in the topic.

Jack Westin

How does this apply to marketing?

As a future digital marketer, there are three key points to consider when persuading audiences to engage with a product, service, or brand.

1. My audience’s motivations and ability to process information: Is my audience motivated or interested in the topic? Do they have the comprehension skills needed to deeply process this topic? If not, how can I tailor my message to catch peripheral cues?

2. My goals for persuasion: Is this an easy, low-risk decision that doesn’t require in-depth processing, like convincing a consumer to choose one soda brand over another? Or is this an involved decision that requires deeper thought, like convincing a parent to take their child to one pediatrician over another? Should I emphasize facts and create a compelling argument, or should I prioritize visuals and emotional appeal?

3. How to reach both involved and uninvolved audiences: Not everyone in my audience will be up for deep thinking. Some might not have the time, interest, or ability. Suppose I’m advertising to a mixed audience. In that case, I should optimize my messaging to trigger peripheral cues (by using as compelling visuals or storytelling) and create a solid argument based on well-researched points and facts that can be defended if challenged.

The ELM recognizes that not all people process information the same way. Some engage more with the central route, while others rely on peripheral cues. By considering both routes and adapting my messaging, I can increase the effectiveness of my persuasive marketing appeals.

When you're trying to persuade someone, how do you figure out the best way to present your arguments? Do you stop and think about how your audience might react based on their interests or how well they understand the topic? And have you ever managed to grab the attention of both those who are involved and those who are just passively listening? Share your experiences with persuasion in the comments below.

Beyond the Echo Chamber: Analyzing the Two-Step Flow Theory

Have you considered how the influencers and public figures you engage with on and offline impact your opinion of the world around you?

Last week, I shared my experiences with mass communication through the lens of the hypodermic needle theory. That theory suggests that the media has ultimate control over the masses, and society is subject to blindly believing and acting on the information handed to us. While I disagree that the hypodermic needle theory applies to modern audiences, there is another mass communication theory rooted in its principle that takes the broadcast process one step further – the two-step flow theory.

The two-step flow theory acknowledges that mass media holds influence over the control of information shared with society but proposes that people are also influenced by opinion leaders. As explained by Study.com, opinion leaders are respected and looked up to by others and are often considered subject matter experts. And according to Simply Sociology, the two-step flow theory proposes that interpersonal interactions have a significantly more substantial effect on influencing public opinion than mass media. The theory is based on the observation that opinion leaders, directly influenced by mass media, “help shape the views of most individuals in society.”

The Two-Step Flow Theory, Simply Sociology

While the two-step flow theory was initially proposed to explain the 1940s presidential election decision-making process (which still rings true today in politically coded news organizations), the theory has significant implications in marketing and advertising, particularly in social media.

More traditional opinion leaders include late-night talk shows and podcast hosts with strong political affiliations, like John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, Ben Shapiro, and Steven Crowder. As Mr. Sinn points out in the video below, more and more people are getting news from people they trust due to growing mistrust of the media. Unfortunately, this would mean that people are no longer searching for facts but searching for the opinion of someone they trust – which will always result in a skewed perspective.

I fall into the follower category when it comes to my news-gathering and sharing habits. I, like many of my peers, am capable of recognizing that only listening to news sources that affirm my beliefs results in an echo chamber of validation. Despite this, I generally return to the same opinion leaders for information and share the information I learn from these sources with those around me. For example, during the height of COVID, I quickly shared vaccine and pandemic-related segments from John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight with those around me and on social media. More often than not, I turned to sources like John Oliver or to trusted podcast hosts and YouTubers like news commentator Philip DeFranco before reading news media for myself. When I hear information from an opinion leader I trust, I share it with my friends and family as fact without ever looking into its validity.

This is demonstrated further in my life when considering social media influencers and influencer marketing. As an avid podcast listener, I am every day, multiple times per day, confronted with sponsored podcast ad reads. Despite knowing that the creator I’m listening to is being paid to give an ad read, I still am easily swayed by my favorite creators when I hear them talking about a product recommendation. In fact, I prefer and continue to purchase many of the products and services commonly advertised on podcasts directly as a result of hearing advertisements, including Raycons, Liquid IV, MeUndies, Quip, StitchFix, Dollar Shave Club, Warby Parker, and Honey.

George Milton

The two-step flow theory immediately affects my purchases and news-gathering and sharing habits. It’s undeniable that opinion leaders have incredible sway over the masses, and even when I can recognize it, I still am subject to its influence. I’m curious how the two-step flow theory applies to your own experiences. Are you more of an information follower of what others share or more of an opinion leader finding and sharing things yourself? Do you find that you are easily swayed by the recommendations or opinions of influencers and leaders? Have you ever made a purchase purely at the recommendation of an influencer you admired? Share your experiences in the comments below.

Injecting Ideas: Evaluating the Impact of Media Influence

The Hypodermic Needle Theory (often associated with the 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in which radio listeners took a fictional entertainment broadcast as fact and prepared for an alien invasion) is a theory in mass communication that operates under the assumption that audiences are passive listeners susceptible to the messages of mass media. This theory assumes that mass messaging has powerful and immediate effects on audiences and that listeners or readers will take all messages distributed from an authoritative source, such as news broadcasts or articles, at face value. This theory, if believed, would indicate that mass media powerhouses have the authority and mean to wholly and instantly control a population's opinions, worldviews, and actions.

This assumption of audience vulnerability has since been challenged. Especially in the modern age of social media and collective intelligence, mass media's influence has seemed less impactful than in generations past. As a millennial / Gen Z "cusper" myself, I've found that even throughout my lifetime, I've experienced a shift in how I and those around me consume information and decide what is true. When I was younger, I took a cue from my parents and took mass media as fact. My worldview operated on the assumption that the nightly local news was fact and newspapers were the ultimate source of truth. It wasn't until I was in my later teenage years that I turned to the Internet to research the information I was being fed. As I grew to rely on the Internet as a source of information, I've found that I almost always disregard stories shared by news outlets as biased or incomplete. As I learned to turn to crowd-sourced knowledge, my vulnerability to mass media messaging has reduced significantly.

Cottonbro Studio

A recent study from Pew Research Center showed that, while most American adults still are more likely to trust information from news organizations, adults under 30 are now just as likely to trust information from social media. I find this to be true in my own life and the lives of my peers – we often share user-posted information we find on TikTok or Instagram and turn to sources like YouTube or Twitter for validity.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became evident that not all audiences interpret messaging the same way. In 2020, the Pew Research Center reported that up to one-quarter of Americans disregarded news outlets' coverage and even the CDC’s warnings of COVID and believed the pandemic to be fake or intentionally planned. According to this study, this belief was swayed by many factors, including education level, political association, race, and location. For some, they had to experience the impacts of COVID first-hand before believing in its reality. This wide variance in beliefs supports a more modern approach to communication theory – mass communication doesn't operate in a vacuum, and a combination of personal factors contributes to how messaging is interpreted and received.

Another factor to consider when evaluating the validity of the Hypodermic Needle Theory is how broad mass media has become compared to the 1930s when the theory was first introduced. While in the mid-20th century, Americans were limited to one or two news sources, Americans now have unlimited access to dozens of publications and news media broadcasts. According to a recent YouGov report, Americans are likely to listen to sources that agree with their pre-existing beliefs and worldview. Many Democrats are more likely to trust news published by CNN, while Republicans lean towards right-wing broadcasters like Fox News. Given the wide disparity in trust between platforms depending on political affiliation, it's clear that the modern American audience will filter information through their pre-existing worldview and assign more validity to news sources that support their beliefs.

Perhaps the Hypodermic Needle Theory may have been more applicable to mass communication as it was in the mid-20th century, but I find that most modern Americans express deeper autonomy and are unlikely to take media at face value. I’m curious to hear your experiences—do you know people around you who take all news as fact, or do you believe your peers think independently when confronted with new information? Share in the comments below if you have a different take on mass media influence. After all, part of ensuring your worldview is based in fact is being open to opposition.