Communication 501: Methods of Inquiry

How Do We Study Communication?

Professors Valerie Manusov and Philip Howard

Course meets Mondays and Wednesdays 1:30-3:20 in 321 Communications

Office hours:

Manusov (353 Communications), 543-1459

Mondays 3:30-4:30/Wednesdays 11:30-12:30 and by appointment

manusov@u.washington.edu

Howard (227 Communications), 221-6532

Mondays and Wednesdays 11:30-1:30 and by appointment

pnhoward@u.washington.edu

Course description:

Inquiry is the process of asking—and answering—questions. This course is designed to look more closely at the question-asking/answering process for learning about the nature, processes, and effects of communication. Because communication processes and implications can be investigated with a range of methodologies, this course also provides an overview of some of the most important modes of inquiry used to investigate communication practices, especially those done by faculty within out department. The breadth of coverage in this course reflects a commitment to pluralism in methodologies within the discipline. In this course, students explore the inquiry process in general as well as the utility of different methods for investigating different research topics, defining and measuring concepts, reading texts, and investigating theories.

Course objectives:

An understanding of—and an appreciation for—a variety of approaches to and methods of inquiry
A critical understanding of the utility of various methods, with a particular emphasis on their applicability, strengths, and limitations as well as a broader sense of the assumptions behind them
A sophisticated sense of the contributions of both qualitative and quantitative research methods
An ability to think in ways that facilitate methodological cosmopolitanism (as opposed to methodological provincialism)
A strong sense of work different from your own, leading to an ability to read broadly and critically in the discipline and to talk about research with colleagues who have different approaches

As much as this is a class in methods, it is also an opportunity for you to choose the questions and themes you find most interesting in the study of communication. Thus, following discussion of generating ideas/questions, this class will be a workshop in which instructors, students, and guest lecturers can present ideas on how and when to use different methods of inquiry. Although you are required to try your hand at different methods, you have wide freedom to select the topics of your research; much of the content of this class will depend on the topics that interest students. Students will finish the course with a good reference packet of notes, reviews, and other handouts. E-mail will be used frequently to conduct class business and carry on debates outside of class time.

Course requirements:

There are several important assignments in this course that will comprise the grades students receive for the course. The first involves a series of small written assignments (discussed later in this syllabus). The assignments are meant to get students engaged actively in thinking about possibilities for their own research and for themselves as researchers. They are also meant to help students get feedback on the parts of a possible research project prior to putting the full project together (the final paper). Given that the majority of readings we are doing for this course are discussions rather than specific inquiry papers, each student is also required to choose an article, preferably from a communication journal, that they think represents good work. Each student should make copies for all other class members and for the two instructors. Each student will also discuss the article briefly in class (5 minutes). This assignment will be discussed more in class.

Grade breakdown:

Participation (10%): Students are expected to participate actively in class discussions. Regular attendance and contributions to the discussion of assigned readings and each other’s work will result in a high grade.

For the following, please use APA 5^th edition writing style.

Position Paper (10%): In order to get students involved in reading, assessing, and discussing others’ research as well as their own, each student will sign up to bring in an inquiry-based paper using a particular method. These papers (and the accompanying critique) are due the day that the particular method (e.g., ethnography, experiments) is assigned. No more than two people may sign up for any particular method. Students should bring a copy of the paper, marked up to note where the author(s) provide (R) a rationale for the topic and/or method, (A) the parts of the argument the authors’ build for their study, (RQ/H) research questions and/or hypotheses, and (M) the type(s) of methods chosen. The student should also write up a review and critique of this reading to help him/her lead discussion on that day, 2 pages maximum. The paper/discussion should focus on the validity of the authors’ choice of method, given the argument, rationale, and research questions. The student should not go into other details.

Assignments Related to Final Paper:

Assignment 1 - Posing Questions and Providing Rationales (10%): Each student should write-up a brief statement of your overall guiding questions/concerns that you may wish to address in your research proposal. This write-up should include a rationale (some of which at least should be academically-focused) and citations of sources, if you make claims that need such support. 2 pages maximum (plus a reference list, if applicable).

Assignment 2 - Making a Case (15%): After working through the general goals and questions orienting a research process, most research next involves reviewing existing literature and framing specific research questions and/or hypotheses. Provide a brief literature review, 4 pages maximum, on the topic you’ve selected and use it to help you frame some specific questions/hypotheses you may be able to answer.

Assignment 3 – Choosing a Method (10%): Begin this paper by reiterating your research questions or hypotheses from Assignment 2 (these may look different, if you have made changes since writing the last assignment). Then, present a possible method that will allow you to address those RQs or Hs. It is very likely that students will need to look at other sources on the particular method to get enough information to write this section. Please review how methods are described in other articles that use the same method you are choosing. 3 pages maximum.

Final Paper:

Study Proposal (50%) – This should be a complete research proposal, including rationale, literature review, research questions, hypotheses if any, particular methods to be used, human subject ethical considerations, timeline, writing plan, and, if necessary, budget. This can be the research plan, 15 pages maximum, for a larger Master’s or Doctoral level research project. For more details, see the end of this syllabus. For those doing rhetorical and some critical papers, the final version may look somewhat different than these guidelines. We will make the comparison in class.

Course schedule:

Because the nature of inquiry is question asking, this course is based around a series of questions.

1. Why Do We Do Academic Inquiry?

What are the goals of academic inquiry? What are we trying to accomplish in our research activities? What are the specific kinds of phenomena or processes that communication researchers study? Whatever the goal of research, what is the responsibility of the researcher?

January 3 The Initial Inquiry Process: What Should We Study and Why Should we

Study It?

Becker, S. L. (1984). The interesting question: A prescription for vitality. Central States

Speech Journal, 35, 1-7.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. C., & Williams, J. M. (1995). The craft of research (Chapter

2, Connecting with your reader). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Due January 12: Assignment 1 Posing Questions and Providing Rationales

January 5 Common Divides: Humanistic versus Social Scientific (Guest Speaker: Barbara Warnick)

Nothstine, W. L., Blair, C., & Copeland, G. A. (1994). Critical questions: Invention,

creativity, and the criticism of discourse and media (Chapter 1. Invention in

media and rhetorical criticism: A general orientation). New York, St. Martin’s

Press.

Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method

(Afterword: The promise of social research). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge

Press.

Handout: Types of Evidence.

January 10 Common Divides: Qualitative versus Quantitative

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. (Chapter 4, practical

considerations). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLeod, D. M., & Tichenor, P. J. (2003). The logic of social and behavioral science. In

G. H. Stempel III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication

research and theory (pp. 91-110). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

January 12 Bridging the Divides?

Bavelas, J. B. (1995). Quantitative versus qualitative? In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social

approaches to communication (pp. 49-62). New York: Guilford Press.

Gilner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An

integrated approach (Chapter 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Handouts: Argumentative Fallacies

January 17 – No Class

2. What does Academic Inquiry Look Like?

What is this thing we call inquiry or research? What does it look like? What are the components of research? What does a person do if he or she is doing research? How do we start a research project? What are the key ingredients of a research project? How does this fit with what others have said? Why should we care? How do ethics and broad notions of social responsibility enter into the research process?

January 18 - Framing Specific Questions and/or Hypotheses

Marshall & Rossman (1996). Chapter 2 (The substance of the study: Framing the

research question, pp. 15-only). Designing qualitative research (3^rd edition),

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Handout: Designing Social Science Communication Research

January 20 – What is a Case?

Ragin, C. (1994). Chapters 1, 2, and 3. Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Handouts: Major Forms of Cross-Case Research, Connecting Arguments to Theoretical Paradigms.

Due January 26: Assignment 2 Making a Case.

January 24 – Ethical Considerations

Neuman, W. L. (2000). Chapter 5 (the ethics and politics of social research). Social

research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 4^th ed. Boston: Allyn

& Bacon.

Christians, C. G. (2000). Chapter 5 (ethics and politics in qualitative research). In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 133-155).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Handouts: General Human Subjects Review Facts, Sokal Hoax.

3. What does Good Inquiry Look Like?

What are the attributes of good research or inquiry? What criteria of “goodness” do scholars from different traditions adopt? Should one sense of what makes good inquiry be transferred to other forms?

January 26 - What is validity?

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and

emerging confluences (from p. 178 only). In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 178-188). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Petronio, S. (2002). WSCA presidential address. The new world and scholarship

translation practices: Necessary changes in defining evidence. Western Journal of

Communication, 66, 507-512.

Handout: Types of Causality, Frequency and Sampling Distributions

4. What are Common Research Paradigms in Communication?

There are many approaches to inquiry. Each has particular strengths, and each has limitations. What are the strengths and limitations of each of these? What assumptions underlie each approach to research? What are the key interests of researchers in each of these areas?

January 31 - Surveys

Shoemaker, P. J., & McCombs, M. E. (2003). Survey research. In G. H. Stempel III, D.

H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory

(pp. 231-251). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports

on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.

Handouts: In-Class Survey Design Scenario, 20 Ways To Critique a Political Poll.

February 2 – Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research

Grabe, M. E., & Westley, B. H. (2003). The controlled experiment. In G. H. Stempel III,

D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory

(pp. 267-298). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Chapter 1 Experiments and Generalized Causal Inference and Chapter 14 A Critical Assessment of our Assumptions: pp. 1-32 and 456-504). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

February 7 – Network Analysis

Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of

agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411-1454.

Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic

performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological

Review, 61, 674-698.

Handout: Social Network Analysis Exercise.

February 9 – Observational Analysis

Sillars, A. L. (1991). Observational research. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 197-218). New York: The Guilford Press.

Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 31, 78-108.

February 11 - Historical Approaches (Guest speaker: Jerry Baldasty)

Nord, D. P. (2003). The practice of historical research. In G. H. Stempel III, D. H.

Weaver, & G. C.Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp.

362-385). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tuchman, G. (1998). Historical social science: Methodologies, methods, and meanings.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 225-

260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

February 15 – The Ethnography of Speaking (Guest speaker: Gerry Philipsen)

Philipsen, G., & Coutu, L. (in press). The ethnography of speaking. In R. Sanders & K.

Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of research on language and social interaction. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grazian, D. (2004). The production of popular Music as a confidence game: The case of the Chicago blues. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 137-160.

February 17 – No Class

February 21 - Rhetorical Criticism (Guest Speaker: Leah Ceccarelli)

Benson, T. W. (1994). Rhetorical structure and primate. In W. L. Nothstine, C. Blair, &

Copeland, G. A. (Eds.), Critical questions. New York: St. Martin’s.

Fisher, W. D., & O’Leary, S. D. (1996). The rhetorician’s quest. In M. B. Salwen & D.

W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research

(pp. 243-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

February 23 – Critical Discourse Analysis (Guest Speaker: Crispin Thurlow)

February 28 – Content Analysis (Guest Speaker: Nancy Rivenburgh)

March 2 – Cultural Studies (Guest Speaker: David Silver)

Dahlgren, P. (1998). Cultural studies as a research perspective: Themes and tensions. In

Corner, Schlesinger, & Silverstone (Eds.), International media research: A

critical survey (pp. 48-64). New York: Routledge.

March 7 - Presentations

March 9 – Presentations and Course Wrap-Up

Final papers due Wednesday, March 14, 2003 at 2:30

Final papers: A research proposal

Please provide two copies of your papers, and keep one copy for yourself. The papers should be in APA 5^th edition, double-spaced, standard-sized (12 point) font, with margins on all sides. They should be about 10-15 pages.

The final paper for COM 501 will be a research proposal outlining a project you would like to carry out. This proposal will/should accomplish several things:

It will help advance your own research work, providing you with an opportunity to think in some depth about a project you want to carry out.
It will give you the opportunity to apply many of the ideas and issues raised during the quarter in COM 501; as such, the course will have direct impact on your own research agenda.
It will give you the opportunity to think about which method(s) is/are most appropriate for the work you want to do.
It will also give you the opportunity to begin developing a literature review (which will provide the foundation for your work).

The final paper will be developed throughout the course, with both professors providing feedback on many of the paper’s parts (see written assignments).

Components of the paper:

Statement of research area or topic. The first part of the paper orients the reader to the general topic of the study and identifies the general scope of the area (approximately 1–2 pages)
Significance. Closely tied to the statement of the research area is a discussion of its importance: Why is your research topic worth pursuing? It’s not enough here merely to say that you like the topic; we need a fuller defense of the topic and specifically, some sense of how your project will enhance our (academic) understanding of communication (approximately 1 page)
Literature review. The literature review performs several key functions. First, it details the key work in the field that pertains to the topic you are exploring. Second, it shows how your project builds on--and extends--what has already been written in the field? Third, it provides the conceptual foundation for your work: the key ideas that you are exploring and how have these been discussed to date. Fourth, it presents specific research questions and/or hypotheses that will addressed in your study (approximately 5-10 pages)
Methods. How will you actually go about doing this project? Which method(s) will you use? Provide some detail on the method you will be employing; it is not enough merely to say you’ll be doing a survey, an experiment, or rhetorical criticism. You will need to expand on that as much as possible at this point in the process. For instance, if you are doing an experiment, give us some sense of what you would be testing in the experiment; explain the different experimental conditions that are relevant to your work, and explain how you hope these conditions will further your work. If you are doing historical work, what specific materials will you be examining? How will you examine them? What are the indicators of the phenomena or trends you hope to study? (approximately 2-4 pages). This part will be new to the final paper, as there is no written assignment regarding methods.
Conclusion. Please provide some way to tie up the paper, perhaps addressing any ethical considerations relevant to the project or choices/challenges involved that have not already been addressed (no more than 1 page).