BA in Communication Studies

Research Methods in Communication Studies

Social science research informs the practices of various actors, ranging from government to business to nonprofit corporations and beyond. But in order for social scientific knowledge to be used correctly and well, certain principles pertaining to both research methods and data interpretation must be understood. In this introductory research methods course, students will both evaluate the quality and meaning of social scientific research and put the principles of effective research into professional practice. They will also evaluate popular media representations of social scientific research. This work will involve critically analyzing the ways journalists represent the truthfulness, reliability, and validity of social science research; critiquing the design and interpretation of published social science research studies; and evaluating the ethics of research design, implementation, and publication.

Learning Objectives

By the end of the course, you will:

  1. Identify the elements of effective research design using qualitative and quantitative social scientific methods.

  2. Interpret data from social scientific research studies and draw appropriate conclusions.

  3. Evaluate the quality and validity of research findings in published social scientific studies.

  4. Critique journalistic representations of social scientific research findings, assessing their accuracy and bias.

  5. Construct effective research designs for use in professional situations in communication industries.

  6. Communicate the results of social scientific research studies in written and oral formats.

Required Readings

We have one primary course text, which is available freely online:

  • Illowsky, Barbara, and Susan Dean. 2018. Introductory Statistics. Houston, TX: OpenStax.

All other course texts will be provided for you on Canvas; there are no texts that you are required to purchase. It is expected that you will come to each course meeting having thoroughly read the assigned reading and that you are ready with comments and questions to contribute to our group discussions.

Assignments

Research Analyses (60%)

For weeks 5–10, you’ll submit an analysis of a research study and a journalistic article about written about that study (min. 500 words). Your analysis should briefly summarize the arguments made, but then most of your analysis should critique the design and the claims of the original study, as well as the claims the journalist makes about what that study means. Research analyses are due before class on the first class of the week after we have discussed the method.

In-class Activities (40%)

In order to sharpen both your analytical and your practical skills, we will have in-class activities most class meetings. You should come to every meeting prepared to engage in these activities and to be kind, compassionate, and encouraging colleagues who provide honest and helpful feedback to one another.

Grading

Written assignments are graded without numbers. You will not get a grade percentage or a letter grade. Your assignments will be returned to you with one of four designations: Accepted (meaning your assignment is strong as it is), Minor Revisions (meaning your assignment is decent, but you have some areas for improvement), Major Revisions (meaning your assignment needs significant improvement), and Rejected (meaning your assignment is entirely unacceptable). These designations will be provided alongside substantive feedback, and you can revise and resubmit assignments as many times as you like until you receive a designation of Accepted. Assignments receiving a designation of Minor Revisions do not need to be revised; however, assignments receiving a designation of Major Revisions or Rejected must be revised to at least a level of Minor Revisions.

Course Schedule

Week 1, Class 1: Introduction to Social Science Research

No readings

Week 1, Class 2: Theory and Claims

Persell, Caroline Hodges. 1990. “Doing Social Research.” In Understanding Society: An Introduction to Sociology, 26–36. New York: Harper & Row.

Swedberg, Richard. 2014. Introduction and Chapter 1 of The Art of Social Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Week 2, Class 1: Evidence and Explanation

Thagard, Paul. 2013. “What Is Evidence?” Psychology Today, March 13. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201303/what-is-evidence.

Week 2, Class 2: Building a Scientific Argument

Fischer, Claude S. 2010. “Compared to What?” Contexts 9 (4): 84.

Krippner, Greta. “Making a Sociological Argument: Orienting Students to a New Field.” https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/wac/making-a-sociological-argument-orienting-students-to-a-new-field/.

Read for in-class discussion:

Billard, Thomas J. 2019. “What is it to ‘Design’? The Variable Meanings of the Design Concept Among Media and Technology Professionals in an American City.” Unpublished manuscript.

Week 3, Class 1: Descriptive Statistics

Illowsky and Dean, Introductory Statistics, Chapter 1, Sections 1.1–1.3 and Chapter 2, Sections 2.5–2.8.

Week 3, Class 2: Inferential Statistics and Hypothesis Testing

Illowsky and Dean, Introductory Statistics, Chapter 6, Sections 6.1–6.2 and Chapter 9, Sections 9.1–9.4.

Week 4, Class 1: The Crisis in Public Communication About Social Science

Bubela, Tania, et al. 2009. “Science Communication Reconsidered.” Nature Biotechnology 27 (6): 514–18.

Resnick, Brian. 2016. “What Journalists Get Wrong About Social Science, According to 20 Scientists.” Vox, January 22. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/1/22/10811320/journalists-social-science.

Resnick, Brian. 2017. “Study: Half of the Studies You Read About in the News Are Wrong.” Vox, March 3. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/3/14792174/half-scientific-studies-news-are-wrong.

Week 4, Class 2: How to Read a Research Paper

Raff, Jennifer. 2017. “How to Read and Understand a Scientific Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide for Non-Scientists.” Huffpost, December 6. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper_b_5501628.

Read for in-class discussion:

Billard, Thomas J. 2019. “(No) Shame in the Game: The Influence of Pornography Viewing on Attitudes Toward Transgender People.” Communication Research Reports 36 (1): 45–56.

Gillig, Traci K., Erica L. Rosenthal, Sheila T. Murphy, and Kate Langrall Folb. 2018. “More than a Media Moment: The Influence of Televised Storylines on Viewers’ Attitudes toward Transgender People and Policies.” Sex Roles 78 (7–8): 515–27.

Week 5, Class 1: Survey Methods

Illowsky and Dean, Introductory Statistics, Chapter 7; Chapter 9, Sections 9.3 - 9.6; and Chapter 12.

Research to analyze:

Twenge, Jean M., A. Bell Cooper, Thomas E. Joiner, Mary E. Duffy, and Sarah G. Binau. 2019. “Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder Indicators and Suicide-Related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005–2017.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 128 (3): 185–99.

Charles, Shamard. 2019. “Social Media Linked to Rise in Mental Health Disorders in Teens, Survey Finds.” NBC News, March 14. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/social-media-linked-rise-mental-health-disorders-teens-survey-finds-n982526.

Week 5, Class 2: Survey Application: Polling

Zukin, Cliff. 2015. “A Primer of Pre-Election Polls: Why Different Elections Polls Sometimes Have Different Results.” American Association of Public Opinion Researchers, December. https://www.aapor.org/getattachment/Education-Resources/Election-Polling-Resources/Election-Polling-AAPOR-2015-primary_cz120215-FINAL.pdf.aspx.

Week 6, Class 1: Focus Group Methods

Lunt, Peter, and Sonia Livingstone. 1996. “Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communications Research.” Journal of Communication 46 (2): 79–98.

Research to analyze:

Barbara Lee Family Foundation. 2017. “Modern Family: How Women Candidates Can Talk About Politics, Parenting, and Their Personal Lives.” https://www.barbaraleefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/BL_Memo_Final-3.22.17.pdf.

Chira, Susan. 2017. “Mothers Seeking Office Face More Voter Doubts Than Fathers.” New York Times, March 14. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/women-politics-voters.html.

Week 6, Class 2: Focus Group Application: Focus Grouping

Featherstone, Liza. 2018. “Talk is Cheap: The Myth of the Focus Group.” The Guardian, February 6. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/06/talk-is-cheap-the-myth-of-the-focus-group.

Week 7, Class 1: Experimental Methods

Illowsky and Dean, Introductory Statistics, Chapter 10 and Chapter 13.

Research to analyze:

Broockman, David, and Joshua Kalla. 2016. “Durably Reducing Transphobia: A Field Experiment on Door-to-door Canvassing.” Science 352 (6282): 220–24.

Akpan, Nsikan. 2016. “Brief, Face-to-face Canvassing Reducing Transgender Prejudice, Study Says.” PBS News Hour, April 7. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/face-to-face-canvassing-reduces-transgender-prejudice-study-says.

Week 7, Class 2: Experimental Application: A/B Testing

Gallo, Amy. 2017. “A Refresher on A/B Testing.” Harvard Business Review, June 28. https://hbr.org/2017/06/a-refresher-on-ab-testing.

Week 8, Class 1: Interview Methods

Lamont, Michele, and Ann Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Research to analyze:

Finn, Mary A., and Loretta J. Stalans. 2016. “How Targeted Enforcement Shapes Marketing Decisions of Pimps: Evidence of Displacement and Innovation.” Victims & Offenders 11 (4): 578–99.

Bess, Gabby. 2016. “After Backpage.com Sting, Pimps Move to Dating Sites and New Tactics.” Vice, August 15. https://www.vice.com/en/article/evg44m/after-backpagecom-sting-pimps-move-to-dating-sites-and-new-tactics.

Week 8, Class 2: Interview Application: UI/UX Interviews

Pernice, Kara. 2018. “User Interviews: How, When, and Why to Conduct Them.” Nielsen Normal Group, October 7. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/user-interviews/.

Week 9, Class 1: Content Analysis Methods

Illowsky and Dean, Introductory Statistics, Chapter 11.

Research to analyze:

Lynch, Teresa, Jessica E. Tompkins, Irene I. van Driel, and Niki Fritz. 2016. “Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years.” Journal of Communication 66 (4): 564–84.

Strum, Lora. 2016. “Study Tracks 31-year History of Female Sexualization in Video Games.” PBS News Hour, July 8. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/study-tracks-31-year-history-of-female-sexualization-in-video-games.

Week 9, Class 2: Content Analysis Application: Media Monitoring

Agility PR Solutions. n.d. “Media Monitoring: The Ultimate Guide.” https://www.agilitypr.com/media-monitoring-ultimate-guide/.

Week 10, Class 1: Ethnographic Methods

Lichterman, Paul. 2002. “Seeing Structure Happen: Theory-Driven Participant Observation.” In Methods of Social Movement Research, edited by Bert Klandermans and Suzanne Staggenborg, 118–45. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Research to analyze:

Goffman, Alice. 2009. “On the Run: Wanted Men in a Philadelphia Ghetto.” American Sociological Review 74 (3): 339–57.

Forman, James. 2014. “The Society of Fugitives.” The Atlantic, October. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-society-of-fugitives/379328/.

Week 10, Class 2: Ethnographic Application: Corporate Ethnography

Anderson, Ken. 2009. “Ethnographic Research: A Key to Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, March. https://hbr.org/2009/03/ethnographic-research-a-key-to-strategy.

Brogan, Jacob. 2015. “The Case of the Ornamental Anthropologist.” Slate, May 13. https://slate.com/technology/2015/05/netflix-tries-to-put-a-human-face-on-big-data-with-its-own-anthropologist.html.