Name: Nikka E.

Macamay PS

University of the Philippines Cebu

Gorordo Ave., Lahug 6000 Cebu City

191.1 – Research Design in Political Science BA in Political Science

Output #4 – Critique Paper #1

Karpf, Kreiss, Neilsen, and Powers in their journal article “The Role of Qualitative
Methods in Political Communication Research: Past, Present, and Future,” presented a
historical take that gave light in the depreciating attention towards the qualitative methodological
research design primarily observed in Political Communication. Karpf et. al. further emphasized
the importance of shedding light on the fields of research that were influenced by the rapid
technological, media, political, and social change. We can deduce from the article that in
contemporary research, most especially in Political Communication, it is a major challenge to
move forward from established and narrowed down quantitative methods towards a new era of
qualitative research and inductive generalization.

Karpf et. al. claims were associated with much thought and retrospection that supports its
organized array of argumentations. In their view, the dominant consensus in political
communication research has discarded the importance of qualitative methods. What will be the
possible effect of this specialization of quantitative methods in Political Communication
research? It is important to acknowledge the contributions that the quantitative research studies
have provided to the pool of knowledge of Political Communication. However, in what the
article was trying to emphasize, the field must not disregard the concerning direction these
quantitative methods have paved for Political Communication studies. With the same reigning
methods, there were observed common kinds of methodological and intellectual consensus,
oriented towards experiment-based testing which uses the same existing theories that will present
a familiar phenomenon. Unfortunately, these familiar phenomena are always the result of
quantitative studies. What will become of the Political Communication field? STAGNATION, a
worrying case of stagnation that will put the field into a compromising disposition. The field will
not prosper in the contemporary world, it cannot keep up with the changes of the technological,
political, and social. It will also limit the formulation of new theories for the field if it continues
to ignore the warning signs of the excessive use of quantitative methods without much
appreciation for the qualitative. Karpf et. al. has commendably supported their argument
throughout the article and I would like to highlight the following parts that contributed to the
clarification of the article:

Basic Structure of Political Communication

The basic institutional structure of political communication research can be divided into 4
parts. First, the spanning of the communication and political science disciplines. Second, is the
distinct fields in each of the respective disciplines. Third, is the anchor of political
communication to the United States academia. And lastly, the political communication research,
oriented in the single flagship journal, “Political Communication." Through the
institutionalization of the field of Political Communication, it presented itself as interdisciplinary
with multiple methods. The first head of the division was Keith R. Sanders who has started
publishing in 1975 for the annual Political Communication Review.

Role of Qualitative Research in Political Communication

In the article, Karpf et. al. did not fail in highlighting the significance of qualitative
research in Political Communication. By providing research examples such as ‘The People’s
Choice’ by Paul Lazarfield, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, and another excellent
example, ‘Politics and Television,’ by Gladys Engel Lang and Kurt Lang. With these examples,
Karpf et. al. has a strong supporting argument that through qualitative research and fieldwork,
there is observed excellence in answering empirical questions which will lead to the
development of new theoretical understandings and the formulation of new theory. All of these
were noted to be lacking in quantitative research. Thus, the role of qualitative methods takes the
part of empirical and theory-building. Karpf et. al. further described how these examples
characterized by their qualitative and mixed methods came out to be one of the strongest political
communication research even before the institutionalization of the PCD. Through qualitative
research, the studies were able to generate new categories through the logic of discovery and not
the 'logic of verification.'

Other Researchers’ take on the Issue

W. Lance Bennet and Shanto Iyengar as mentioned in the article have also taken their
criticism based on their observations of political communication research. Bennet and Iyengar
pointed out how the theoretical advances of the field did not keep up with the social and
technological changes. They described the well-established research as slow in progress whose
path is oblivious to the rapid advance of the changing world. There were also criticisms of the
political communication research from Barnhurst (2011) and Bimber (2015). On the criticisms of
the media effect paradigm, we have Lang (2013), and Neuman & Guggenheim (2011). There are
indeed many reasonable concerns and uneasiness that the field must acknowledge. The ever-
changing political, social, technological scene, must be further analyzed for the field to keep with
its pace.

Political Communication Beginnings

Even before the institutionalization of Political Communication in the early 1970s,

several works and studies have already been published that were part of the political
communication research. The abundant work on the field could date back to the 1930s to 1950s.
In this regard, we could denote the active pursuit of knowledge in the field. One of the prominent
scholars who contributed to its research is Walter Lippman, Robert E. Park, and Harold D.
Laswell whose works are placed at the intersection of communication and politics in 1940-1950.
With the support of the Rockefeller Foundation and U.S. government grants, social scientists
were invigorated to seek into the important issues of their time ranging from the effects of mass
media on society, the impact of television on politics and society, to the interplay of political
communication, democratic processes, and mass media in the "postwar society." As shared, the
U.S. institutionalization of Political Communication research originated with the recognition of
the Political Communication Division (PCD) in 1973 by the International Communication
Association. Some key individuals involved in the start of the institutionalization were Keith R.
Sanders who served as the first President in the history writing section, L. Erwin Atwood to
represent journalism, Dan Nimmo to represent political science, Doris Graber also for political
science, Sidney Kraus to represent theater and Lynda Lee Kaid for speech communication.

To sum, in addressing the current issues of Political Communication Research, a new era
of qualitative research must be born. In bringing back the glory of qualitative methods, the
scholarly understandings in the field will surely expand. If qualitative methods are encouraged
and practiced in political communication research, inductive generalization and theories will
resurface to help the field to get out from the stagnating stage.