The difference between empirical and critical research

[natebassett]

So this is something that has been bugging me for awhile. I had a conversation with a POI where I was asked if I see myself as a qualitative researcher or a critical one - he said his work focused on empirical methods so he was wondering how that would suit me. 

 

I was confused. As an undergrad, most of the communications research I was aware of was quantitative methods - content analysis where researchers would "count" something in a broadcast, surveys of viewership and opinions, and so on. I knew about the early comm theory work of Paul Lazersfeld and others like Lippman and Lasswell. Then I went to an MA program at The New School and I learned about critical theory, and qualitative methodologies like ethnography and participant observation. The interdisciplinary nature of a media studies program brings in perspectives from sociology, literary criticism, art theory and anthropology (mostly because it is relatively new and doesn't have a lot of core work of its own). So I got to learn about the Frankfurt School and critical theorists like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkhiemer, Benjamin, Marcuse and of course Habermas. 

 

Back to the conversation, my answer was some sort of compromise - I explained my experience and said I thought that qualitative, emperical methods could compliment critical theory and normative perspectives in research. After the conversation though I looked for a way to answer that question and so I found these two sources which I think will help out anyone who is looking for the right "fit" and unsure of the flavor of a department and it's faculty. 

 

The Origins of Empirical Versus Critical Epistemology in American Communication by Dustin W. Supa

 - this is a short overview of the relationship that Lazersfeld had with Adorno and the rift that's developed in communication research between the two approaches. 

 

The Empirical Stance vs. The Critical Attitude by Darrell Patrick Rowbottom

this is more a supplementary piece about the philosophy behind those two perspectives and how dogmatic each are

 

so, keep in mind: as an undergrad you may be aware of the difference between quantitative and qualitative methods. BUT there are also epistemological differences ("how true is something we think is true and how do we know it") and very different attitudes between a normative or critical approach, and an empirical approach. If you want to go into Communications to do market research for advertising or political communication (along the lines of polisci stuff), it's likely that you will be using quantitative methods with a post-positivist epistemology. However if you want to work with communities to understand their communication and agenda, for instance, activists and social movement studies, then you may wind up doing qualitative work with a social constructivist mindset. And the critical approach is highly normative and very theory based so you will be using a lot of analyses based on things like class, gender and race.

 

If there's anything wrong with the above feel free to call me out!

Edited November 28, 2013 by natebassett

[trizzleYO]

Hah, you seem a bit biased against quantitative methodology.  Hearing about your MA work, this isn't that surprising.  But know, many, many, many researchers use quantitative methods for more than market research / advertising.  Personally, I find experimental data to be of great importance - especially non-self report data.  Which is not to say I do not value other data or philosophical approaches, just that I find experiments to be a great way to explore specific phenomenon.

[natebassett]

Hah, you seem a bit biased against quantitative methodology.  Hearing about your MA work, this isn't that surprising.  But know, many, many, many researchers use quantitative methods for more than market research / advertising.  Personally, I find experimental data to be of great importance - especially non-self report data.  Which is not to say I do not value other data or philosophical approaches, just that I find experiments to be a great way to explore specific phenomenon.

 

Hrm, I don't mean to give that impression (at least not too strongly)... that is interesting what you say about using those methods, I think you're right. I'm used to seeing a lot of criticism about self-reporting and critiques about "public opinion doesn't exist," but I think it's also because I haven't really had the chance to learn/work with those methods (outside of a job in market research of all things). 

 

 

I'd be willing to try mixed methods though if I had the chance! but yes, you've read me like a book

 

What sorts of specific phenomenon are you referring to?

[CommPhD20]

Also, be careful not to conflate "empirical" research with "quantitative" research. There is a good deal of qualitative research that is also empirical, like ethnography and content analysis.

 

Go to the International Journal of Communication (it should be free and accessible online) and look for a feature called "Breaking Boundaries" from 2013. All of the pieces are great, but I'd suggest looking at the very brief introduction and then the back-and-forth between Michael X. Delli Carpini and Geoffrey Baym about methods.

Edited December 6, 2013 by JLRC