Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide

Journal of Communication

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 615-628

  Benoit, William L ^a   Holbert, R Lance ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH WORK;

EID: 58149197765     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00404.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (2002). The negativity effect in political advertising: A meta-analysis. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 83-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Allen, M., & Priess, R. W. (1998). Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
3. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335-350.
5. Benoit, W. L., & McHale, J. P. (2003). Presidential candidates' television spots and personal qualities. Southern Communication Journal, 68, 319-334.
6. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Berg, B. L. (2006). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
8. Boster, F. J. (2002). On making progress in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, 473-490.
9. Bradley, S. D. (2007). Neural network simulations support heuristic processing model of cultivation effects. Media Psychology, 10, 449-469.
10. Bradley, S. D., Maxian, W., Freeman, J., Wise, W., & Brown, K. (2007). Cognitive moderation of the cultivation effect: Processing strategy and remote memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
11. Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172-193.
12. Bryant, F. B. (2000). Assessing the validity of measurement. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 99-146). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
14. Campbell, K. E., & Jackson, T. T. (1979). The role and need for replication research is social psychology. Replications in Social Psychology, 1, 3-14.
15. Chaffee, S. H., & Hochheimer, J. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the 'limited effects model'. In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 5 (pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50, 133-156.
20. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
21. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Gerber, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.
24. Gerbner, G. (1977). Comparing cultural indicators. In G. Gerbner (Ed.), Mass media policies in changing cultures (pp. 199-205). New York: Wiley.
25. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The "mainstreaming" of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10-29.
26. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Charting the mainstream: Television's contributions to political orientations. Journal of Communication, 32, 100-127.
27. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
29. Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7, 291-301.
30. Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Holbert, R. L. (2005). Debate viewing as mediator and partisan reinforcement in the relationship between news use and vote choice. Journal of Communication, 55, 85-102.
32. Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W.-C. (2002). The role of communication in the formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs, 69, 296-310.
33. Holbert, R. L., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women's rights. Journal of Communication, 53, 45-60.
34. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
35. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of analyzing indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 553-569.
36. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Commentary on the uses and misuses of structural equation modeling in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage handbook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 185-218). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
37. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
39. Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165-172.
40. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
42. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
43. Lamal, P. A. (1991). On the importance of replication. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication in the social sciences (pp. 31-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44. Lazarsfeld, P. F, Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice. New York: Duell, Sloan, & Pearce.
45. Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 177-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
47. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
48. Morgan, M. (1987). Television, sex-role attitudes, and sex role behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 269-282.
49. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
51. Pan, Z., & McLeod, J. M. (1991). Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 18, 140-173.
52. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53. Potter, W. J., & Chang, I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 313-333.
54. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Irvington.
55. Rosenthal, R. (1991a). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
56. Rosenthal, R. (1991b). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication in the social sciences (pp. 1-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
58. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
59. Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1999). Nature stories. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
60. Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120.
61. Shrum, L. J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Shrum, L. J. (2007). The implications of survey method for measuring cultivation effects. Human Communication Research, 33, 64-80.
63. Shrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
64. Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447-458.
65. Signorielli, N. (1991). Adolescents and ambivalence towards marriage: A cultivation analysis. Youth & Society, 24, 314-341.
66. Signorielli, N. (2003). Prime-time violence 1993-2001: Has the picture really changed? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 36-57.
67. Signorielli, N. (2004). Aging on television: Messages relating to gender, race, and occupation in prime time. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 279-301.
68. Simon, A. F., & Iyengar, S. (1996). Toward theory-based research in political communication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 29-33.
69. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (1998). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 41-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. New York: Rand McNally.
72. West, M., & Gastil, J. (2004). Deliberation at the margins: Participant accounts of face-to-face public deliberation at the 1999-2000 World Trade Protests in Seattle and Prague. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 1-7.
73. Williams, D. (2006). Virtual cultivation: Online worlds, offline perceptions. Journal of Communication, 56, 69-87.
74. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agriculture Research, 20, 557-585.