critical research and administrative research

8/10/2019 Critical Research and Administrative Research

1/23

20/11/2014 Ruimeng Yang

"

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH METHODS

COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

CRITICAL RESEARCH AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH

Few debates have been as dominant in communication studies as those related to

administrative and critical research orientations within the field. With the emergence of

the study of communication as an academic discipline in the United States in the 20th

century, both orientations have developed rather binary approaches to the scholarly

study of mass communication. The conflict that arose between administrative and

critical research has, due to its dichotomous nature, been so pervasive that it has been

described as the major conflict in mass communication theory history (Peters, 1999, p.

223). While mass communication scholars like Paul Lazarsfeld have tried to build a

bridge between both research orientations, all attempts have ultimately failed (Rogers,

1994, p. 284). The question can then be asked, what made these two orientations so

incompatible with each other?

The goal of this essay is to give a descriptive and analytical overview of the

administrative as well as critical research orientations and their relevance, importance,

and significance in the study of communication by examining key scholars, methods,

and the ideological premises of each orientation. While Paul Lazarsfeld, who is

considered to be one of the founding fathers of communication as an academic

discipline, defined his research as administrative research, the critics of the Frankfurt


2/23


#

school can be described as the first scholars who committed themselves to critical

research. Many scholars chose one orientation over the other; among the most famous

ones is Harold Lasswell, who fell primarily under the administrative research

orientation, as well as C. Wright Mills, whose work can be classified as following the

critical research orientation.

Administrative Research

Understanding of Administrative Research

The terms administrative research was coined by the founder of mass communication

research, Paul Lazarsfeld. In his groundbreaking essay Remarks on Administrative

and Critical Communication Research, Lazarsfeld (1941) bases administrative

research on the notion that modern media of communication are tolls handled by

people or agencies for given purposes (p. 2). Lazarsfeld argued that administrative

research is conducted to serve some kind of sponsoring or administrative agency (1941,

p. 8). These sponsors had a public (e.g. governmental or mass media institutions) or

private (e.g. marketing and advertising companies) character. As a result,

administrative research primarily dealt with questions related to the structure and

operation of the mass media industries as well as to how both can be used in the

service of the sometimes opposing interests of media professionals, investors, and the

public. Because government or mass media institutions funded their research, Simpson

described leading scholars in the administrative research orientation, including

Lazarsfeld and Lasswell, as government contractors (1996, p. 50).


3/23


$

Administrative scholars were thus often criticized for conducting research that

benefits the powerful people in a society such as the government, the military, or mass

media institutions; administrative research was research done for the good of the

powerful. Because governmental or marketing institutions sponsored administrative

research and the role of these institutions was so central in the ideological work of the

administrative researchers, administrative research was not theory-oriented but rather

grounded in practice and empiricism. Because most sponsors were interested in the

short-term effects of persuasion (as they could use the results to their advantage), the

scholars of the administrative research orientation examined these short-term effects in

order to satisfy and secure the sponsors (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 32).

The dependence of the administrative researchers on their sponsors is also

reflected in their assumptions about the status quo in society. Scholars from the

administrative research orientation saw the status quo as fundamentally adequate

(Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 33). As a result, they did not want to make major changes to

the status quo; instead, they saw the status quo as something that can be improved step

by step in order to minimize the problems of society (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 33).

This approach to status quo reflects the assumption of administrative research that the

future will be improved if the developments of the present continue (Davis & Baron,

1981, p. 33). The role of communication and media research was a central one in this

process, as the media are considered conduits for messages whose uses and effects

needed to be evaluated and scrutinized so that the needs of both the public and the

sponsoring institutions can be satisfied. Scholars of administrative research


4/23


%

orientations thus used the empirical generalizations in their findings to improve service

and increase profits of mass media and governmental institutions.

The Founder of Administrative Research: Paul Lazarsfeld

The centrality of Paul Lazarsfeld in the formation as well as promotion of the

administrative research orientation has become obvious in my general overview of the

premise and scholarly nature of the orientation by now. Paul F. Lazarsfeld influenced

communication scholars for generations. He was flexible and used a variety of research

methods in his studies. Rogers described him as an academic entrepreneur who can

cross the boundary between the research in the university setting and the private

industry applied as well as the government (Rogers, 1994, p. 312). As such, he

crucially shaped the field of mass communication research for years and decades to

come, pushing it in a direction that focused on empirical data acquired through the

study of media effects on audiences.

Status Quo in Society Assumption

Lazarsfelds administrative research assumed that the status quo in a society

could be taken for granted. As a result of this assumption, Lazarsfelds research aimed

at making the social order of his time function more effectively by scrutinizing the

structure and operation of the mass media industries so that the needs of both

sponsoring institution, government, and the public can be served. As such, Lazarsfeld

hoped that his research was going to serve the needs of all parties involved (Davis &


5/23


&

Baron, 1981, p. 27). Lazarsfelds earliest studies in advertising research exemplify this

approach: His research was based on a practical problem in the business world, and the

problems solution aimed serve the interests of both business people (increased profit)

and the public (served interests and needs) at the same time (Davis & Baron, 1981, p.

28). This example does not only show that Lazarsfelds research was grounded in the

acknowledgement of the status quo as an inherently adequate frame for society, but

also illustrates that Lazarsfelds research (like all administrative research) considered

the present as its main concern (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 27). It further reflects the

notion of the Lazarsfeld administrative research tradition that the status quo can be

moderately improved by facilitating minor changes that minimize major societal

problems (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 33).

Research Problems Selection

Lazarsfeld was mentioned his interested question as to someone who uses a

medium for something, it is the task of research to make the tool better known, and

thus to facilitate its use (Lazarsfeld, 1941, p. 2-3). He took the given status quo for

granted, the primary objective of Lazarsfelds administrative research was to advance

the status quo by making societal processes and governmental work more efficient. To

put it in his own words, Lazarsfeld was convinced that to someone who uses a

medium for something, it is the task of research to make the tool better known, and

thus to facilitate its use (Lazarsfeld, 1941, pp. 2-3). Lazarsfelds administrative

research probed the links between the power structures in a society and the mass media


6/23


'

(Stevenson, 1996, p. 184). His research primarily focused on media effects on

individual members (and their opinions and attitudes) of an audience. For instance, in

one of his most famous studies, his Radio Research Project, Lazarsfeld examined the

radio and its psychological effects on individuals. In another study, summarized in his

work The Peoples Choice, Lazarsfeld measured mass media influences on voters

during the presidential campaign of 1940; he found that the media had minimal effects

on the voters. These examples show that his choice of research problems accurately

reflected the primary objective of Lazarfelds research on mass media which aimed to

unravel how public opinion is developed, formatted, and changed through media use

(Lazarsfeld, 1941).

Research Framework and Methodologies

Lazarsfelds background and work was interdisciplinary, and he approached his

research problems with mixed methods. He successfully used his background in

mathematics for his involvement in the social sciences to advance social research. He

is considered the founder of modern empirical social research, he using various

techniques, such as questionnaires, field observations, existing records, and generally

giving priority to quantitative data, though without excluding case studies and other

qualitative material (Rogers, 1994, p. 283)

He was a great research method and tool creator, he developed several innovative

methodologies that allowed him to achieve his research objectives. Such as his famous

Stanton Program Analyzer, a data-gathering apparatus that allowed researcher to


7/23


(

analyze media content in relation to its effect on the consumer, whereas the latter

method focused on the experience of a respondent. Lazarsfeld also often used focus

groups to generate hypotheses for his study of media effects (Rogers, 1994, p. 279).

The Role for Communication/Media They Saw

Many empirical scholars attributed the ability to the media to improve the social

problems of a society and to lead gradual social change (Rogers, 1994, p. 122). To

Lazarsfeld, the mass media herewith fulfilled three functions for society: conferral of

status, social norm enforcement, and the narcotizing of dysfunction. However, while

many scholars (including Harold Lasswell) attributed a powerful role to the media,

Lazarsfeld was the first one to question the idea of the powerful mass media. He

thought that media simply conveys and transmit meaning (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 33),

and doubted the power of the media in the creation of its consumers attitudes and

opinions. In The Peoples Choice, Lazarsfeld argued that the media only persuaded a

few individuals, the opinion leaders, who then influenced other individuals. This

two-step communication flow suggests that ideas often flowfromradio or print [the

media] to the opinion leaders andfrom them to the less active sections of the

population (Lazarsfeld, Berelson & Gaudet, 1965, p. 151). Lazarsfeld concluded that

the media is rather ineffective in changing peoples opinions and can only reinforce

existing beliefs.

Administrative Scholar Harold Lasswell

The notion of the media as a powerful means to shape the masses opinions


8/23


)

came from another scholar who can be classified as belonging to the administrative

research orientation: Harold Lasswell. He had a background in political science and

pioneered the scientific method of content analysis. Lasswell focused his work on the

analysis of propaganda.


Lasswell was trained as a political scientist. He used psychology to analysis

political phenomenon and discussed political leaders and how they affect other people.

As well as, he used psychopathology to analyze the characteristics of political leaders,

and tried to explain their political ideas and actions.

Lasswell can be look as a spokesperson for elites class, because he advanced

social elites class could get greater benefits than others. All of the policies should

service for those elites class as well. So his research is service for keeping current

social construction, which is protect current good of leader class as well. That is why

Lasswell could get support from U.S. Department of Justice as well as other

governmental institutions and administrative sponsors. His propaganda research is not

only to analysis and study it, more important is learn how to create it.(Rogers, 1994, p.

224).


Lasswells research interests focused on the study of propaganda, the roles of

leaders and power in the political arena, and the relation of both to public opinion


9/23


*

formation. Based on his analysis of the use of propaganda during World War I,

Lasswell identified propaganda as a socially important problem of his time (Rogers,

1994, p. 215).

Lasswell assumed that if propaganda is used powerfully, the mass media would

be able to persuade anyone (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 36). This led Lasswell to the

conclusion that propaganda had very powerful effects that need to be examined. By

evaluating the effects of propaganda and media uses, Lasswell hoped that his research

could better serve the existing needs of the social order. One of his primary objectives

was therefore to improve the services of the administrative institutions he was serving:

to help the government to create more effective propaganda.

Research Framework and Methodologies

Lasswells propaganda research is for know symbols were utilized in World War I

propaganda making use primarily of interpretive, empirical, and qualitative methods

during this time in order to unravel different propaganda techniques used during the

war. The propaganda research is belongs to content analysis, the main research method

he used as below:

Qualitative and critical research method

In Lasswells early study of propaganda and content analysis in World War I, he

mainly used qualitative and critical research methods, such as newspapers content

analysis of propaganda in U.S. Library of Congress

Quantitative


10/23


"+

As quantitative research developed, he started using quantitative methods in his

study of propaganda in World War II.

Content analysis

Lasswell invented a new methodology, content analysis, which is combining

qualitative and quantitative methods to study communication messages, such as

propaganda messages analysis.


Lasswell was a political scientist more than a communication and media scholar,

he still made great contributions to the development of mass communication. He

believes mass media not only played a very important role for society, but also media

messages is powerful effect on its audience, like his hypodermic-needle model, and it

could be effective tools for governments as well, it is tool of U.S. governments battle

for peoples minds (Rogers, 1994, p. 9).

He is the first scholar who developed a model of the process in which society

communicates. His fivequestions model of communication, which is Who says what

to whom in what channel with what effect, is the dominating paradigm defining the

scope and problem of American communication research. And, at the same time, his

five-question model defined five different communication research fields: Control

Analysis, Content Analysis, Media Analysis, Audience Analysis and Effects Analysis.

His communication effect study did influence Paul F. Lazarsfelds research of

communication effect.

Lasswell is the first scholar to highlight the foundation for communication effects.


11/23


""

His study of communication not only studied communication itself, he also

emphasized foundation of communication in society development. He summarized

three functions of communication in society: surveillance of the environment,

correlation of societys response to events in the environment and transmission. A

fourth foundation, entertainment, was added later by communication scholars

(Rogers,1994, p. 232). This fourth foundation too is still widely accepted.

Critical Research

Understanding of Critical Research

The word critical stems from Karl Marx. Marxism aims at revealing mechanisms

of oppression and thus contributes to the liberation of oppressed groups.

Critical research is not a clearly defined category of research but represents many

different types of research. It can be used in many different types of social scientific

research, beyond social scientific research. As well as can be attached as an adjective

to any number of existing disciplines or methodologies, such as critical sociology,

critical discourse analysis, critical anthropology, critical psychiatry, critical

criminology, critical ethnography and so on. But in communication study, scholars

mainly use critical research methods if they belong to the Marxist, Feminist or

Poststructuralist schools of thought.

Although the research climate of the emergence of communication studies as an

academic discipline was one that had been dominated by scholars who often directed

the study of mass media to the study of media effects, other orientations of research


12/23


"#

emerged nonetheless. Most notably, scholars of the critical research orientation saw a

stark contrast between their work and the work of administrative researchers. One of

the biggest ideological differences between administrative research and critical

research traditions lies in the purpose that both orientations attribute to their research

activities; both view the role of the researcher in fundamentally different, opposing

ways. While administrative scholars were sponsored by governmental or mass media

institutions and their research was thus carried out in the interest of those institutions

(hence, the ones in power) who gained power through social research, critical scholars

saw the role of media research in the interest of the ones who, according to the critical

school, had no power at all: the ordinary people. In stark contrast to that of

administrative research, the critical tradition saw the primary role of social research as

empowering the powerless and as encouraging emancipation (Rogers, 1994, p. 123).

Critical scholars viewed the mass media as a means of the powerful elite to control

society. Because they were economically independent from the institutions they

criticized so heavily (unlike the administrative researchers), critical theorists saw

themselves as a kind of conscience of society, to champion unpopular causes, and to

oppose powerful establishments forces (Rogers, 1994, p. 112).

This self-perception indicated the critical research orientations perception of

status quo in society: They viewed the status quo as inadequate (Davis & Baron, 1981,

p. 33). They argued that it is the status quo and its reinforcement through the mass

media that alienates people. As such, the critical scholars were convinced that the

status quo has to be changed radically in order for humans to fulfill their full potential


13/23


"$

(Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 33). While administrative research assumed that the future

improved if the status quo is maintained, the critical research orientation feared that the

future is going to be worse than the present if the status quo is not changed (Davis &

Baron, 1981, p. 33). It is no surprise then that critical researcher highly criticized the

system as well as the very same powerful institutions that were served by

administrative researchers. The critical scholars were more concerned with the future

of society than with its present.

Another major difference between the administrative and critical research

orientations lay in the different functions they attributed to social research. While

administrative researchers focused their studies on short-term effects because they

could make the institutions preserving the status quo more effective, the critical

scholars were more interested in the long-term effects of the media. While

administrative scholars wanted their research to be practical in the first place, critical

scholars therefore put high emphasis on theory in their work. For the critical school,

theory provided the framework that would allow the scholars to show the masses that

they are being exploited by the powerful institutions in society and that the mass media

is used by these powerful forces to distract the masses from their true, unfree state of

being that was fostered by the capitalist system.

Frankfurt School

Frankfurt school is a great successor to Freud and Marx. In philosophy, the term

critical theory describes the neo-Marxist approach of the Frankfurt School, which was

developed in Germany in the 1930s. The Frankfurt School was a group of critical


14/23


"%

scholars that was influenced by both Marxist and Freudian thought. Among the

members were some of the biggest critics of the capitalist system and mass culture:

Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm,

and Leo Lwenthal. The school initially consisted of dissident Marxists (Rogers, 1994)

who believed that some of Marx's followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of

Marx's ideas, usually in defense of orthodox Communist parties.


The critics of the Frankfurt School viewed the status quo as fundamentally

inadequate (Davis & Baron, 1981, p. 32). While administrative scholars wanted to

preserve the existing social order and accepted the status quo, the Frankfurt School

critics condemned the status quo and did not accept it because, in their opinion, it only

benefitted the wealthy business people (the ones in power) and attributed all control to

the wealthy and no control to the ordinary people. The original aim of Frankfurt

School was to analyze the true significance of the ruling understandings (Rogers,

1994, p.111) generated in bourgeois society, through a Marxist paradigm, in order to

show how they misrepresented actual human interaction in the real world. Frankfurt

School scholars critiqued the inequity society status of one small social class own the

power, then lulling other social members into falsely accepting their conditions

(Rogers, 1994, p. 113). Comparing with administrative research scholars, Frankfurt

School critics condemned the status quo as fundamentally inadequate and cannot be

accepted. They observed the parts of society that they were critiquing and drew heavily


15/23


"&

on the history of their objects of study (Rogers, 1994, p. 112). They are insist social

status quo have to change, for an ideal society with true equality, emancipation, and

the fulfillment of humans full potential, and no exploitation.


The Frankfurt School saw scholarship and mass media theory as an important

instrument to gain knowledge and provide insight into who controls the mass media

industry and into how the construction of mass culture misleads the people. Frankfurt

School focused on emancipation of the proletariat. Their applied approaches to studies

were: who gains and who loses from social research? (Rogers, 1994, p. 123) Their

study involved different fields of society, but their fundamental critique of the existing

society and academic approaches was in three aspects:

Frankfurt School critiqued Positivism for claiming that social science is a form of

false consciousness, which endorses the status quo under a misleading veil of

value-neutrality. (Rogers, 1994, p. 123)

Frankfurt School critiqued Marxism for insufficient emancipation from positivism

and for thinking that the proletariat will inevitably bring about a revolution that will

eliminate alienation and dominance. (Rogers, 1994, p. 124)

Frankfurt School critiqued society for its irrationality in lulling individuals into a

false acceptance of their conditions.

The critical school scholars sought to bring the basic contradictions of capitalistic

society to mass consciousness. Thus, the activities of critical theorists were intended to


16/23


"'

lead to an ideal society without human exploitation. In this they reflected the normative

position of Marxist theory. (Rogers, 1994, p. 124)

In communication study field, Frankfurt School focuses on criticize that, who

controls the mass media industry and how it is construct mass culture then can

misleads public. They believe mass media can creative a long-term and unobservable

effects to mass culture, then they can use those knowledge of mass media effect to help

and push social change, and achieve their aim of ideal society.

Research Method Selection

Most scholars of Frankfurt School had philosophy backgrounds, meanwhilethey

had heavily influenced from Freud and Marxs philosophy thoughts. So they inherited

research orientation of framework and methodologies of critical school, such as

Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, they current unfair society for its allurement of the

people, they criticize positivism were the critical of empirical data as well. They saw

the social sciences as a form of false consciousness (Rogers, 1994, p. 113). Frankfurt

School did not emphasize empirical data, so they mainly uses qualitative research

method, such as content analysis, textual analysis, and literary criticism. Some specific

methods they used, were:

Observation: they observed some part of a social phenomenonwhich they

were critiquing.

Survey: they used survey research method for studying of working-class

family authority attitudes in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland in the early


17/23


"(

1930s.

Interview: in some individual cases, such as Adorno and others who were

studyingAuthoritarian Personality,they used quantitative-type scale research

methods. For example one study interviewed 2,099 respondents including

Berkeley students, psychiatric patients in San Francisco, prison inmates at San

Quentin, Lions and Rotary members and variety of other groups.

The Frankfurt School critics followed an interpretive paradigm and, although

some of their most prominent members had used quantitative methods before, they

primarily used qualitative methods in their work to look at society as a whole. The

methods that were used most commonly were qualitative content analysis, textual

analysis, and literary criticism.

Mass Media as Tool for Deception, Exploitation, and Alienation

Frankfurt School holds idea of mass media has big power not only could influence

the society consciousness, but also played a very important role to connect individual

to mass, but the key point is who owner the mass media. They think the current mass

media system under capitalism is undemocratic essentially, because capitalist leaders

can use their ownership of mass media to transfer the uniformed social value then

creative a untrue needs. Frankfurt School thinks capitalist leaders final goal is use mass

media to control social consciousness and individual consciousness, then to alienate

individuals from achieving their true potential.


18/23


")

C. Wright Mills and His Studies

C.Wright Mills as known as a radical sociologist (Rogers, 1994, p. 297).The

Frankfurt School critics were not the only ones who opposed the work of Lazarsfeld

and Lasswell as well as who criticized the nature of administrative research. C. Wright

Mills was known as a radical sociologist (Rogers, 1994, p. 297). As such, he was a one

of the most persistent critics of the unequal distribution of power in society and of the

dominant trends in the social sciences. Like the critics of the Frankfurt School, Mills

can therefore be classified as belonging to the critical research orientation.

Mills and the Inadequacy of Status Quo

Mills study was focus on the power relations that defined the lives of individuals

in the United States of the 20thcentury. Mills criticized the social class he called

power elite, he criticized status quo that society power in the hands of a small group

of people who exercised control over society as a whole in a way that served their own

best (economic and ideological) interests as well. His study more focus on criticized

US current society then, as same as Frankfurt School, he believes the best solution is

change current unfair structure thoroughly.

Media Research as Social Engineering

As a critical sociologist, his studies focused on criticizing the construction of

social class, politics and power in America of that period. Mills saw the analysis,

examination, and evaluation of the nature of power relations in society as the primary


19/23


20/23


#+

In the latter work, Mills identified what he viewed as right and wrong with the

field of sociology, and he criticized administrative social scientists like Lazarsfeld for

the abstract empiricism that their work was based on (Eid, 2004, p. 222). As a

scholar who was interested in society as a whole, Mills was of the belief that empirical

work failed at studying society effectively. In his research, he tried to inquire social

problems and to located ideas in their social and historical contexts. Mills thinks

empirical work failed at studying society effectively, because the only way to solve the

current social problem. Mills who often used qualitative methods on his studies

developed his concept of the sociological imagination that became his research

framework and main methodology.

Miller criticized Lazasfelds research is abstracted empiricism it is not

characterized by any substantive propositions to theories, he also critical Lazasfelds

research full of political (Rogers, 1994, p. 311)


Like the critics of the Frankfurt School, Mills saw the media as a means of the

power elite to exercise control over the people by exploiting, alienating, and thus

ultimately manipulating them. He believed mass media could analyze, exanimate, and

evaluate the social power relation, then decision-makers can persuade ideologically the

ordinary people. So he thinks his critical research work is to get some knowledge, and

made that knowledge are parts of the public discourse, then used to improve ordinary

peoples life if their findings were.


21/23


#"

Conclusion

My analysis shows that the administrative and critical research orientations have

opposing premises for their study of mass media and public opinion. The ideological

rivalry between administrative scholars like Lazarsfeld and Lasswell and critical

scholars like the critics of the Frankfurt School and sociologist C. Wright Mills were

considered as the key conflict in social scientific research in the 20thcentury. Because

they had fundamentally different attitudes regarding status quo in society, opposing

research objectives as well as different opinions about the role of the media in society,

all attempts to unite the two research orientations into fruitful, collaborative research

endeavors were ultimately doomed to fail.

References

Aronowitz, S. (2012). Taking it big: C. Wright Mills and the making of political

intellectuals. New York: Columbia University Press.

Berelson, B. (1959). The State of Communication Research.Public Opinion Quarterly,

23(1), 1 17.

Bettig, R.V. (2002). The Frankfurt School and the Political Economy of

Communications. In J.T. Nealon and C. Irr (Eds.), Rethinking the Frankfurt School:

Alternative legacies of cultural critique (pp. 81-94). Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Bottomore, T. B. (2002). The Frankfurt School and its critics. London: Routledge.


22/23


##

Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (1981). A History of Our Understanding of Mass

Communication.Mass Communication and Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory

and Effects(pp. 19 52). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Eid, M. (2004). Paul Lazarsfeld's ideational network and contribution to the field of

communication research. Communications: The European Journal Of

Communication Research, 29(2), 199-233.

Gattone, C. F. (2006). The social scientist as public intellectual: Critical reflections in a

changing world. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Geary, D. (2009). Radical ambition: C. Wright Mills, the left, and American social

thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Je!bek, H. (2001). Paul LazarsfeldThe Founder of Modern Empirical Sociology: A

Research Biography. International Journal Of Public Opinion Research, 13(3), 229.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1965). The people's choice. New York:

Columbia Univ. Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1941). Remarks on administrative and critical communications

research. Studies In Philosophy & Social Science, 9, 2-16.

Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1993). History of social research. In R. Boudon (Ed.), On social

research andits language (pp. 271-298). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). THE FOCUSED INTERVIEW. American

Journal Of Sociology, 51(6), 541-557.

Mills, C.W. (2000). The promise. In The sociological imagination: 40th anniversary

edition(pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Oxford.


23/23


Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peterson, T. (1996). The press as social institution. In E.E. Dennis & E. Wartella,

American communication research - the remembered history(pp. 85-93). Mahwah,

N.J.: Erlbaum.

Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach.

New York, N.Y: The Free Press.

Simpson, C (1996). Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological

Warfare, 1945-1960. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevenson, R. L. (1996). International communication. In M. B. Salwen and D. W.

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

181-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

critical research and administrative research

Documents