The Handbook of Global Media Research

10 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
The Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics, edited by R obert S. Fortner ... 1 Comparative Research :rnd the History of Communication Studies.
Handbooks in Communication and Media This series aims to provide theoretically ambitious but accessible volumes devoted to the major fields and subfields within communication and meclia sntdies. Each volume sets out to ground an d orientate the student through a broad range o f specially commissioned chapters, while also provicling the mo re experienced scholar and teacher with a convenient and comprehensive overview of the latest trends and critical directions. T he Handbook of C hildren, Media, and D evelopment, edited by Saudra L. Cal11e1·t and Barbam ]. Wilson T he Handbook o f C risis Communicatio n, edited by W Timothy Coombs a11d She1'1'y]. Holladay The Handbook of Internet Studies, edited by Mia Consalvo and Charles Ess T he Handbook of Rhetoric and Public Add ress, edited by ShaJJJn ]. Parry-Giles and ]. Michael Hogan The Handbook of C ritical Intercultural Communication, edited by Thomas K. Nalmyam a and Rona Tamilw Halualani The Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics, edited by R obert S. Fortner and ]~ Maril Facllle1· T he Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by 0y11ind Ihlen, Jennifer Bartlett and Ste11e May T he H andbook of Gender, Sex, and Media, edited by Karen Ross The Handbook of Glo bal Health Communication, edited by Rafael Ob1·ego11 and Sil11io Waisbo1·d T he Handbook of Global Med ia Research, edited by Ing rid Votlwie1·

The Handbook of Global Media Research

Edited by Ingrid Volkmer

Forth coming T he H andbook of Internatio nal Advertising Research, edited by Hong Cheng T he Ha ndbook of Global O nline Jo urnalism, edited by E11genia Siapem and A n dreas Veg/is

@)WILEY-BLACKWELL A joh n Wiley&. Sons, Ltd., Publicat ion

T his edit io n first published 201 2 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the exceptions of C hapter 17 and C hapter 29 © BBC 1'vleclia Action

Contents

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in tcbruary 2007. Blackwell's publishing program has been merged with Wiley's global Scientific, Tech nical, and i\1lcdical business to form Wi ley-Rlad.....vcll .

Registered Office john Wiley & Sons, Ltd , The Atrium, Southern Gate, C hichester, West Sussex, P019 8SQ, UK

£ditorinl Offices 350 Main Streer, Malden , MA 02 148 -5020, USA 9600 Garsingron Road, Oxford , OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium , Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO 19 8SQ, UK For derails of our g lobal edito rial offices, for customer services, and for information about how apply for permissio n to reuse the copyright material in this book please sec our website ac www.wik)•.com/wiley- blnckwcll.

lO

The rig ht of Ingrid Volkmer to be ide ntified as the author oflhc editorial material in rhis work hns been asserted in accordance wi th the UK Cop)•right, D esigns and Patents Ace 1988 . All rig hts reserved . No pare of rhis publicatio n may be reproduced, srorcd in a retrieval system , o r transmitted , in an)• form or by any means, electro nic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or o therwise, except as permitted b)• the UK Copyright, Desig ns and Patcllls Act 1988, withou t the prior permissio n of the publisher. Wiley a lso publishes its books in a variety of electronic fo rmats. Some content that appears in prim may nOL be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish t11eir products arc often claimed as rrademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book a rc trade names, service marks, trademarks or regisrcred trademarks of t heir respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product o r vendor mentioned in this book. This publicatio n is designed LO provide accurate a nd authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered . It is so ld on the understanding that the publisher is nor engaged in re ndering professional services. If professional ad vice or o ther expert assistance is required, the services ofa competent professional should be sought.

Notes o n Contri butors Introduction

viii

l

I11grid Volllmn· Part I

History of Transnational Media Research

1

Comparative Research :rnd the History of Communication Studies john D .H . Douming

2

Global Media Research and Global Ambitions: The Case of UNESCO

3

Cees ]. Hri11leliull Global Media Research: Can We Know Global Audiences? A View fro m a BBC Perspective Gm.ham lvf)1tton

7 9

28

40

Library of Congress Cntnlogi11g-i11-P11blicntio11 Dntn Handbook of global media research / Ingrid Volkmer. - lst ed . p. "n. - (Handbooks in com munication and med ia ) Includes bibliographical refere nces and index. ISBN 978 - 1-4051-9870-7 (hardback) l. Mass media- Research- Methodology. 2. Mass media and globalization. P91.3.V635 20 12 302 .23072-dc23 20 120 15390 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: Spiral of television screens© Ian Mc Kinncll/Gell)' Cover desig n by Simon Levy Set in 10/ 12.5pt Galliard by S Pi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed and bound in tVlalaysia by Vivar Printing Sdn Bhd 2012

Part 11

4 I. Title.

Re-conceptualizing Research across Globalized Network Cultures

Media and Hegemonic Populism: Representi ng the Rise of the Rest ]rin Nedel'Peen Pieterse 5 Digitization and Knowledge Systems of the Powerful and th e Powerless Snslliri Snsse11 6 Media Cul t ures in a Global Age: A Transc ultural Approach to an Expanded Spectrum Niclt Coutrfry rind Audreris Hepp 7 Deconstructing the " Methodological Paradox": Comparative Research bt:t:ween Natio nal Centra li ty and Networked Spaces Ingl'id Vollonel'

SS

57

74

92

llO

520

Anno Godfrey, Miriam Burton, and Emily LeRoux-Rutledge

Deane, J. (2009 ): Least Responsible, Most Affected, Least Jn formed: Public Understanding of Cl.imate Change in Africa. BBC WST Policy Brief, http:,Jdown loads.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/pdf/wstrust/PB_climatcchange_web.pdf. Gillespie, M. (ed.) (2005) Media Audiences. Maidenhead, UK and New York: Open University Press. Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) Human Impact Report: Climate Clm11ge, t/Je A11ntomy of n Silent Crisis. Geneva: Global Humanitarian Forum. Goffman , E. (1974) Fm111eA11(1lysis. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hall, S. (1980) Encod ing, decoding, in S. During (ed.), Tbe Cultural Studies Render. London: Ro utledge, pp. 90- 103. Intergovernmenta l Panel o n C limate C hange ( IPCC) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report: Cliwnte Cba11ge 2007. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kohn, M .L. (1987) Cross-Natio nal Research as an Analytic Strategy. American Sociological Association, l 987 Presidential Address, Awerican Sociological Rc11ieJJ1, 52, 713- 731. Livingstone, S. ( 1990) Interpreti ng televisio n narrative: how viewers sec a story, ]ournnl of Comm1111icatio11, 40 (1), 72-82. Livingstone, S. (2003 ) On tl1e challenges of cross-national comparative media research, European Jou.rnnl ofC01111mmicn.tion, 18 (4), 477-500. Mbow, C. et nl. (2008) T he history of enviro nmental change and adaptation in Eastern Salou m, Senegal: driving forces and perceptions, Global Cha11gc and Plm1ctary Chm1gc, 64 (3-4), 210-221. Mertz, O. et nl. (2009) Farmers' perceptio ns of climate change and agricultural adaptatio n strategics in ru ral Sahel, Envil-011111e11tnl Ma11ageme11t, 43 (5), 804-8 16. 0yen, E. ( ] 990) The imperfections of comparisons, in E. 0yen (ed.), Compamti11e Metbodology, Tbeory a11d Pmctice i11 foternntio11nl Socinl R esearcb. London: Sage, pp. 1-18. Steier, F. ( 1991) Reflexivicy and methodology, in F. Steier (ed .), R esearc/J a11d R efle.>ci11it,•. London: Sage, pp. 163-185. Stern, N. (2006) The Stem Re11ieJJ1 1m the Ecollowic Effects of Cti111nte Chmige. London: HM Treasury. Van der Geest, K. (2004) ""We're ma11agi11g!" Cliwnte Cba11ge mid Lilielibood V11l11embility i11 Nortbwest Gbm1a, Research Reporc 74. Leiden: African Studies Centre .

30

Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Nations Models and Challenges of Coordinated Collaboration Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch

The Rising Tide of Comparative Communication Research It is no longer necessary to urge communication scholars to "go international" in their research . T here is now a widespread appreciation of the potentials of cross-national collaborations and comparative research. This is clearly indicated by a steadily mounting body of literature and a growing number of cross-national research projects . Political changes and technological advancements have clearly supported this trend. The end of the Cold War and _the onward march of globalization have made it m uch easier for scholars to exchange ideas and meet with their colleagues from afar. At the same time, new comm un ication technologies have triggered the rise of institutionalized international networks o f scientists, as commun ication between researchers and coordi nation of large-scale international projects has become easier than ever before. It is no exaggeration to say that, over the last ten years or so, comparative research has become a somewhat fashionable area in the study of media and communication. T here arc many substantial reasons for such a growing interest in looking beyond natio nal borders: an increased awa reness of globalization as a process that is very much related to communicatio n processes and the development of the contemporary mediascape, a growing awa reness of inte nsifying transnational media concentration, and the ever more widespread use of the [nternet for facilitating easier access to information around the world. It is in these recent years that comparative research on media and communication has moved fro m mere description to explanation, from conceptual oversimplification to theoretical sophistication, from juxtaposition of coun tries to a theory-driven selection of cultures, and fro m often anecdotal evidence to methodological rigor. These developments have clearly demonstrated the rich potential and power of comparative approaches

TI1c Handbook of Globnl Medin Rescm·c/1, Firsc Edition. Edited b)• Ingrid Vo lkmer. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Led.

522

Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Nations

even to open up new avenues in communication and media research . We wou ld ljke to mention fo ur major areas where comparative research can prove its superiority. Pint, most scholars argue that comparative research is "valuable, even indjspensable, for establjshing the generality of findjngs and the validity o f interpretations" derived from single contexts (Kohn 1989, p. 77). In so doing, it forces us to revise our interpretations agai nst cross-cul tural differences and inconsistencies. O nl y comparative research allows us to test a theory across diverse setti ngs and evaluate the scope and significance of certain phenomena, which itself is an important strategy fo r concept clarification and ve rification (G urevitch and Blumler 1990). The argument o f poli tical scientists Foweraker and Landman ( 1997, p . 46) also ho lds true for the realm of media and communication research: since the real world cannot be subjected to experimental control, comparison acts as a substin1te for experi mentation. Second, comparative research no t o nly contributes to our understanding of the workings of media and communication in different cul tural contexts but also helps us develop and contextualize the understanding of our own societies (Gurevitch and Blumler 1990). Without cross-national comparison certain natio nal phenomena may become naturalized even to the extent that they remain invisible to the domestic-bound researcher. In this respect, comparative research can be seen as an an tidote to eth noccn trism. Third, an d related to the point just mentioned, comparative research can prevent us from overgeneralizing fro m our own, often idiosyncratic fo rms of media and conununicatio n. Jt helps us realize that Western conceptual thinking and normative assumptions underpin much of the work in our field and that imposing them on other cultures may be dangerous. In this regard , comparative research can clearl y contribute to the development of universally applicable theory, while at the same ti me it challenges clai ms to universali ty (Esser and Pfctsch 2004; Livingsto ne 2003). Fourth, and lastly, engaging in comparative work helps us foster international scholarshjp and sustain netwo rks o f researchers across continents. It facilitates internatio nal exchange of knowledge between scholars and institutions, including those operating in regions not yet adeq uately represented in our field. In treating t11e world as a "glo bal research laborato ry", comparative research enables scholars to learn from t11e experiences and initiatives o f others. In so doing, it makes an im portant con tributio n to a global knowledge society. While the value and success of co mparative research is clearly undeniable, it often req uires extensive resources in ter ms of time, manpower, fund ing, and infrastructure. Cross-natio nal projects usua ll y swallow up far mo re resources than do mestic endeavors. The acquisitio n o f central funding fo r large-scale comparative field research is extremely difficul t as most fundin g bodies still operate on the national level. While collabora tio n is certainl y a key to solving man y problems related to mostly scarce resources in acade mic research , there are also many substantial reasons why collaboratio n makes a lot of sense. One of t11ese is that the collective cultural expertise o f a collabo rative research network can never be achieved by a single researcher. T his ho lds true even if collaborative research is sometimes described as "exhausting", "a nig htma re", and " frustrating" ( Livingsto ne 2 003 , p. 481; see also Jowell 1998).

523

Scholar

Figure 30.l

Context A

Context B

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

Basic model of international research (Hasebrink and Herzog 2002).

Henc~, the guest.ion is not whether or not collaborative research is a worthwhile

~~enu e 111 co 111p ar~t1v~ resea r~h . The more pressing question is how to organize and anage collabora t1v.e 1 ntern~t1onal comm w1ication research effectively. This will be the foc us ~f the following sections. The various models we will discuss are drawn from Hasebnnk and Herzog (2002) and ar~ put into the broader context of our own experienc.cs and th.ose of colleagues. In particular, we will evaluate the models witJ1 regard to their respective advantages and d isadvantages.

Early Forms of Comparative Research We may call the. first model fo r organi zing and managing comparative communication research the baste model (Figure 30.1).

~n. ~1e basic 1~1odel, communication scholars no longer wan t to confine their research act1v1.t1es to t11e1r hom.e coun tr)'. but wish to draw conclusions from a comparison of the ot11e1 c?ntexts of t11e1r respective home systems. Although thjs approach involves the companson o f two or more contexts, it can not be seen as gen uinely international in nan1r~, as .res~archers ar~ hardly a ~lc to ti·eat the various contexts on an equal basis. Resea1che1s us~ng the basic model will most likely observe the otJ1er context (B) through t11e lens of their ~lome context (A). The home context therefore serves as a backdrop _ and often the po 111t of reference - fo r the subsequent examination and evaluation of the ot11er contexts. T his kind ~f comp.arative research is very popular because it rninimizes many problems usually assoc1at~~ w1t11 cros~-cul n1.ral researc.h . It seems very efficient and inexpensive, an~ one can can Y.o ut a project without hav111g to bother with a netwo rk of collaboratots. However, maJor problems may occur if researchers do not recogni ze and acknowled~e how. deeply embedded . their un its of analysis arc in the cultural, historical , and soc~al settings of the respective contexts. Moreover, comparative research wit11in t11e basic. model may lead to in terpretations t11at lack contexnial knowledge. Researchers are not likely to have an eq ual cu lniral expertise in all investigated con texts, and t11is likelihood further decreases wit11 t11e number of contexts compared in a sn1dy. Investigators

Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Notions

Fronk Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch

524

I

International research center ($$$)

I

-l

525

Central research institution ($$$)

l

!

l

Context A

Context B

Context C

Context D

Scholar A

Scholar B

Scholar C

Scholar D

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

Context A

Context B

Context C

Context D

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unit of analysis

1 Unltof analysis

Figi.u e 30.2 Centralized model of international research (Hasebrink and Herzog 2002 ). (SSS indicates research dollars and illustrates who is o btaining monetary funding for research projects) are eq uipped with specific cultural experience acquired in tl1eir respective cultures, and tl1ey tend to see, more or less conscio usly, other contexts through tl1e prism of tl1eir own cultu ral socialization . Altho ugh tl1c perspective of an o utsider can sometimes be an advantage and help contextualize culture-specific o r even idiosyncratic evidence, many facets of a culture can on ly be understood and properly in terpreted fro m within. O nly after years of doing onsite research and read ing countless books may a researcher be reasonably eq uipped to carry o ut an adequate and equal comparison of two contexts. T his beco mes even mo re difficu lt with tl1e number of contexts investiga ted . Researchers will have to process massive amo unts of info nnation and tl1is may easily exceed a researcher's capabilities. One way of overcoming tl1e deficiencies of the basic model is to switch to tl1e centralized model (Fig ure 30.2), where an internatio nal research institution takes the lead in a project. Ideally these " international research centers" employ communicatio n scholars from vari o us contexts who provide extensive expertise o n foreign media systems. Such centers arc ideal institutio ns fo r centrally controlled , com petent, in -ho use comparative internatio nal research. U nfo rtunately, we have not seen many successful exam ples of th is kjnd of cooperation. O ne example was tl1e European Media Institute, which no longer operates in tl1e way it was originally designed . T he iJ1stitutio n was not able to secure tl1e necessary fu nds to suppo rt its infrastru cture and bod y of researchers fo r a longer period of time. T his already points to o ne of the centra l problems of the centralized model: it requires substantial and reliable fundjng to sustain its o perations and tllesc fu nds are difficult to secure, especially in times of global econo mic volatility. Two institutio ns of tlus kind sti ll in existence are Freedom H o use and IREX. F reedom H o use annua!Jy publishes its widely used Freedom of the Press index, while IREX provides a Media Sustainabilit')' Indc.'I: summarizing the condi tio ns for independent media in eig hty mostly developing and transitio nal counu·ies. T he two institutio ns are mainly funded tlwo ugh American mo ney, most no tably from USAID, and tl1is may indicate anotl1er weakness of the model: due to tlie glo bal political economy of academic research, tl1ese internatio nal research centers arc often financed by institutions from tl1e West. Not surprisingly, tlle flo w of money is o ften accompanied witl1 Western conceptual thinking (e.g., definitions of " press freedom" ) and metllodological preterences. Tlus, at least in

Figure 30.3 Correspondents model of international research (Hasebrink and Herzog 2002). ($$$ iJ1dicates research dol lars and illustrates who is obtaini ng monetary fun ding for research projects) the past, led some critics to complain about " research imperialism" and a strengthening of existing economic and cultural dependence (Halloran 1998, p. 45). Special care needs to be taken in the centralized model about the cross-cultu ral sujtability of concepts used and normative standards employed to prevent misleading o r even invalid conclusio ns fro m being drawn. A slig htly different fo rm of o rga ni zing and managing international comparative research is the. correspondent model (Figure 30. 3). The correspondent model still relies on a central research institutio n, but it is less staff- intensive and less dependent on a centralized infrastructure. T he idea here is that a "cen a·al institution" - which can be any scholar's office, university department, o r no n university institution - o btains fu nding fo r a comparative project, usually tl1roug h a g rant from a national or tra nsnational science foundation. T lus central institution, or headquarters, develops a conceptual framework and research methodology first, and tl1en contacts com mu nicatio n researchers (A- D ) in the various contexts (A-D) who can be considered experts in the study's main area. The contacted collaborators, o r "satellites", must accept tl1e theoretical framework and research design; they serve as natio nal ex perts whose core responsibi li ty is simultaneo us data collectio n. Synchroni zed data gatl1eri ng is supported by va ri ous stru ctural measures ( like centrally distributed guidelines and instructio ns) to guarantee equivalence of case selection and research methods. Once tl1c field research is completed, correspondents return tl1eir da ta to the central institutio n where it is analyzed and interpreted witl1in the tl1eoretical framework decided upon earlier by the principle investigato rs. Th is model req uires detailed coordination and tight super vision of the work carried out by the natio nal correspo ndents in o rder to secu re equivalence on all levels across all contexts. If successfi.Jlly executed, the correspondent model is capable o f generating equivalent, comparable results tllat can be interpreted consistently. In many cases, however, participating scholars would prefer a mo re democratic management that also allows fo r mo re room for personal research interests. I n fact, the correspondents model wo rks best if the participating researchers arc prepared to " take o rd ers" fro m tl1e headquarters and are prepared to participate in a project tl1at leaves

526

Fronk Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch

them with limited academic freedom. The workAow in thjs model is built on a clear hierarchy based on centralized funding and plaiming. For all these reasons, in practice this model is usually realized in much softer less hierarchical forms. Nonetheless, even in more moderate fo rms, this model has t~ deal with problems similar to those raised with regard to the centralized model. Central research institutions are often located somewhere in Northern America or Central Europe where large grants and technical resources for large-scale comparative projects are readier available. Stevenson (2003) compared the academic world to the centerperiphery model described by Immanuel Wallcrstein and concluded that colleagues at the "periphery" often have problems finding adequate resources to carry o ut even modest projects. It is fo r this reason, Stevenson says, that some lack experience in advai1ced research techniques and have Limited possibilities to produce work that gets accepted for publication in journals controlled by scholars at the "center" (e.g., US-based academic journals). In the face of the political economy ofreseai·ch , Stevenson often sees scholars from the more privileged West in the "driver scat" of large projects. At the same time he sees participating researchers fro m the periphery who are concerned about an imposition of Western theories, concepts, methods, and publication strategies on the project that have not been thought through. It follows that all participating researchers should be aware of a. p.otentially substantial and diverse range of perspectives witrun a project, and that participants may have different cultural backgrounds, as well as distinctive understandings o.fteam work, division oflabor, work structures, information exchan ge, and , perhaps most 1mportai1tly, communicatio n habits.

Collaborative Research T he previo us models of ma11aging a11d coordinati ng comparative research may not be subsumed under t11e category of "collaborative research". Co!Jaboration entails more intellectual freedom fo r all participating reseai·chcrs in a project and is therefore much better sui ted to ilie realities of international research where academic resources are ~neven ly disa·ibuted. Collaborative research mcai1s t11at parmers can bring in t11cir mtellectual capabilities and cultural expertise at any stage of ilic project. Furthermore, collaboration also entails cooperative exploitation of a project in terms of publication track and academic reputation. A more democratic model is t11e coordinated cooperation model of international research (Figure 30.4). T he network basically consists of researchers (or institutions) from different contexts whose positions within the project arc generally considered equal except fo r t11c fact iliat one scholar ser ves as "project coordinator". The main difference to the previous model t11erefor~ is t11at all involved research ers participate on an eq ual base in t11e development of t11eones, concepts, research design, and reseai·ch tools. T his type of coordinated cooperation is t11e kind of research network promoted by the Emopean Commission. In order to facilitate rescai·ch initiatives from across EU member states, the European Commission launched t11e "Framework" funding program in 1984 iliat is built on an

Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Nations

527

Scholar B ($) as coordinator

Scholar A ($)

Scholar C ($)

Scholar D ($)

Context A

Context B

Context C

Context D

Units of a nalysis 1-4

Units of analysis 1-4

Units of a nalysis 1- 4

Units of analysis 1-4

Figme 30.4 Coordinated cooperation model of international research (Hasebrink and Herzog 2002 ). ($ indicates research dollars and illustrates who is obtaining monetary funding for research projects) understanding of research as coordinated cooperation. In addition to t11e "Framework" funding program where the entire gra nt is provided by Brussels, there is a second scheme by the European Science Foundation (with "Eurocores" ai1d t11e " Research Networking Program ") whe re participating researchers are responsible for securing additional fu nding to cover field research in their respective coun tries. The coordinated cooperation model is currentl y gainjng ground in comparative communication research. In its most frequent fo rm, researchers gather at international workshops ai1d conferences prior to the actual start of the project to reach an agreement on all necessary steps. Then, t11e project coordinator - who in most cases is t11e same person who initiated t11e project - develops a "master research proposal" that is shared among all participating collaborators. T hese researchers know t11eir respective contexts extremely well, which makes it possible to realize more complex research designs with several analytical foci. Often tlus model is realized wit11o ut the involvement of EU institutions and just relies on the participants' abili ty to obtain funding from ilieir respective national science fo undations. O ne recent example fo r such a strategy of coordinati ng and managing comparative research is ilie "Foreign News on TV" study that involves researchers from about twenty countries and is headed by Akiba Cohen (see his chapter in this volu me, C hapter 31). A major problem of t11e coordinated cooperation model is that participating researchers have to come to ai1 agreement on conceptual and methodological decisions on a volun tarily basis, and this can turn out to be difficult fo r many reasons. Livingston (2003) hit a point when she said t11at at many project meetings researchers find t11emselves not only comparing t11eir findings but also their theories, methodological preferences, research ethics, writing styles, and pu blication sa·ategies. Livingston makes another important point in noting that participating researchers must be able to sustain good working relationships across geograplu cal distances and over a considerable tin1e period. Some colleagues, she writes, may suffer from difficulties with writing and worki ng in a fo reign language; some may be affected by limited funding and institutio nal suppor t;

Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Notions

Frank Esser and Thomas Honitzsch

528

Schola r B ($) as coordinator

Scholar A ($ )

Schola r C ($)

Scholar O ($)

Contexts A- 0

Contexts A- 0

Contexts A-0

Contexts A- 0

Unit of analysis 1

Unit of analysis

Unit of analysis

Unit of analysis

2

3

4

Figtu-e 30.5 Coordi nated, fully comparative cooperation model (Hasebrink and Herzog 2002). ($indicates research dollars and illustrates who is obtaining mo netary funding for research projects)

others may even experience anx1ct1cs concerning issues of data ownership and intellectual property that may arise during the collaboration process. In sum, comparative work relies not o nly on time, funding, and mu tual interest but also on goodwill and trust (Livingston 2003). All these points need to be addressed ahead of time to avoid irritatio ns that often surface in later stages of a project. T here may be substantial scientific problems as well. The participating researchers have to find a solution fo r how to deal with different academic cultures and scientific sociali zatio ns. Too much theoretical diversity can serio usly threaten a collaborative project. The first option to deal with theoretical dive rsity is a centrali zed strategy where one theory is decided o n and all potential alternatives arc being disregarded. Swanson (1992) labeled this the "avoidance strategy" . T he second path is a theory- neutral strategy where data gathering is planned without any guiding theory and the theory-work o nly enters the picture much later when the results arc being interpreted. Swanson called this the "pre-theoretical strategy". T he third strategy is the least commo n deno minator approac h, where the project is guided by a very general and very broad theoretical perspective that serves as an umbrella fo r very di vergent scientific approaches. Swanson called it the "meta- theoretical strategy". Personal experience tells us that reaching an agreement o n which theories to use has always been a difficult decisio n. T he coordinated cooperation model is the prerequisite for the last and most advanced cooperation model - the co01·diuated,fully comparative cooperation mod el (Figme 30.5). T his model refers to the data analysis stage after all data have been gathered in the different contexts. In the data gathering stage, scho lars examine their own home country, but in the data analysis stage, each scholar works with the entire dataset and analyses research questions that involve all the contexts in the project. In this way, it becomes a fu lly comparative project. Every participati ng scho lar examines a different unit of analysis (or research question) and compares all contexts with regard to this aspect. T he coordinated, fully comparative cooperation model is the most adva nced

529

because it requires the various researchers to have sufficient background knowledge on all participating contexts in order to reach meaningful interpretations of the results. This model of cooperation is actually more common in the nan1ral sciences than in the field of media and communication research. One reason may be that media phenomena tend to be strongly determined by cul ture and language, and scholars will rarely feel confident enough to draw competent comparisons across many societies and cultures. Another reason may be lack of interest and a predominantly regional focus . The idea that scholars from around the world would collectively interrogate the data often fails because scholarship, like news, is mostly local. Researchers arc often more interested in interpreting their own national data and then publishing the data in local journals. A third problem is that collaborative projects require frequent and extensive meetings for scholarly exchange and mutual planning. T he reality, however, is that international conferences, which provide convenient opportunities for project meetings, often leave little time to discuss matters thoroughly.

Toward Institutionalized Forms of Collaboration: The Worlds of Journalism Study Research projects are not always static enti ties. They often change, grow, and evolve from small pilo t studies into large-scale comparative endeavors. In the course of their evolution, these projects may go through several stages, in each of which taking a different shape in terms of project coordin ation and management. The "Worlds ofJournalism Study" (www.worldsofjo urnalism.org), initiated and coordinated by one of the authors of this chapter, belongs to this category of projects. T he study was initially set up in 2006 as a pilot project granted by the German Research Foundation. T he overall purpose of the project was to map journalistic culnll'es onto a grid of common dimensions and explore their variation across nations, various types of news organizations, and different professional milieus. T he grant covered field research in Germany and five additional countries. The project coordinator exclusively designed a conceptual model that served as a theoretical framework fo r the study (Hanitzsch 2007). The researchers in the other five countries received subsidies from the German headquarters and hence ser ved as "correspondents" with limited academjc freedom with respect to the conceptual ground on which the study was built. The cooperation strategy therefore followed the correspondents model. As the project became better known in the scientific community, several researchers from additional countries expressed their interest in participation, extending the range of coverage to twelve countries in earl y 2007. Since this first "enlargement" happened at a time when the research design was being developed, the study switched to another model of cooperation, the coo1·dinrited cooperation model. Principal investigators from the vario us countries gathered fo r a three-day meeting in order to discuss the research design and research tools on the basis of a draft that was prepared by the coordinator: Whi le field research had already started in some of the countries, the network contmucd to grow larger, in part because researchers from a number of countries brought in

530

Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch

their own money and partly because additional central funding from tl1c Swiss Natio nal Science Foundatio n allowed tl1e inclusion o f some mo re countries. This res ulted in a mixed model of cooperation. T hose who joined early participated in tl1e develo pment of an appropriate methodology, wh ile the latecomers had no chance but to accept tl1e overall conceptual and mctl1odological framewo rk. Furtl1ermo rc, the study even gradually moved to the application of the coordinated, fully comparative cooperation model as some o f the project collaborators participated quite actively in data analysis and interpretation well beyond the scope of tl1eir respective countries. The example shows that tl1e five discusse~ models of coordinating and managing comparative research projects arc actuall y 1deal-t)1pe models. Most of the time a study may actually fall between two models o r move across models over the course of ti me. Today, the Worlds of Jo urnalism Study has evolved into o ne of the largest collaborative endeavors in tl1e field of jo urnalism research, as it brings togetl1C1· scholars from mo re than twenty countries, spanning almost all major regions of tl1e world. T he project ~1as no t o nly generated various conference presentatio ns and publicatio ns in respected JOUrn.als (e.g., Ha1~itzsch ct al. 2010, 2011 ) but has also been successfu l in creating a g ro w111g commu111ty of research ers who collaborate in terms of conceptual ideas, methodological develo pment, data gathering, and collective publicatio n . As tlie members of tl1e netwo rk tl1oug ht about the po tential of repeated replicatio ns o f the project, a sixtl1 model of cooperation started to take shape: tl1e imtittttionalized democratic cooperation model. As with the previo us five models, scholars o f media and communicati o n do no t have to rein vent the wheel here. Several neighbo ring disciplines, such as sociology, psychol ogy, and the po litical sciences, have Jo ng implemented fo rms of institutio nalized and truly dcmo~ratic collabo ration . A well-kno wn example is the Wo rld Values Survey (WVS), which traces peo ple's values and beli efs in more tl1an eighty countries. Bo rn o ut of tl1e European Values Survey that started in the early 1980s, it is to day coordi nated by the reno wned political scientist Ro nald Tnglehart. In terms of inte rnal coordinatio n and management, tl1e WVS is steered by an executive committee whose members are elected. H ow can comparative researchers benefit fro m such an institutio nali zed network? T he Wo rlds o f Jo urnalism Study's statute mentio ns a few impo rtant reasons (sec http:// www.wo rldsofjournalism.org/statu tc.htm ): first, an institutio nalized fo rm of collaboration provides a permanent intellectual platform fo r the exchange of ideas and evidence, as ~vei l . as for ~onceptual and methodological discussions; second, it helps establish and mamta111 sustainable collabo rative partn erships; third, it will ultimately generate a rich data pool to which all participating researchers wiJI have access; fourth, it will make it easier to acquire funding for research projects that cut across national and cultural ~oundaries as an established institutio n may be mo re successful in approaching alternative and no nacademic sources for central funding; and , ft/th, an institutionalized model can create and foster a communi ty of researchers with common interests and make it much easier to receive help fro m colleagues in specific countries. In early 2011 the Worlds of Jo urnalism project was therefore turned into the Wo rl ds of J~ urnalism Stud y, which is now governed by an Executive Committee (EC) that consists of elected scholars representing all majo r wo rld regio ns. T he responsibilities of

Organizing and Managing Comparative Research Projects across Nations

531

the EC are the principal coordin ation of the study, acquisitio n o f central funding, recruitment of new members, and organizatio n of workshops and meetings. Decisions about tl1c network's future strategy and research projects are ultimately subjected to the general assembly. In addition to the EC, a Scientific Advisory Committee is in charge of the develo pment o f comparative concepts, research designs, and methodo logical tools. Looking at o tl1er disciplines tliat have lo nger histories in comparative and crossnational research, we think th at collaborative and institutio nalized forms of cooperation will be the future. T hese modes of collaboration may require mo re deliberatio n and patience as the number o f participants grows and with them, inevitably, the number ofoften conflicting - ways of going about comparative research . At the end of the day, however, collaborative and institutio nalized models of cooperatio n may turn o ut to be extremely effective in generating large datasets across ti me and space, furtl1er opening up new avenues and o ppo rtunities fo r comparative researchers.

Conclusions Before embarking o n a comparative cross-national project it is important to decide o n a formal model o f cooperatio n . T he models we have discussed here draw o n ideas put forwa rd by Hasebrink and Herzog (2002). T he funding siniatio n often predetermines the selectio n of a model. An impo rtant motivation for other scho lars to join a comparative project is summarized in tl1 c principle of "give a little, get a lo t" (Stevenson 2003). In otl1cr words , in return fo r co ntributing a small amount of data o n o ne' s o wn coun try, each collabo rato r is pro mised the complete dataset in return . The und erlying hope is tl1at individual participants will find creative ways of analyzing tl1c data and of testing hypotlleses in a way that wo uld no t be possible when being li mited to tl1c scope of data fro m a single country only. T he second project principle is a promise to " seek collective publicatio ns" ofrcsul ts while encouraging participants to also publish o n tl1eir own. For some, an individually autl1o rcd chapter in a book published in Europe o r th e Uni ted States is an impo rtant professional achievement. For o tl1ers, local publicatio ns in tl1e local language arc mo re impo rtant. A " worst case scenario" is tl1at tlie effort to coordinate tl1c project becomes too time and energy consuming, with tl1c result that the project is never fu lly completed and fu lly published (a fate suffered by several collaborative international projects in our field) . Ano tl1er real danger is that so many compromises are made between tl1e participants (in terms of tlieo ry and metl1od) that the study beco mes so uno riginal and no ninnovative tllat its results simply canno t compete witl1 tl1c state of the art in the field anymo re. An " ideal scenario", based o n mutual exchanges between in ternational academic communities and suppo rted by national and internatio nal associatio ns, would be tl1e emergence of strong tics between collaborating researchers. These could then set tl1e stage for cross-cul tural projects that would be sufficiently funded to cover all costs for research, administratio n, and travel , wou ld stimulate teaching, address socially relevant questio ns, and generate intrig uing results tl1at leave a profound imprint o n tl1e respective field of research.

532

Fronk Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch

R eferences Esser, F. and Pfetsch, B. (eds) (2004) Comparing Political Co1mmmicn.tion: Theories, Cases, mid Challenges. New Yo rk, 1'1Y: Cambridge University Press. Foweraker, J. and Landman, T. (1997) Citizenship R ights a11d Social Movements. O xford, UK: O xford University Press. Gurevitch, M. and Blumler, J.G. (1990) Comparative research: the extending fro ntier, in D .L. Swanson and D . N immo (eds}, Nc1V Directions in Political Comm1mication: A R esource Booll . Newbu ry Park, CA: Sage, pp. 305- 325 . Hallo ran , J.D. (1998) Social science, commun icatio n resea rch and the T hird Wo rld ," Media De11elop111ent, 2 , 43-46. Hani tzsch, T. (2007) D econst.ructing jo urnalism culture: towards a universal theory, Co1111111micn.tio11 Theory, 17 (4}, 367- 38 5. Hanitzsch, T. , Anikina, M., Berganza, R. , Cangoz, l., Coman, M., Hamada, B., H anusch, F., Karadjov, C.D ., Mellado, C., Moreira, S.V., Mwesige, P.G., Plaisance, P.L., Reich, Z ., Seethaler, J., Skewes, E.A., Noor, D .V. and Yuen, K.W. (2010) Modeling perceived influences o n journalism: evidence fro m a cross-natio nal survey ofj ournalists, J our11a/ism a11d Mass Co1111mmication Qj1m·terly, 87 (1}, 7- 24 . H anitzsch, T., H anusch, F., Mellado , C., Anikina, M., .Berganza, R. , Cangoz, I. , Coman, M., Hamada, B., Hernandez, M.E., Karadjov, C.D ., Morei.ra, S.V., Mwesige, P.G., Plaisance, P.L., Reich, Z ., Seethaler, J., Skewes, E.A., Noor, D .V. and Yuen, K.W. (2011 ) Mapping journalism cuJn1res across natio ns: a comparative study of 18 countries, ] 011rnatism Studies, 12 (3), 273-293. H asebrink, U . and Herzog, A. (2002) Vergleichsweise schwierig: Internatio nale Kooperation, in K. H a fez (ed.), Die Z11k1mft der I ntem ational Ve1gleiche11dc11 K111111111milm tionsn1isse11schaft in Deutsch/and. H amburg, Germany: Deutsches Ubersee-Institut , pp. 155- 169 . Jowel l, R. (1998) How comparative is comparative research1, Americn.11 Behm1ioml Scientist, 42 (2), 168- 177. Ko hn, M.L. ( 1989) Cross-natio nal research as an analytic strategy, in M .L. Kohn (ed .}, Ci·ossNatio11al Research in Sociology. Newbuq• Park, CA: Sage, pp. 77- 102. Livingstone, S. (2003) O n the challenges of cross-natio nal co mparative med ia research, Eu.ropcn.11 Journal ofC01111111micn.tio11, 18 (4 ), 477- 500. Stevenson, R.L. (2003) Mapping the news of tJ1e world, in B. Dervin and S.H . Chaffee (eds}, Co1111111micatio11, a Differc11t Ki11d of Horse Race: Ermys H o11oring liichard F. Carter. Cresski ll, N J: Hampton Press, pp. 149- 165 . Swa nson, D .L. (1992) Managing theoretical diversit)' in cross-natio nal studies of poli ticaJ communicatio n, in J.G. Blumler, J.M. McLeod, and K.E. Rosengren (eds}, Co111pamtfoety Spenki11g: Co111111unicatio11 and Cult11re across Space a11d Time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 19- 34.

31

Benefits and Pitfalls of Comparative Research on News Production, Content, and Audiences Akiba A. Cohen

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determ ined what kind of media genres have been sn1died the most, but an educated guess would seem to indicate that ncivs has been examined more often and more in-depth than any other content fo rm. Taking into accoun t all traditional and new media - newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet news do mi nates the scene. While proponents of every kind o f fictional content might say that their do main is of paramo unt importance in peoples' lives, news can be critical, even a matter of existence. As Shoemaker ( 1996) suggested, people are "hardwired for news". People use information that is provided as news, consciously and unconsciously, in a variety o f fo rms and via diffe rent platfo rms to assess their situation , to plan the co mi ng day (as well as the more distant future), and to take note of threats and potential dangers. Yet it is not always simple to determi ne what news is and which events are newswo rthy. Professionals who deal with such events o n a daily basis, namely journalists and editors, select events and convert them into news items but they do not always agree on the process. In our day and age, most news is provided by four media: newspapers, radio, television , and the Internet. Of the fo ur, television is probably the most ubiq ui tous. Wherever one goes today, including some of the most remote places around the globe, you will encounter it. Even if you travel in a country where the language spoken is totally strange and unfa miliar to you, if you tu rn o n the television set in your hotel room you will im mediately recogni ze a newscast when yo u see it. Moreover, if you are a person interested in what is happening around the world - and have therefore traveled to that country - you arc likely to grasp a gist of some of the things that arc being narrated o n the screen. But can we say that news is news is news? Yes and no ! In recent decades, scholars in many countries have been studying television news. T hey have been do ing so not only because it has justifiably been considered as a major 171e H rmdbook of Globnl Medin R esenrc/J, First Edition. Edited by lngrid Vo lkmer. © 20 12 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd .