Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeDiverse nature of communications field leads to questions of its value
February 13, 2006 —
After three years of communications courses, I can say with the utmost confidence that communications is, absolutely, undeniably, the most difficult academic discipline to grasp. Perhaps this is because, unlike students in other fields, graduates of communications are not communicologists, like students of sociology are sociologists or students of anthropology are anthropologists. Studying communications does not afford one a specific title; being an "expert" in communication is somewhat of a misnomer - the discipline is so broad and encompasses so many distinct sub-fields that being a "master" of communication is indeed quite unlikely, if not impossible. Instead, communications scholars study the many, many, many sub-fields of communications, which are so numerous that time and/or space constraints limit even the briefest mention of them.
Thankfully, this piece does not seek to offer a comprehensive explanation of what communications acolytes study. That would be entirely too tedious. Here I intend to informally critique the nature of the postmodern/qualitative methods that some communications scholars employ when doing research.
To begin, it is necessary to offer a brief description of what, exactly, the qualitative method is. Communications scholars define it as a set of assumptions researchers make when conducting research. So, what are these assumptions? Lectures in my Research Methods class reveal several things: researchers approach their topics assuming that groups and individuals construct meaning from their experiences; objective "truths" are impossible to derive from observation and interaction; and a researcher's inherent bias/perspective naturally subverts any claims to objectivity. Of course, there is more to the qualitative method, but this definition will function adequately.
So, given this approach, what do researchers actually do? What do communications scholars actually study, and what kind of conclusions do they make? Unlike the natural sciences - like chemistry, physics, et. al., which make deductions that are often instantly applicable or at least operable - communications and other social sciences can not offer equations or formulas. Human behavior, quite simply, is too unpredictable. So to compensate for this, communications scholars have devised research methods that, rather bluntly, do not seek to postulate. So what value can we assign to conclusions that do not aspire to "truth?"
I am still struggling to make anything out of this dilemma. The qualitative/postmodern philosophy of research and understanding allows for one to study absolutely anything, but under what auspices? For me, "understanding" is simply not good enough. There is too much to understand, and some things seem obviously more worthy of understanding than others. There are two very recent examples that come to mind, both of which I read in my Research Methods class this semester: in one study, a researcher prowled around Times Square, collecting data on the habits of those who frequented establishments that sold pornographic material. In another, a researcher observed the habits of underage girls who tried to get into clubs using fake IDs. Both scholars sought to better understand the construction of identity and group psychology among other concepts through their research.
While neither essay could serve as an example of "pure" qualitative research, they both possess certain elements that lend qualitative characteristics to them. But that is neither here nor there; after reading both well-composed pieces I am left with several pressing questions. Among them: What good is this? What have I learned? People go to porn shops? Naturally. Underage women act out their fake IDs when going clubbing? Imagine that.
Those are the questions that stood after reading the essays, and there are questions that remain after several years of studying communications.
What "good" does studying communications qualitatively produce? What conclusions, which are invariably tentative, mean anything? How can we apply such conclusions? Why study small sub-groups of people for various inscrutable purposes? Even given that an objective truth may be nonexistent, I still think it is relevant for research to purport to know something.
Here I am attempting to open up a dialogue with anybody affiliated with the discipline. If you're a communications major or even a professor of the discipline, please feel free to contact me and answer some of my questions, and of course I encourage you to pose your own. Maybe together we can hammer out what the study of communications has done for all of us and what it promises to do in the future.