Key Communication Research Methods to Know

Why This Matters

Communication research methods aren't just abstract concepts—they're the tools scholars use to answer real questions about how messages shape opinions, how media influences culture, and how people connect across contexts. You're being tested on your ability to distinguish between methods, understand when each is most appropriate, and recognize the tradeoffs between depth and breadth, causation and correlation, and quantitative precision and qualitative richness.

Don't just memorize definitions. Know what each method can and cannot tell us, why a researcher would choose one approach over another, and how different methods complement each other. When you see an exam question describing a research scenario, you should immediately recognize which method fits—and why the alternatives wouldn't work as well.

---

Quantitative Methods: Measuring Patterns at Scale

These methods prioritize numerical data, statistical analysis, and generalizability. They answer "how much" and "how often" rather than "why" or "what does it mean."

Surveys

• Large-scale data collection—gather responses from hundreds or thousands of participants to identify trends and patterns across populations
• Structured questionnaires use closed-ended questions (multiple choice, Likert scales) for easy quantification, though open-ended questions can add depth
• Statistical generalizability makes surveys ideal for measuring public opinion, but they sacrifice the nuance of individual experience

Experiments

• Cause-and-effect relationships—the only method that can establish causation by manipulating independent variables and measuring effects
• Controlled settings (lab experiments) maximize internal validity, while field experiments sacrifice some control for real-world applicability
• Hypothesis testing allows researchers to isolate specific communication variables, such as how message framing affects persuasion

Content Analysis (Quantitative)

• Systematic counting of patterns—tracks how often specific words, themes, or representations appear in media content
• Coding schemes categorize data into measurable units, enabling statistical comparison across time periods, outlets, or genres
• Media representation studies often use this method to document bias, stereotyping, or agenda-setting trends

---

Qualitative Methods: Understanding Meaning and Context

These methods prioritize depth, interpretation, and understanding communication from participants' perspectives. They answer "why" and "how" rather than "how many."

Interviews

• In-depth exploration—one-on-one conversations reveal personal experiences, motivations, and meanings that surveys can't capture
• Flexibility in structure: structured interviews follow a script, semi-structured allow follow-up questions, and unstructured let conversation flow naturally
• Rapport building encourages honest, detailed responses but requires skilled interviewers to avoid leading participants

Focus Groups

• Group dynamics—6-12 participants discuss topics together, revealing how opinions form and shift through social interaction
• Facilitated discussion uncovers consensus, disagreement, and the reasoning behind attitudes in ways individual interviews miss
• Social context matters here—participants respond to each other, not just the researcher, making this ideal for studying shared meanings

Ethnography

• Immersive observation—researchers spend extended time within communities to understand communication practices from an insider's perspective
• Holistic understanding captures how communication functions within broader cultural contexts, rituals, and power structures
• Field notes, artifacts, and interviews combine to provide rich data, but this method requires significant time investment and raises questions about researcher influence

---

Text-Based Methods: Analyzing Messages Themselves

These methods focus on communication artifacts rather than people. They examine what messages say, how they say it, and what that reveals about culture and power.

Textual Analysis

• Interpretation of meaning—examines language, structure, and context in written, spoken, or visual texts to uncover underlying messages
• Cultural and ideological implications emerge through close reading of how texts construct reality, identity, and values
• Qualitative emphasis means findings depend on the analyst's interpretive framework rather than counting occurrences

Discourse Analysis

• Language and power—studies how communication choices reflect and reinforce social hierarchies, identities, and ideologies
• Context is central—the same words mean different things depending on who speaks them, to whom, and in what situation
• Critical lens often examines how dominant groups use language to maintain power or how marginalized voices resist

Content Analysis (Qualitative)

• Thematic interpretation—goes beyond counting to analyze how meanings are constructed and what patterns reveal about cultural narratives
• Coding for themes rather than frequencies allows researchers to identify subtle messages and contradictions in media content
• Complementary to quantitative content analysis—often used together for comprehensive media studies

---

Intensive Investigation: Deep Dives into Specific Cases

These methods sacrifice breadth for extraordinary depth, examining particular instances in rich detail. They're ideal when the phenomenon is too complex for standardized measurement.

Case Studies

• In-depth examination—analyzes a single case or small number of cases (an organization, campaign, event) within real-world context
• Multiple data sources combine interviews, documents, observations, and artifacts for comprehensive understanding
• Theory generation rather than testing—case studies often reveal insights that inform broader research questions

---

The Big Picture: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches

Understanding this distinction is fundamental to evaluating any research design. Most exam questions about methods ultimately test whether you grasp this core tradeoff.

• Quantitative methods (surveys, experiments, quantitative content analysis) produce numerical data, enable statistical generalization, and answer questions about patterns and causes
• Qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups, ethnography, textual/discourse analysis) produce rich descriptions, enable deep understanding, and answer questions about meaning and context
• Mixed methods combine both approaches—for example, using surveys to identify patterns and then interviews to understand why those patterns exist

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A researcher wants to know whether exposure to political ads changes voting intentions. Which method would establish causation, and why wouldn't a survey work for this question?

2. Compare interviews and focus groups: In what research situation would focus groups reveal something interviews cannot?

3. Both textual analysis and discourse analysis examine communication artifacts. What additional dimension does discourse analysis consider that textual analysis might not emphasize?

4. A study reports that 73% of news coverage about a topic was negative. What method produced this finding? What would a qualitative approach to the same content reveal instead?

5. You're designing a study to understand how a local community uses social media during a crisis. Which two methods would you combine for a comprehensive view, and what would each contribute?