MCOM 5364 (SECT. 001): RESEARCH METHODS SPRING 2017, CLASS #50511 Media & Communication 080 (MC 080) Wednesday 6:00 8:50pm Credits: 3 Professor Erik Bucy, Ph.D. Office: MC 205 Office Hours: Tues & Wed, 10:30am noon; and, by appointment Office Phone: (806) 834-3346 Email: erik.bucy@ttu.edu I. Course Description MCOM 5364 introduces graduate students to the foundational concepts, techniques, and methodologies of communication research. This section is geared toward master s students. Over the course of the semester the seminar will review the fundamentals of communication inquiry, the structuring of research studies, modes of observation and data collection, data analysis techniques, and executing a research plan. Particular research methods to be explored include surveys, experiments, content analysis, and focus groups, among others. Students will also be introduced to research design, conceptualization and measurement. II. Expected Outcomes Understand the major social science research methods commonly used for hypothesis testing and theory building in media and communication. Critically analyze relevant design considerations in media and communication research, as well as the advantages and limitations of different methods. Develop an understanding of the use of statistics in hypothesis testing, and the difference between descriptive and inferential techniques and findings. Exhibit knowledge of the relationship between theory and method in research, and the importance of methodological rigor in media and communication research and practice. Demonstrate proficiency in comprehending, evaluating, and writing about media and communication research. Apply methods knowledge to the conceptualization and development of a research proposal with the potential to win over a corporate or nonprofit client. Develop an analytical foundation for continued graduate work in media and communication, including research for other classes, 6050 projects, or thesis research. III. Methods of Assessment Expected learning outcomes will be assessed through class discussion/participation, written critiques of research, original data analysis and focus group, a competitive research proposal, peer review, in-class presentations, and two exams.
IV. Required Texts & MCOM 5364 Spr 17 2 Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2014). Mass Media Research: An Introduction, 10e. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Additional Additional readings will be to a class Dropbox folder for download by individual week. For a list of specific readings by week, see section VII titled Course Schedule below. V. Course s and Grading (details on all assignments will be distributed) Research Critique (10%) This assignment requires you to read and critique a recently published peer-reviewed journal article that uses multiple methods to address a research question or hypothesis, analyze it in the form of a short paper, and be prepared to briefly discuss your critique in class. A list of suitable articles will be distributed with the assignment guidelines. In 4 pages, your critique should assess the relative strength of the methods and measures used, the appropriateness of the study framework, and relevance of the evidence. The purpose of this assignment, due Feb. 15, is to appreciate the sophistication of articles now being published and identify the inevitable shortcomings that every study has, even those with multiple methods. Midterm and Final (15% each; 30% total) There will be an in-class midterm exam halfway through the course, on March 8, that will cover material from the readings, lectures, and discussions consisting of different question formats (multiple choice, true/false, short answer, etc.), and a take-home final due on the regularly scheduled final exam day, Monday, May 15. The final will ask you to apply the knowledge you ve gained during the semester to a practical research question with relevance to the media industries. A study guide will be distributed in advance of each exam. Data Interpretation Report (15%) This assignment is design to acquaint seminar participants with the process of data interpretation and strategic analysis. For this assignment, you will be required to analyze and suggest strategic recommendations into a PowerPoint file provided by the instructor, based on results from an original survey. The end product is an interpretive report in PowerPoint that provides insights about key television viewer segments in the local Lubbock market. Along with this Data Interpretation Report (D.I.R.), you will be required to write a brief analysis memo, with observations about how you analyzed the data, arrived at your conclusions, and suggestions for future research studies about Lubbock television viewers. Both pieces of this assignment are due in class on March 1. Focus Group Project (35%) To familiarize you with different methods, the next assignment involves planning, organizing, and conducting an original focus group with five friends and/or family members (outside of class participants) to answer central why and how questions about the so-called fake news phenomenon. For this assignment, you will need to read up on the concept and practice of fake news delivery, how it is affecting the media audience, and formulate a series of questions designed to shed light on how consumers deal with fake news when they encounter it. The resulting Focus Group Report will then be written in stages: first, a rough draft of 5-6 double-spaced pages is due on April 12. Then papers will be exchanged and peer reviews will be performed between seminar participants. These are due April 19. Finally, and based on the comments you receive from your peer reviews and feedback from the instructor, Final Papers of 10-12 pages are due with in-class presentations on the last day of class, May 3.
MCOM 5364 Spr 17 3 Seminar Participation (10%) Unlike some larger lecture classes, smaller graduate seminars thrive on the active involvement of each seminar participant. Active participation entails asking questions, responding to questions posed by the instructor, integrating readings and commenting on what you ve learned, and contributing meaningfully, not just stoically, to seminar discussions throughout the semester. Active participation is a crucial element in the success of the seminar overall as well as your individual success as a student. In summary, course assignments, grading percentages, and due dates are as follows: Grade % Due Dates Research Critique 10% Feb. 15 Data Interpretation Report 15% March 1 Midterm Exam 15% March 8 Focus Group Project Transcript + Questionnaires 10% March 29 Draft Paper 5% April 12 Peer Review 5% April 19 In-class Presentation 5% May 3 Final Paper 10% May 3 Take-Home Final 15% May 15 Class Participation 10% All semester Total: 100% A Note About Grading Each of the above assignments will be graded on (or converted to) a 100-point scale. The grading scale in all of my courses is as follows: A 94-100; A- 93-90; B+ 89-87; B 86-84; B- 83-80; C+ 79-77; C 76-74; C- 73-70; D+ 69-67; D 66-64; D- 63-60; F 59 & lower. Note that a grade in the A range represents outstanding or exceptional work something that is not easily achieved. Grades in the B range indicate competent, satisfactory work in the course. A grade of B- or lower in this or any graduate course suggests that the student's work is lacking in some important way. Although a C means satisfactory at the undergraduate level, the standards in graduate school are such that a C represents seriously flawed work, and thus a failing grade. In this seminar that would mean doing the assignments but misunderstanding basic concepts or presenting them in an unacceptable form and not participating in seminar discussions. A grade lower than C implies outright negligence of the course. VI. Additional Course Policies and Rules 1. Americans with Disabilities Act Any student who has a disability that may affect his/her academic performance should contact the instructor as soon as possible so that necessary accommodations can be made. Students should present appropriate verification from Disabled Student Services in the Dean of Students Office (806) 742-2405.
MCOM 5364 Spr 17 4 2. Attendance Class attendance and active participation are expected in graduate school. I reserve the right to count absences against your participation grade, which could easily lower your overall grade. Moreover, the instructor is not responsible for material missed due to an absence. If you are having problems, let me know as soon as possible. If things go off-track early, chances are that I won t be able to help you in the final weeks of the semester. I don t give automatic incompletes. If you have reasons for not meeting deadlines or obligations, please contact me in advance. 3. Academic Integrity Cheating on exams or plagiarism or any form of violation of the University honor code is a serious offense and will receive a failing grade for that assignment. The work you turn in must be entirely your own. Do not submit the same paper to more than one class. All students are expected to be honorable and to observe standards of conduct appropriate to a community of scholars and professionals. If any questions ever arise as to what constitutes academic dishonesty, please consult the Student Handbook (see http://www.depts.ttu.edu/studentaffairs/) as well as the Academic Integrity section (OP 34.12) of the campus Operating Policies and Procedures website (http://www.depts.ttu.edu/opmanual/contents.php#34). 4. Civility Policy The University supports an environment of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. It does not tolerate statements, behavior, or tokens that deride or disparage an individual or group because of race, ethnicity, creed or personal lifestyle. In line with maintaining a professional learning environment, please be respectful of and attentive to fellow seminar participants. The quality of the class relies on engaged discussion and debate. Consequently, please turn off mobile devices while in class and use laptops or tablets for academic purposes only. 5. Late s Late assignments will be accepted only under extreme circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to a point deduction. No late work will be accepted a week past the due date. 6. Incompletes The only way to qualify for consideration of an incomplete is for extreme cause, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 7. Originality of Seminar Work Students should not submit work, even modified work, completed during a previous semester, whether at this institution or another university or college. Instances of double dipping will receive a zero. All seminar work is expected to be original and the sole product of the individual seminar participant. VII. Course Schedule Note: This course schedule is not fixed in stone. The instructor reserves the right to adjust the readings, due dates, and topics as necessary as the course progresses.
Week 1 MCOM 5364 Spr 17 5 January 25 Course Overview: Introduction to the Research Process Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 1 Research Critique Guidelines Distributed Week 2 February 1 Qualitative Research Methods Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 5; Jarvis, The Use of Focus Groups ; Lunt & Livingstone, Rethinking the Focus Group Week 3 February 8 Applying Research in Strategic Contexts Wimmer & Dominick, Chs. 15-16 Week 4 February 15 Content Analysis Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 6; Krippendorff, History ; Hum et al., A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words Research Critiques Due + Short Discussion (Q&A style); Data Interpretation Report & Focus Group Report Guidelines Distributed Week 5 February 22 March 1 Framing Analysis and Elements of Research Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 2; Nisbet, Framing the Debates Over Climate Change and Poverty Week 6 Promises and Perils of Big Data Analytics Börner, Envisioning Science and Technology ; Mayer-Schonberger & Cukier, Messy + Risks ; Shah et al., Power of Television Images Data Interpretation Reports Due; Midterm Exam Guidelines Distributed Week 7 March 8 Research Ethics and Controversies Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 3; Sieber, Deception Methods ; Meyer, Everything We Know ; Kramer et al., Emotional Contagion Midterm Exam (second half of class); Focus Group Guidelines Distributed
Week 8 MCOM 5364 Spr 17 6 March 15 Spring break no class Week 9 March 22 Sampling and Survey Research Wimmer & Dominick, Chs. 4, 7 Week 10 March 29 Hypothesis Testing and Intro to Basic Statistics Wimmer & Dominick, Chs. 10, 11 Week 11 April 5 Experimental Research Wimmer & Dominick, Chs. 9; Grabe & Westley, The Controlled Experiment ; Iyengar, Experimental Designs Focus Group Transcripts and Questionnaires Due Week 12 April 12 Hybrid Designs: Survey Experiments Mutz, Population-Based Survey Experiments (Chs. 1, 6); Sniderman, Logic and Design of the Survey Experiment Week 13 April 19 Ratings Research and Problems in Media Measurement Wimmer & Dominick, Ch. 14; Prior, The Immensely Inflated Audience + Prior, Improving Media Effects Research (plus supplemental readings by Dillipane, Prior, and Goldman) Draft Papers Due; Peer Review Guidelines Distributed Week 14 April 26 May 3 Biological Measures and Consumer Neuroscience Potter & Bolls, Psychophysiology ; Ramsøy, Consumer Neuroscience Peer Reviews Due Week 15 Focus Group Presentations Focus Group Papers Due
Week 17 MCOM 5364 Spr 17 7 May 15 Final Exam Take-home final due (by email) VIII. References & Additional Baker, R., & Hinton, R. (1999). Do focus groups facilitate meaningful participation in social research? In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice (pp. 79-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 3, 311-320. Bem, D. J. (2002). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berger, C. R., Roloff, M. E., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2010). What is communication science? In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Börner, K. (2015). Atlas of knowledge: Anyone can map. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bryant, J., & Pribanic-Smith, E. J. (2010). A historical overview of research in communication science. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 21-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 193-210. Conway, M. (2006). The subjective precision of computers: A methodological comparison with human coding in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 186-200. Conway, M., Grabe, M. E., & Grieves, K. (2007). Villains, victims, and the virtuous in Bill O Reilly s No-Spin Zone : Revisiting world war propaganda techniques. Journalism Studies, 8(2), 197-223. Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research, 2e. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dilliplane, S., Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2013). Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 236-248.
MCOM 5364 Spr 17 8 Donohew, L., & Palmgreen, P. (2003). Constructing theory. In G. H. Stempel, III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 111-128). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Morey, A. C. (2011). Challenges and opportunities of panel designs. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 19-33). New York: Routledge. Frankland, J., & Bloor, M. (1999). Some issues arising in the systematic analysis of focus group materials. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice (pp. 144-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Grabe, M. E., & Westley, B. H. (2003). The controlled experiment. In G. H. Stempel, III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 267-298). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Greenberg, B., Eastin, M. S., & Garramone, G. M. (2003). Ethical issues in conducting mass communication research. In G. H. Stempel, III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 299-326). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. New York: Routledge. Hum, N. J., Chamberlin, P. E., Hambright, B. L., Portwood, A. C., Schat, A. C., & Bevan, J. L. (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1828-1833. Iyengar, S. (2011). Experimental designs for political communication research: Using new technology and online participant pools to overcome the problem of generalizability. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 129-148). New York: Routledge. Jarvis, S. E. (2011). The use of focus groups in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. Lance Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 283-299). New York: Routledge. Jordan, C. H., & Zanna, M. P. (2008). How to read a journal article in social psychology. In R. H. Fazio & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Attitudes: Their structure, function, and consequences (pp. 461-469). New York: Psychology Press. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massivescale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 111(29), 8788-8790. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1993). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 79-98.
MCOM 5364 Spr 17 9 Mayer-Schonberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. McLeod, D. M., & Tichenor, P. J. (2003). The logic of social and behavioral science. In G. H. Stempel, III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 91-110). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Meyer, R. (2014, June 28). Everything we know about Facebook s secret mood manipulation experiment. The Atlantic online, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/ everything-we-know-about-facebookssecret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nisbet, M. C. (2010). Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In P. D Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 43-83). New York: Routledge. Potter, R. F., & Bolls, P. (2011). Psychophysiology: Theoretical assumptions and a history of the field. Chapter 2 in Psychophysiological measurement and meaning: Cognitive and emotional processing of media (pp. 23-45). New York: Routledge. Prior, M. (2013). The challenge of measuring media exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz. Political Communication, 30(4), 620-634. Prior, M. (2013). Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 893-908. Prior, M. (2009). The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 130-143. Ramsøy, T. Z. (2015). Introduction to neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. Holbæk, Denmark: Neurons, Inc. Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Wells, C., & Quevedo, V. (2015). The power of television images in a social media age: Linking biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen. The ANNALS, 659(1), 225-245. Sieber, J. (1995). Deception methods in psychology. Ethics and Behavior, 5(1), 67-85. Sniderman, P. M. (2011). The logic and design of the survey experiment: An autobiography of a methodological innovation. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 102-114). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sontag, M. (2012). Research ethics and Institutional Review Boards: The influence of moral constraints on emotion research. Politics and the Life Sciences, 31(1/2), 67-79.