By Vanessa de Macedo Higgins, The University of Texas at Austin
with collaboration of Thomas Hanitzsch, University of Munich
International Communication • Comparative communication research, an inherent part of international communication studies, is receiving increasing attention from communication scholars, funding organizations and publications. Technological, political and economical developments of the late 20th century, combined with increased global media and transnationalism, have elevated the subject of comparative research to new prominence.
Comparative communication research has also faced its share of critics. There are those who doubt the accuracy of cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons, who fear reductionism and the lack of theoretical base in such studies. In a wide range of studies, cross-national communication researchers have recently undertaken major efforts to address such methodological and theoretical challenges. These projects bring innovation and a better understanding of communication phenomena, cultures and initiatives.
I recently interviewed Thomas Hanitzsch, professor of communication studies at the University of Munich and author of several pieces on comparative communication studies, to get his insight on some important advancements in the field. According to Hanitzsch, “There is a growing awareness of the fact that most of our research is of western origin. And even within the west, concepts are often differently understood in different national settings.” He added that, “Universality of concepts and measurements is something that cannot be assumed but must be established. Researchers have become much more careful in the cross-cultural application of their concepts.” Hanitzsch pointed out that equivalence of concepts, method, administration and meaning are essential in such studies.
Among other methodological challenges raised by comparative communication studies is the identification of the unit of analysis. If communication and information flow across national borders, then would the nation be a proper unit of analysis? Some claim that if the subject being analyzed surpasses such borders, then perhaps other cultural, geographic or linguistic units of analysis would be better. On the defense of the nation as the unit of analysis, the argument is that that policies, structures and cultures are still very much based on the nation.
Hanitzsch sees a trend toward sophistication and reflection among those who are embarking in the study of comparative communication. “Today, many researchers see the urgency of situating their studies in a theoretical perspective that guides their research strategies (design, selection of cases etc.) and facilitates their interpretations. Data analysis has also become much more sophisticated with important methodological inventions,” he said. Such innovations include “fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, as well as various statistical techniques to model cultural differences such as scaling, multilevel modeling or multi-group structural equation modeling.“
One of the important advancements made in comparative research mentioned by Hanitzsch was the establishment of “collaborative links to other disciplines that have a much longer tradition of comparative research, such as sociology, political science, psychology and anthropology. We are fast learners, though it takes time to catch up and incorporate the new conceptual and methodological know-how.”
Facilitated by conferences such as those promoted by AEJMC, as well as by communication technologies, communication scholars have formed and maintained international networks for collaborative efforts within the communication discipline. Hanitzsch said that technology has also made it easier for the management of large international projects, including his own cross-national comparison of 22 countries.
There are currently several innovative and ambitious projects underway in our field. Hanitzsch offered a selection of some comparative research he finds particularly innovative. “Space allows pointing to only a few examples: Daniel Hallin and Paolo Manicini’s work on western media systems has proved extremely influential, and it inspired others to do similar work. Drawing on surveys from 90 countries, Pippa Norris recently explored the field of global media and cultural convergence. Akiba Cohen and Pamela Shoemaker just published the results of their ‘News around the World’ project, and Jesper Strömbäck has done a lot comparative research on election coverage across countries. In the area of journalism research, David Weaver and Lars Willnat are recently putting together the second edition of the ‘Global Journalist,’ and our own project, the ‘Worlds of Journalisms’ study, has already grown into a collaborative endeavor of researchers from 22-nations.”
Hanitzsch offered some helpful resources for comparative studies, such as the Freedom House, IREX and Globalbarometer Surveys. Together with Frank Esser, he is also editing a handbook of comparative communication research, which is scheduled to be published in 2011.
With careful consideration to methodological issues and thorough analysis, comparative communication research promotes better understanding of our own media and communication system, as well as the increasingly necessary understanding of other cultures (and the intersection of both). Such research is also important for testing the generalizability of theories. With some of these recent innovations and a more careful look into the restrictions and challenges of comparative communication research, scholars are forging a path, as diverse as the field of communication itself, to new endeavors.
Vanessa de Macedo Higgins is a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include Brazilian Studies; Race, Sex and Gender; Global media; and Intercultural Communication.
Thomas Hanitzsch is Professor of Communication Studies at the Institute of Communication Studies and Media Research, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Germany. Hanitzsch is the founder of the ICA Journalism Studies Division and co-editor of the Handbook of Journalism Studies (Routledge, 2009).