Let's Do Research! Which Method Works Best?

In the communication field scholars must not only demonstrate a familiarity with the communication theories and concepts, they are also required to create their own knowledge through the research process. There are two known research methodologies, quantitative and qualitative, both of which have their benefits and flaws. Quantitative, or empirical, research is a method that is based on the initial formation of research questions and/or hypotheses, and the practice of establishing new knowledge that can either support or challenge a research theory based on numerical data collected through either experimentation, surveying, or content analysis. Qualitative research, however, takes an in-depth approach to forming new knowledge by exploring the meanings behind communication occurrences by observing how people interpret them. This is often done by collecting descriptive data through interviews, focus groups, or general observations. The chart below illustrates these two methodologies in detail:

Sourced from: Outlier.org

Scholars will either use quantitative methods, qualitative methods, or a combination of the two depending on their objectives and the type of data they need. The two articles published in the Asian Journal of Communication, for example, explore media issues such as burnout and censorship by applying specific research methods. One article explores the effects of social media on compassion and compassion fatigue in the wake of the 2014 M.V. Sewol Ferry disaster in South Korea using quantitative research methods. The other article explores censorship and monitoring policies on Chinese and Western dating apps using qualitative research methods.

Sewol Ferry Disaster and Quantitative Research

Sourced from: The New Yorker.

On April 16th, 2014 South Korean citizens watched in horror as the M.V. Sewol ferry capsized. This was a preventable tragedy that took the lives of 304 passengers, 250 of which were high school students on a field trip. To this day, families of the victims are still seeking answers and accountability from the government. In the research paper titled "How Do Social Media Affect People’s Compassion and Civic Action? The Case of the Sewol Ferry Disaster in Korea", the authors attempted to examine the effects of social media use on facilitating compassion and driving civic actions, as well as mitigating the effects of compassion fatigue compared to traditional media (i.e., tv, newspapers, and radio). This study had one research question and three hypotheses:

• Research Question: Do people's levels of compassion and compassion fatigue differ depending on the media type from which they mainly obtained the disaster news?
• Hypothesis 1: People who rely on social media as a main source of disaster news are more likely to participate in civic actions for disaster victims than those who rely on other media types, including the mass media, as main sources of disaster news.
• Hypothesis 2: The positive link between compassion and civic action participation for victims is higher among those who rely on social media as a primary channel for disaster news than among those who rely on other media types as a primary channel for disaster news.
• Hypothesis 3: The negative link between compassion fatigue and civic action participation for victims is weaker among those who rely on social media as a primary channel for disaster news than among those who rely on other media types as primary channel for disaster news.

To test these hypotheses the authors of this study used an online survey to collect data from a total of 717 adults aged 20-59 years old. Respondents were asked to provide information on which type of media they use most often (newspaper, network TV, cable TV, social media, or other). They were also asked to report their level of compassion and compassion fatigue using Likert scales and to recall if they participated in any civic activities in the last six months. What the researchers found for the first hypothesis was that although social media users were found to participate in more civic activities compared to users of traditional media (newspapers and network TV) the same result held true for people who watched cable TV, and there was no significant difference in civic action between social media users and cable TV watchers. For the second and third hypothesis, researchers found that both the positive link between compassion and civic action and the negative link between compassion fatigue and civic action for social media users was no different from that of traditional media users, with the exception of those who get their information from network TV, thus neither of these hypotheses were supported.

Through the use of quantitative research methods, the researchers in this study made great contributions to the mass communication field, as they found a clear link between social media usage and civic action participation in the wake of disaster. They also found that social media users do, in fact, experience less compassion fatigue compared with other media users, and they were more likely to take part in civic actions compared to those who consume newspaper articles or watch network TV. However, the research also revealed that social media users showed no more compassion than people who get their information on disaster related occurrences from other sources. In addition, the negative effects of compassion fatigue on the civic activities of social media users were no different from that of consumers of other types of media. This article paves the way for the study on the causal effects of social media dependency on users.

Dating Apps and Qualitative Research

The goal of the qualitative study titled "Stringent Censorship and Relaxed Co-Governance: Understanding Platform Governance and User Practices of Queer Social and Dating Apps" was to comparitively examine the governance mechanisms and cultures of two LGBTQI oriented dating apps for women: Rela and HER. Rela, which was launched in Shanghai, China in 2012, has over 12 million registered users worldwide and has become one of the most popular Chinese dating and social platforms for lesbian, queer, and bisexual women. In contrast, HER is the Western, English-language alternative. It was originally founded in the UK in 2013 before being relocated to the US, and it has over 5 million registered users across 113 countries. Therefore, this study attempts to answer the following research questions: What approaches do Rela and HER develop for their platform governance? How do their governance systems impact users' practices? To answer these questions the author of this study employed a walkthrough method to analyze the governance policies of both platforms and conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 28 users aged 19-37 (16 of which used both HER and Rela and 12 who only used Rela).

What the author found was that although the guidelines on both platforms encouraged users to build an inclusive, friendly community by laying out the rules and regulations, there were sharp contrasts between the two platforms in the way these rules were enforced. The interviewees in this study indicated that the ways in which these policies were enforced had a significant impact on how they used these apps, and influenced their viewpoints on the governance measures of both platforms. For example, Rela has a censorship system characterized by a diverse range of prohibitions, ubiquitous censorship warnings, and rigorous approaches for censoring users' posts. Although some interviewees expressed negative perceptions on Rela's censorship policies, calling it rigid, unkind, and constrained, others generally expressed an acceptance for it due to their prior experience with engaging with the Chinese online censorship system. Though inconvenient, most interviewees viewed the censorship system on Rela as normal within the Chinese sociopolitical context. Some users even expressed positive viewpoints on Rela's censorship system, seeing it as essential for protecting users from harmful information and behaviors. In the case of HER, though the community guidelines mention that moderators are always working to remove any harmful content and encourage users to report problematic activity, interviewees still encountered instances of harassment, discrimination, aggression, and hate speech while using the app. Although they generally enjoyed having more freedom to communicate, these encounters caused some of the interviewees to perceive the guidelines as ineffective; several have mentioned that HER takes a slack, lazy approach towards governing and moderating users' inappropriate behaviors. Users also reported that the reporting system has caused unexpected content removal and account suspensions. Some interviewees, however, thought the user reporting mechanism was effective, wise, and democratic as it encouraged users to actively participate in platform governance.

Screenshot of censorship notification in Rela's live streaming room.

The findings from this qualitative study adds to the discourse around the benefits and pitfalls of using social media and dating apps, particularly around the effectiveness of rules and regulations governance mechanisms. This research also contributes new knowledge on dating platforms targeted towards people in the LGBTQI community and how their rules and regulations are influenced by the sociopolitical contexts in which they operate. In addition, this study also shows the diverse viewpoints of the users, showcasing the differences and similarities in how they perceive these media sources.

Which Method Was More Effective?

The quantitative study made use of numerical data to show a link between social media usage and active civic participation. On the other hand, the in-depth interviews in the qualitative study revealed diverse viewpoints on the effectiveness and necessity of governing mechanisms on dating platforms. The study also revealed that the rules and regulations on dating platforms, and other social media apps, are often governed by the cultural and political landscapes of their countries of origin. In my opinion, the qualitative research demonstrated a clearer overview of its objectives, methods, and findings. The quantitative study, as detailed as it was, had a few flaws. For instance, according to the authors of this study, because cross-sectional data was used the results are considered correlational. Also the question on media usage, though useful for clustering participants into groups, was too dichotomous, it did not reflect the reality of individuals' media usage. Lastly, the authors warn that the findings should be interpreted within the context of the Korean media environment, thus some results may not be applicable to other media landscapes. Despite my preference for the qualitative study, I also think that both studies could have benefited from a mixed methodology approach. In other words, the authors of both studies could have applied both quantitative and qualitative methods to their studies. Which research method do you prefer? Do you think applying both quantitative and qualitative research methods would have yielded clearer results in either of these studies? What's your opinion on the governing policies on your favorite dating or social media apps? Do you think there is a strong connection between social media usage and civic action in the aftermath of a disaster? Let me know in the comments!