Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm.

1. In his article “Media Sociology: The dominant paradigm,” by Todd Gitlin, the author regards Katz and Lazarsfeld’s “Personal Influence” as exemplifying the dominant paradigm of the US communication studies, and explores its ideological and institutional backgrounds. When he says "the dominant paradigm,” it refers to empirical and quantitative mass communication studies. His core assumption is that methodology is not value-neutral: the conceptions and designs for researches and the processes that accompany it are shaped by, and come out of, the broader socio-political context existing at the time. In many ways, his arguments are not value-neutral either. Gitlin’s resolute arguments echo the decisive attitude of Marx, who “disdain(ed) to conceal” his views. (Manifesto of the communist party, p.500)

2. According to Gitlin, the fatal error of “abstracted empiricism” (p.225) lies in its ignoring “the systemic and institutionalized nature” of media phenomena. (p.245) Only looking at ‘media effects’ at micro level in a specifically “behaviorist fashion” (p.206), abstracted empiricism has never caught the political economy of media phenomena. As a result, what the US communication studies has done is to “consolidate and legitimize the cornucopian regime of mid-century capitalism.” (p.245) What, then, should be the alternative paradigm that improves the limitations of the dominant paradigm? He does not answer to this question, but the way he presents his idea in this article indirectly shows what the alternative method is: qualitative, or critical paradigm of media sociology. The way he traces the background of “Personal Influence” symbolizes the core of qualitative media sociology. It explores historical and ideological context reflected in “Personal Influence,” and ‘in that way’ qualitative media sociology is carried out. However, it poses a real problem that the boundaries and methods of qualitative media studies are ever-changing, so that nebulous. Paradoxically, this is the strong point of qualitative studies.

3. When a certain discipline has rigorously established methodology, the academic dialogue carried out in the boundary of the discipline becomes economic and productive. This constitutes the strong point of quantitative communication studies. Expecting a completed and all-agreeable methodology in critical/qualitative communication studies to bear the imprint of the whole tradition of humanities may be unreasonable. However, the protean and ever-changing methodology of qualitative/critical studies signifies that it is vividly alive and has fundamental significance. It seems undeniable that a discipline with completed methodology tends to withdraw into its own boundaries. And this might already be happening in the realm of quantitative media research.