The Journalism Educator 

Abstract: It is widely asserted that qualitative methods have re-emerged in mass media research during the last 15 to 20 years (Hall, 1989; Lindlof, 1991; Moffett & Dominick, 1987; Pauly, 1991). A stream of recent books (Anderson, 1987; Jensen & Jankowski, 1991; Lindlof, 1987; Nielsen, 1990; Sigman, 1987), a monograph (Pauly, 1991), and a journal article (Lindlof, 1991) devote themselves to qualitative applications and techniques. This interest is felt in U.S. mass communication programs as the number of courses in qualitative methodologies appears to be growing (Lindlof, 1991; Pauly,1991).The apparent rise in qualitative methods heightens the continuing debate over quantitative and qualitative research and has important ramifications for students and mass media education.First, the variety of methods and data-gathering skills needed today appear to be increasing in number and complexity. One requirement for most graduate students at major institutions in the United States is the completion of a series of courses in research methodology. About 20 years ago, quantitative research methodologies reached their peak in the United States and provided the primary focus of methodology courses. However, this has apparently expanded to include non-quantitative methods in recent years (Lindlof, 1991; Lull, 1990). Young scholars, thus, will be exposed to additional methodological tools and may even consider using multi-method strategies more frequently.Second, the addition of qualitative methods in mass media programs may mean students will study different phenomena from different perspectives than in the past. Yet, educators and young scholars have little indication of which topics and procedures are actually used in quantitative and qualitative research. This study provides this information by reporting on the uses of these methodologies in eight major communication journals from 1965 to 1989.THE DEBATETo count or not to count is not the fundamental question in the debate about quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The terms appear to function more approximately as an expression of the chasm that exists between research philosophies, rather than containing some intrinsic meaning. The phrase "qualitative" has been cited as a purposeful alternative to a natural science model of the social sciences (Christians & Carey, 1989).(1) Nevertheless, "quantitative" and "qualitative" appear to be the most common ways to distinguish "interpretive" approaches in the social and human sciences from the so-called "quantitative" approaches (Anderson, 1987; Christians & Carey, 1989; Nord, 1989; Lindlof, 1991).Most importantly, the terms highlight the intellectual dilemmas that stem from a differential set of foundational assumptions that often induce a heated debate within the research community. These dilemmas involve: (a) the purpose of research, (b) the procedures that should be used to gather data, (c) the use of theory, and even (d) the nature of reality itself (or the ability to "know"). It is in these areas that much of the debate rests. Although a number of texts illuminate these differences (Anderson, 1987; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), below we provide a very brief summary of the basic characteristics of each method in order to develop a rationale for this study.Quantitative researchers seek to explain and predict behavior by measuring variables, which can then be submitted to statistical analysis (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991). The quest is for universal generalizations that will describe the characteristics, practices, causes, and consequences of human behavior (Anderson, 1987). This perspective sees the world as orderly, stable, and connected, and attempts to uncover commonalities from a stance of neutrality that is context-free. It is a very formal, conservative process that uses theory as part of a deductive process to produce hypotheses and make predictions.Qualitative research, by contrast, examines the construction of meaning in everyday social phenomena (Anderson, 1987). …

Abstract: The number of separate, free-standing media ethics courses increased by 56 percent in schools, departments, and programs of journalism and mass communication (JMC) over the past decade. The number of JMC units offering modules on ethics in conceptual and skills courses increased almost tenfold.Seventy-eight percent of ethics instructors responding to the survey were male and 22 percent were female. Seven percent were minorities. Among those ethics instructors hired within the past 10 years, however, 36 percent were female and 12.5 percent were minorities.These were among the key findings of a 1992-93 survey of JMC units and their ethics instructors. Of 325 journalism and mass communication programs surveyed from listings in the 1992-93 AEJMC Directory, 260, or 80 percent, responded.Specifically, the number of ethics courses increased 56 percent--from 117 to 183 since the last tally in 1984. The increase reaches 84 percent--from 117 to 216--if the total includes 33 courses the 1992-93 survey identified as planned to be offered in the "next year or two."When the comparison is based on a benchmark study in 1977 sponsored by the now-defunct Ethics Committee of AEJMC the growth is even more dramatic.(1) In that year, 68 courses were reported. Thus, the number of courses has tripled since 1977.In 1992-93, 132 schools, department or colleges offered one media ethics course 21 units offered two courses and three other units each taught three ethics courses for a total of 183 media ethics course taught by 158 schools. Two schools offering ethics courses did not indicate the number of courses they offered.Even more expansion occurred in schools reporting modules on ethics taught in either skills or conceptual courses in mass communication. They jumped from 24 of 238 schools in a survey by Clifford G. Christians in 1984(2) to 222 of 260 schools in our most recent study, almost a tenfold increase.Growth in required coursesIn 1984, Christians reported that schools requiring ethics of undergraduate majors were "exceptions." In the 1992-93 survey, 66 units say a media ethics course is required of majors. In addition, 28 other units include the ethics course on a list of required courses from which students may choose. This represents an apparently significant increase in as much as 94 schools, departments and colleges--or 61.4 percent of the 158 units which report having ethics courses--either require them of majors or make the course an option on a "required list."Nonetheless, a total of 102 schools, or almost 40 percent of those responding, say they do not offer a separate course on ethics. Among the multiple reasons, the most frequently mentioned were first, "Ethical issues are discussed as they arise in other courses," 71.3 percent; "No room in the curriculum," 33 percent, and "Insufficient budget," 15.9 percent.The emphasis placed on ethics by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications seemed apparent in the fact that almost 70 percent of the accredited schools (60 of 86) responding to the survey reported offering an ethics course. By comparison, about 57 percent of the non-accredited members of the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (47 of 82) reported having an ethics course. Not far behind were the institutional respondents that were neither accredited nor members of ASJMC. Of these units, about 55 percent (51 of 92) said they offered ethics courses.Course contentAfter the academic units were surveyed for administrative data on ethics instruction, questionnaires were sent to the ethics instructors themselves to identify teaching goals and approaches. As Table 2 clearly shows, "fostering moral reasoning skills" and "surveying current ethical practice" were the course objectives most frequently checked by the 164 instructors who responded.(Table 2 omitted)Instructors of the separate, free-standing ethics course appear to subordinate the evaluation of collective media performance and key media-and-society issues to the cultivation of individual critical-thinking skills. …

Abstract: Many mass communication students struggle with writing, a seemingly essential skill for the major they have chosen. Some write well if they get started. Others do fine in practice but freeze on graded assignments. Many panic if the instructor glances at an in-progress assignment. Others’ out-of-class work is good but their deadline work is awful. Some are apathetic or hostile because required writing courses do not seem relevant (e.g., the broadcasting major aspiring to production work or public relationsmajorwanting“toworkwithpeop1e”). Some do well on creative assignments but feel “hemmed-in” by news structure. Some lack confidence in their basic mechanical skills and miss deadlines checking (literally) every word or phrase. Many procrastinate. Yet all may have good news judgment, interviewing or fact gathering skills. Instructors armed with a tool “for sensitive discrimination of individual differences among people whose main communication mode is writing” might devise “focused instructional strategies” to overcome dysfunctional writing attitudes,’ or even help pre-majors choose among mass communication sequences. Riffe and Stacks’ Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure (MCWAM)’ was a first step in the development of such a tool. This study refines the MCWAM and examines its relationship to student characteristics.

Abstract: For many years, the structure, function, and content of advertising “creative” courses have greatly interested educators and practitioners alike. Articles and books abound, offering the advertising professor advice on how best to conduct these courses. In particular, educators have explored such topics as what general approaches can be used in teaching creative courses,’ which specific techniques to use when teaching copywriting,2 what techniques to use when covering topics related to advertising d e ~ i g n , ~ and how to make such courses resemble the “real world” of the advertising ~ r e a t i v e . ~ In addition, practitioners have contributed nuts-and-bolts advice about portfolio preparation and interviewingS However, one voice that has not been heard is that of the “new” creativespecifically, the copywriter or art director who has only recently secured his or her first job. With their educational experiences fresh in their minds, new creatives can reflect upon how well university programs prepared them for their agency jobs. Furthermore, they can articulate clearly the many paths they followed while creating their portfolios and acquiring their first creative jobs. Thus, this study explores the types of information and advice this group can offer educators attempting to help students secure creative careers. Three questions are addressed: 1. What do new creatives believe is necessary from advertising creative courses in particular? 2. Which courses, besides advertising courses, do these new creatives believe are beneficial to aspiring creatives? 3. How did these creatives supplement their undergraduate education prior to acquiring their jobs?