what is the importance of media research

Media Research

In subject area: Social Sciences

Media research refers to the study of different aspects of media, including its role as a vehicle for communication, its integration with other forms of media, and its impact on learning. This research involves investigating the design and effectiveness of media studies, exploring the economic and cognitive benefits of media, and examining the use of media in educational settings.

AI generated definition based on: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2001

Chapters and Articles

You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.

Educational Media

R.E. Clark , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2001

Media research is described from a social-psychological perspective. Three types of research are described: media as vehicles, integrated media and method and media as learning context. Next, methodological disputes about the design of media studies that examine learning benefits are organized under two types of issues: those related to studies media. Finally, four future directions for media research are described including: questions about economic benefits and ‘cognitive efficiencies’ of media; the negative effects of cognitive load from multimedia instructional programs, new instructional design systems for newer media; and national studies of media use in schools and in distance education.

Mass Media: Introduction and Schools of Thought

Peter Dahlgren , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) , 2015

Looking Ahead

The media are obviously in transition, and research is in the process of adapting itself to the emerging realities. The increasing on-line presence of the traditional media, as well as other forms of functional integration technical convergence, suggest that the field of mass media research will in particular increasingly take on a digital focus. There will be growing attention to such areas as the information society, computers and society, human-computer interface, and electronic democracy. Digitalization has prompted a flurry of research from many disciplines, including social theory ( Castells, 2000 ) and thus it can be argued that the field of mass media research will increasingly blend with initiatives from other directions. This may involve some erosion of its status as a separate field, but the enhanced attention being paid to the media will no doubt increase our knowledge and understanding of them.

Introduction

Valeda Dent Goodman , November 2010 , in Qualitative Research and the Modern Library , 2011

Research is changing. The web has added an entirely new layer to the research mosaic that involves collecting and analyzing data on Internet behavior. Social networking sites, combined with GIS technology, gather data related to who and where our “friends” are. Media research powerhouse A.C. Nielsen recruits families to provide feedback about the shows they watch on TV, and why they like or dislike them. Schools collect and store a wide variety of information on students that is later examined to determine everything from financial aid to roommate assignments. Some research takes place in laboratories, in settings that we can probably imagine (white coats, cold temperatures, metal doors). However, not all research is conducted in this way. Although the sense-making part of research will always require human intervention, the fact is quite a bit of data on a variety of phenomena can now be gathered, analyzed, and disseminated without any human intervention at all.

P. Dahlgren , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2001

1.2 Two Basic Orientations

As a field of teaching and research, mass media studies tends to encompass two basic orientations. On the one hand is academic research and a critical liberal arts perspective on the media and their relationship to society and culture, often aimed at answering scientific questions about their institutional operations, their output, and their audiences. On the other hand one finds an emphasis on applied knowledge. This can be geared to the many operational questions facing media industries, to various organizational actors that make use of the media for their own purposes (corporations, political parties, interest groups, etc.), and to occupational practices within the media. Such occupational practices include production skills within the different media, as well as professional training, in particular for journalism. Other occupational orientations include public relations, advertising, and media management. The lines between the academic and the applied orientations are by no means fixed; the interplay between the two can be both productive as well as problematic. Outside the academy there is considerable media research done from commercial horizons, for example market research, audience measurement, and studies on the effects of advertising. Also, political actors have increasingly been making use of media consultants for strategic purposes.

4.2 The Centrality of Meaning

In culturalist mass media studies two themes from the humanities and qualitatively oriented social sciences have come to assume central positions: sense-making and social constructionism. Research has come to deal with questions of how media representations convey meaning, how media audiences make sense of these representations, and how media-derived meanings further circulate in society. Hall's ( 1980 ) model of how meaning is encoded by the media and decoded by audiences became an important organizing concept for much of such work. Studies of reception—how audiences interpret what they encounter in the media—became an important subspecialty within mass media research ; the work of Dave Morley ( 1992 ) and Ien Ang ( 1985 ) are significant contributions in this tradition. Generally, as the media landscape becomes more multidimensional and theorizing about the audience becomes more ambitious, the frontlines of audience research manifest both a convergence of different research approaches and a growing complexity (e.g., Hay et al. 1996 )

If semiotics and hermeneutics were the major text-analytic tradition within cultural studies, today they have become augmented and partly replaced by innovations from various other currents such as linguistics and cognitive psychology. These newer efforts have coalesced to generate several versions of what is now termed discourse analysis (van Dijk 1997 ) that is increasingly used in the elucidation of meaning in media texts.

Audiences, Media

Andrea L. Press , ... Michael L. Wayne , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) , 2015

With the changing media environment and changing media genres and formats, the shape, structure, and even the very definition of the media ‘audience’ keeps changing in ways that acknowledge the more active and interactive roles that audiences play in the new media environment. As Barker and Mathijs (2012) find in a multimethod research project spanning a dozen countries and generating 25 000 responses, “cultural product such as films are not message-vehicles, to be assessed for their lesser or greater ‘effect,’ but complexly organized bodies of meaning, which draw on and react back onto their constitutive culture” (676). They also note the increasing importance of ancillary texts as “news, reviews, gossip, leaks, publicity, posters, merchandising, etc., work in complicated ways, and with different groups of people, to steer, influence, or create emergent frames for receiving and affiliating with as a film such as Lord of the Rings ” (679). Nonetheless, the term ‘audience’ itself is progressively less used as scholars confront the issue of how to study media influence as media become more fragmented and more interactive.

The ‘mass’ sense in which we thought of the media audience in the first decades of our field has now evolved into a sense that most audiences are ‘niche’ audiences of various sorts, and that all audiences are active to some degree, though some are more active, and interactive, than others. This necessarily changes, and is continually changing, the sorts of questions it's important for audience researchers to ask; the design of audience research studies; the way we think about the relationships between production, reception, activity, and passivity in the context of media audience study, and the way we think about the nature of media influence itself, and how we should conceptualize this. The study of media audiences, however, continues to be a central and important part of media research more generally, and will continue to be so even as the media environment, media genres, and the relationship between media production and reception continue to evolve.

An agenda for research on youth and the media

Jane D Brown Ph.D. , Joanne Cantor Ph.D. , in Journal of Adolescent Health , 2000

Finally, we agreed that this conference and the creation of a common research agenda was an important first step, but that to continue to make progress we should work for the creation of a funding infrastructure and an ongoing forum for the exchange of ideas about research on youth and media. Unfortunately, media research typically is not seen as a discipline in its own right, and thus does not have an established peer-reviewed grant structure. Federal and nongovernmental research agencies should be encouraged to recognize the importance of the media in many aspects of life in our society and to develop funding mechanisms for research. Creation of a coalition of foundations, media industries, and government agencies that are interested in the future of media for youth would be ideal. We hope the ideas presented here will further stimulate interest in and support of the study of the media’s important role in the health and well-being of adolescents.

Multicultural media portrayals and the changing demographic landscape: the psychosocial impact of television representations on the adolescent of color

Gordon L Berry Ed.D. , in Journal of Adolescent Health , 2000

Future research will need to adopt culturally sensitive methods within what I call “ecological media research .” An ecological media research perspective uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to study the cognitive and emotional effects of new media forms within a context of the culture of the youth, not apart from the important roots of the home and family. Such a perspective recognizes that the researcher must appreciate the intercultural variability found in minority groups so that the predictor variables and other parts of the design do not rely on preconceived and faulty views about youth of color. Some of the important research questions that should be addressed include:

To what extent are the hate messages, images, and values available on the Internet having a negative effect on the youth of the racial and religious groups being targeted or identified, as well as on the cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors of the nonminority youth who must grow, develop, and function in an increasingly multicultural society?

What will be the educational, social, economic/career, and psychological/emotional impact on those youth who will have limited access to the new media, and the lack of equity associated with the new technologies?

What are the historical, economic, political and personal worldviews and belief systems that guide the decision-making processes inside the media industry that result in the lack of multicultural images and stories and continued stereotypes in the media?

Can schema theory help explain how youth of color and white Americans process, learn, and comprehend ethnic content?

What is the potential of multiethnic programs, games, and other new media to produce characters who will be able to enhance self-esteem, influence achievement motivation, reduce stereotypes, and function as positive cross-cultural role models for all adolescents?

Mining location from social media: A systematic review

Kristin Stock , in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , 2018

7 Discussion

Edwards et al. (2013) discuss the role of social media research : as a surrogate for traditional methods; as a re-orientation of research around new objects, populations and techniques of analysis, or as augmentation, and evidence of all of these can be seen in the results of this study. In some cases, social media has been used as a replacement/alternative for data collection that would previously have been done manually. For example, studies of flu and other diseases are often compared to data collected by more traditional means (e.g. hospital admissions) to determine whether it is a true reflection (e.g. Allen et al., 2016 ). There is also evidence of research into areas for which it has previously been difficult to obtain data, with examples such as terrorism (e.g. Mirani and Sasi, 2016 ; Simon et al., 2014 ). The disaster domain is an example of an area for which social media has augmented existing data sources, and in some cases provided data that was not previous available.

Although Fig. 2 suggests that research into the use of geospatial data from social media is no longer increasing, there is still much potential for future research, and in this Section we discuss some of the areas in which future efforts might be directed.

7.1 Social media platforms

As discussed in Section 4.1 , the dominance of Twitter in the research is clear. However, Statista's January 2018 ranking of web sites by number of users 5 ranks Twitter 11th globally, with Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Sina Weibo all used more frequently, along with several messaging platforms. Facebook, by far the most popular social media platform, with 2.167 million users, only accounted for 2.1% of the usage reported in our survey, and YouTube, with 1.5 million users only 1.8%. Originally, Twitter was popular among researchers of social media location data extraction because of the high frequency of open accounts (not password protected or requiring membership), and because of its geolocation functionality. However, many other platforms have large quantities of open data. For example, Facebook now has a large quantity of public pages to which users cluster and add comments (for example, civil defence organisation Facebook pages, which are often full of posts before, during and after disaster events). Bird et al. (2012) show how Facebook has been used by members of the public to get useful and accurate information about a disaster event, including location-based information. Platforms such as Instagram and Youtube also have large quantities of open data. Furthermore, our research shows that the low proportion of tweets that are location tagged and the accuracy of alternative methods of geolocating tweets (e.g. MCN) make other platforms suitable alternatives for research focus. From a practical point of view, the Twitter API also presents a number of hurdles for automatic harvesting, with limited quotas and cost implications, making harvesting from other platforms easier in many cases. There is also much potential for increased research into specialist social media platforms, including those that address particular segments of the population (e.g. gay social media platforms), and those that are focussed around particularly topics (e.g. Strava for runners and cyclists).

We also highlight the need for research that investigates the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of different platforms for different situations and application areas, continuing work started by Silva et al. (2013) and Simon et al. (2014) . Current research shows little analysis of alternative platforms in selecting a strategy for social media harvesting, beyond high level considerations like whether text or images would be most useful, and researchers rarely discuss the reason for selecting a particular platform. In this paper, we have discussed the current usage of social media platforms, but more research is required on the suitability of particular platforms for different purposes.

Another related area for future research is the identification of appropriate search strategies to find useful content in different social media platforms. For social media that provide access via a stream (e.g. Twitter), this may involve identifying more efficient strategies than random selection or blanket coverage for finding relevant content, while for social media that provides access through particular entry points (e.g. Facebook pages), this may involve developing strategies to identify relevant pages and other entry points for a particular purpose. Social media platforms contain vast amounts of data that is not useful, and finding the useful geospatial content within it can be difficult. As more advanced strategies for extracting content that go beyond simply mapping specific words and topics become more developed, the ability to locate specific data will be more important.

7.2 Location extraction

The absence of accurate measures of coverage for many of the location extraction methods is an area that warrants future attention. Some of the methods described achieve high accuracy among a certain subset of messages or users, and this is not always clear when accuracy figures are examined. The definition of coverage is also not clear. Of most interest is the ability to determine for how many messages (or users, in the case of a base location determination), a location can be determined, but many researchers report the variations of this, including the percentage of messages that have a location in a particular format that can be located, or the percentage of place names that can be successfully extracted. While these are also interesting measures, they obscure the overall usefulness of the method for mapping or spatial analysis that can adequately represent a population.

In terms of prioritisation of methods for further research attention, Fig. 6 shows that a number of methods were given attention in the early years of social media location extraction research, but have not continued to be popular, including the tag-based methods (MTW, MTN), IMP (image-properties) and many of the methods that extract location from different aspects of the user profile. The lack of continued interest in these areas is generally supported by the accuracy figures in Fig. 7 , with those methods generally falling towards the middle and lower right of the graph. The more successful methods (MTN and SNC) continue to receive attention, although less so in the latter case. The fact remains, however, that significant improvements are still needed in order to make social media location extraction effective at the sub 100 m level. Middleton et al. (2014) achieve 90% accuracy when identifying streets (by extracting street names), which is an easier task that identifying locations more generally. They do also achieve similar results for places, varying from buildings to rivers. Gelernter and Balaji's (2013) similar approach identifies buildings and place names with high success rates. These methods rely on a creation of local data sets that contain a reliable set of building and street names, and on the user employing those names, rather than more colloquial or flexible descriptions. Further research to make these approaches scalable would be appropriate, investigating methods for creation of reliable and complete gazetteers that include local and vernacular place names at a global level.

Another area that has been given very limited attention in the social media research is that of identifying location descriptions that are not confined to toponyms (including local place and street names). Many location descriptions that are used colloquially consist of relative location references or describe parts of wider areas (e.g. the area opposite the train station was flooded; riots in downtown Nottingham; cannabis seized in raids in south-eastern suburbs in Melbourne) , and there is very little research investigating the nature of this language, whether it differs from other natural language location descriptions, and the best methods to extract and interpret it. A few papers extract a subset of spatial relations (e.g. Bahir and Peled, 2016 ; Dittrich et al., 2015 ; Zhang et al., 2017 ) and descriptions that follow a specific template (e.g. a traffic accident 10   km north of Wellsford on SH1 ) ( Bassi et al., 2016 ), but more extensive investigation could result in an increased ability to geolocate social media posts that are not adequately addressed by other location extraction methods.

An area that has been referred to but not studied in any detail is the influence of incorrect location data that is deliberately introduced. This has been identified as an issue by Sanaratne et al. (2017) , who consider it a particular issue in image sharing sites like Flickr and Instagram, and Benvenuto et al. (2010) claim that spambots in Twitter skew the results of analysis. Issues such as location spoofing and fake check-ins are also recognised as an issue that may affect data quality with several different types and motivations for spoofing being identified by Zhao and Sui (2017) . They detect up to 1.36% of geo-tags as spurious. It is difficult to determine how much this affects the results of location-based social media analysis, and it was not addressed systematically by the papers in our review. In some cases of social media mining of location data, it is less likely because users are unaware of the possibility that their data is being used, or of the strategy used to extract their location. For example, Benevento et al.'s (2010) work studied spam that tags advertising or pornographic URLs with unrelated tags, and the impact of this on the kinds of extractions and analysis reviewed in this paper depends very much on the level of analysis adopted. These strategies would have more impact on the simpler location extraction strategies (e.g. mapping a specific tag using MML) than on those that adopt more sophisticated or targeted extraction. In cases in which users are aware that their data is being used (e.g. when posting photos of species to a dedicated Facebook page, as in Deng et al., 2012), deliberate introduction of incorrect material may be more likely, but in these situations, the posts are visible to all users, so peer verification of the kind described by Goodchild and Li (2012) is possible. Future research to further investigate the scale of this problem in terms of its actual influence on analysis of location data extracted from social media is necessary, as is work to test and apply methods for data validation that incorporate the possibility of deliberately spurious data appearing in the data set. There has been very little of this work done to date.

7.3 Transferability and scalability

While research into geographic data extracted from social media has been conducted for some years and may provide a useful tool for researchers in a number of domains, the range of location extraction approaches are not yet sufficiently mature to allow easy application by researchers who are not experts in the use of social media, beyond the most basic tools offered by software applications for social media analysis (e.g. Microsoft's Social Engagement and SAS's Information Retrieval Studio). Such tools provide limited geographic extraction capabilities, and limited transparency in terms of how location is extracted and from where. This survey shows that it is currently very difficult to evaluate alternative approaches to collection of geographic data, and particularly to compare accuracy and coverage across methods, given the range of different reporting measures that are used. Some approaches are effective in a limited area, or within specified contexts, and it would be useful to adopt a more standardised approach to the reporting of success measures, in order to enable researchers from other domains to make more informed decisions about method suitability in a particular context, and the effort required to employ a particular method. Many researchers from other application areas fall back on the MML method with Twitter, and while this can provide useful analysis, it only provides access to a very limited amount of the geographic data that is potentially available.

1.3 Organizing Logics

While mass media studies is a rather sprawling field, there are several organizing logics that give it some structure and coherence. These logics are not mutually exclusive, nor do they have equivalent status. However, they can serve as partial maps of the research terrain. The first such logic derives simply from specifying a particular medium. Many people in the field will identify themselves for example as researchers of television, radio, or the press. Others will specialize still further and focus, for example, on television history or the television industry. Many research studies, however, may encompass more than one medium, for example in a case of the analysis of news coverage.

A second logic is to emphasize the different elements of the communication process: a basic model of communication will often use the elements ‘sender,’ ‘message,’ and ‘receiver.’ Translated into the context of the mass media, this yields, respectively, studies of media institutions, media output, and media audiences. Research on media institutions examines the conditions, both internal and external, that shape the way they function. This can encompass for instance questions about regulation, political influence, and organizational routines. The study of media output includes the form, content, and modes of representation. Often specific genres, particularly television genres such as soap operas and talk shows, become the object of sustained research attention. Studies of media audiences can include analyses of the impact of specific output, the uses which people make of it, and the interpretations they derive from it.

Third, specific topics or themes provide ongoing structure to the field. These themes can be broad, such as media effects, or (more specifically) media effects on children. Many themes link media studies with particular topics on the wider social research agenda, such as gender and ethnicity; health communication, media and social movements, and media and sports, are also examples of such specialization. Some themes derive instead from particular theoretical and/or methodological developments, for example, agenda setting, media events, or media uses and gratification, and can be applied to a variety of empirical areas.

A fourth organizing logic derives from the still- remaining links between mass media and the ‘parent’ disciplines; such links serve to focus research (and connect researchers) from particular disciplinary perspectives. For example, political communication is a subfield that interfaces with political science, often incorporating public opinion studies; the psychology of communication examines cognitive processes in relation to mass media. Often, however, within the overall field of mass media studies, intellectual lineage is not made explicit, given that the field has developed a distinct identity over the course of several decades.

Finally, weaving through the above logics are sets of intellectual traditions that very loosely structure the field into schools of thought (see below). It should be emphasized that ‘school’ is used loosely here; it points to tendencies within the field, not unified factions with clear demarcations. These schools basically reflect differing theoretical and methodological orientations; they point to general intellectual dispositions. The relationships among them have evolved over time, and the development of the field can be understood to a considerable extent by looking at the emergence, interface, and transitions of these schools of thought.

While the exact labeling may be differ in historical accounts of the field, the following constitute the main schools of thought within mass media research : the mainstream perspective, the critical tradition, the culturalist approach, and the policy horizon.

Related terms:

• School Libraries
• Research and Development
• Media Platform
• Cyberbullying
• Transformational Leadership

• Marketing Mix Strategy
• Five Forces
• Business Lists
• Competitors
• Business Concepts
• Marketing and Strategy

Media Research

This article covers meaning, parameters & example of Media Research from marketing perspective.

What is Media Research?

Media Research is the study of the effects of the different mass media on social, psychological and physical aspects. Research segments the people based on what television programs they watch, radio they listen, media they access and magazines they read.

It includes achievements and effects of media and a study about the development of media. Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, Cinema or other mass media analysis and collection of information’s. It helps to understand the ways in which media can meet the needs of the audience. Whether it can provide information and entertainment to more and different types of people. New technological improvements that helps to improve or enhance the medium. Thus in order to deal with social and political issues insightfully, management and regulation of media is needed. Unbiased evaluation of data can be achieved through media research.

Parameters in Media Research

In Media Research, We need to understand:

1. The nature of medium being used

2. The working of the medium

3. Technologies involved in it

4. Difference and similarities between it and other media vehicles

5. Functions and services provided by it

6. Cost associated and access to new medium

7. Effectiveness and how it can be improved

As decision process depends on data, thus media research has grown to be utilized for long range planning. Research is in growth phase due to competitions between different media.

• Media Scheduling
• Media Vehicle
• Media Strategy
• Media Channel

Media Research Example

An example can be time a person spends with a particular medium like a TV channel, radio station or social media platform. The effectiveness in terms of time spent, interactions etc. are measured. It also includes the costs associated with each channel and ROI provided.

Hence, this concludes the definition of Media Research along with its overview.

This article has been researched & authored by the Business Concepts Team which comprises of MBA students, management professionals, and industry experts. It has been reviewed & published by the MBA Skool Team . The content on MBA Skool has been created for educational & academic purpose only.

Browse the definition and meaning of more similar terms. The Management Dictionary covers over 1800 business concepts from 5 categories.

Continue Reading:

• Sales Management
• Market Segmentation
• Brand Equity
• Positioning
• Selling Concept
• Marketing & Strategy Terms
• Human Resources (HR) Terms
• Operations & SCM Terms
• IT & Systems Terms
• Statistics Terms

What is MBA Skool? About Us

MBA Skool is a Knowledge Resource for Management Students, Aspirants & Professionals.

Business Courses

• Operations & SCM
• Human Resources

Quizzes & Skills

• Management Quizzes
• Skills Tests

Quizzes test your expertise in business and Skill tests evaluate your management traits

Related Content

• Marketing Strategy
• Inventory Costs
• Sales Quota
• Quality Control
• Training and Development
• Capacity Management
• Work Life Balance
• More Definitions

All Business Sections

• SWOT Analysis
• Marketing Mix & Strategy
• PESTLE Analysis
• Five Forces Analysis
• Top Brand Lists

Write for Us

• Submit Content
• Privacy Policy
• Contribute Content
• Web Stories

Media Studies

• Communication
• Linguistics

Media studies is an interdisciplinary field that examines the role of media in society, culture, and politics. It involves the critical analysis of various forms of media such as television, film, social media, newspapers, and radio. This is a relatively new field, having emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. This was in response to the growing influence of mass media on society.

Media studies typically explores topics such as media production, representation, reception, and the impact of media on society. It examines how media messages are constructed and how they are interpreted by audiences. Also, how it affects social norms and values. The field also considers the economic and political factors that influence media production and distribution.

Media studies is an interdisciplinary field that draws on a range of theoretical perspectives. These include cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and political science. It uses both qualitative and quantitative research methods to examine media content, audiences, and effects.

Media studies is an important field because it helps us to understand the media’s role in shaping public opinion. It allows us to critically analyse media messages and to become more media literate. By studying media, we can better understand how media industries operate and how they influence our lives.

Some of the key issues that media studies explore include media ownership and concentration. Also considered are representations and stereotyping, as well as the impact of media on democracy. Media’s increasing integration into our daily lives ensures the continued importance of this area of study.

Media Activism | Strategies, Challenges & Impact on Society

• June 12, 2024 August 28, 2024

Media Activism involves using media to drive social, political, and environmental change. In the digital age, it’s crucial for movements, allowing activists to influence opinion, reach large audiences, and hold power accountable. This article explores its impact, strategies, and challenges.

Public Sphere | Understanding its Role in Modern Society

• May 19, 2024 July 26, 2024

The Public Sphere is crucial in modern democracies for debate, influencing public opinion and policies. Originating from ancient Greece, its modern concept was defined by Jürgen Habermas, evolving through enlightenment salons and mass media’s rise, impacting accessibility and manipulation concerns.

Global Village | Media’s Influence on Global Communication

• April 25, 2024 July 26, 2024

In our digital age, Marshall McLuhan’s “Global Village” reflects the interconnectedness facilitated by communication technologies, figuratively shrinking the world. This article explores its origins, cultural impacts, and societal challenges, highlighting a concept where information exchange fosters an integrated world community.

Discourse Analysis | Understanding the Power of Media Language

• April 1, 2024 August 28, 2024

Language shapes perceptions and Discourse Analysis (DA) is key in Media and Communications studies for unveiling power dynamics within it. This article explores DA’s principles, methodologies, and practical implications in real-world scenarios, emphasising its significance beyond mere communication.

Social Cognitive Theory | Observing Human Behavior

• March 9, 2024 March 31, 2024

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) examines how individuals learn and behave, emphasising the interplay between personal factors, environmental influences, and actions. Focused on its observational learning, SCT offers us valuable insights into human behavior across various contexts and applications.

Media Bias | Balancing Ethics in Journalism & Reporting

• February 14, 2024 March 31, 2024

Media, a powerful influencer of public opinion, sparks questions about objectivity due to Media Bias; systematic favouritism or prejudice in information dissemination. This article explores the implications of Media Bias, emphasising the importance of critical engagement with information for consumers.

Political Economy Theory | The Interplay of Politics & Media

• January 21, 2024 March 31, 2024

Political Economy Theory is integral in understanding the intricate connections among politics, economics, and media in the Media and Communications field. It explores its core concepts, historical origins, and vital significance within the contemporary media landscape, offering a comprehensive perspective.

Postmodernism Theory | The Complex Nature of Modern Media

• December 28, 2023 March 31, 2024

Postmodernism Theory holds considerable significance in Media and Communications. The theory challenges conventional perspectives, ushering in a new way of understanding the world. This article delves into the intricacies of Postmodernism Theory and explores its impact on Media and Communication.

Two-Step Flow of Communication | Decoding Media Influence

• December 4, 2023 March 31, 2024

In Media and Communications, a crucial focus lies in comprehending the mechanisms of information propagation. The Two-Step Flow of Communication, termed by Paul Lazarsfeld in the mid-20th century, challenges traditional notions of direct media impact, offering insights into nuanced dissemination.

News media trust and its impact on media use: toward a framework for future research

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338

Introduction

Conceptualizations of media trust, operationalizations of media trust, connecting media trust to media use, towards a framework for studying media trust and its impact on media use, discussion and conclusions, disclosure statement, additional information.

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Reprints & Permissions
• View PDF PDF View EPUB EPUB

In contemporary high-choice media environments, the issue of media trust and its impact on people's media use has taken on new importance. At the same time, the extent to which people trust the news media and how much it matters for their use of different types of media is not clear. To lay the groundwork for future research, in this article we offer a focused review of (a) how news media trust has been conceptualized and operationalized in previous research and (b) research on the extent to which news media trust influences media use, and (c) offer a theoretically derived framework for future research on news media trust and its influence on media use.

• News media trust
• news media use
• selective exposure
• conceptualizations
• measurements
• methodology

From a democratic perspective, a key function of news media is to ‘aid citizens in becoming informed’ (Holbert, Citation 2005 , p. 511). For the news media to fulfill this function, an important prerequisite is that they provide people with the kind of information they need to be free and self-governing (Kovach & Rosenstiel, Citation 2014 ; Strömbäck, Citation 2005 ). In itself, this is however not enough. Of key importance is also that people use, and that they trust, the news media. After all, even a perfectly informative news media environment is of little democratic use if citizens by and large do not consume the news or if they do not trust the news.

At the same time, research suggests that media trust is either falling or that many citizens do not trust the news media. In the US, for example, Gallup has shown that the share expressing a great deal or a fair amount of ‘trust and confidence’ in ‘the mass media’ declined from 68 percent in 1968 to 32 percent in 2016 (Jones, Citation 2018 ), and although it has rebounded since, only 12 percent report ‘a great deal’ of confidence in the media (Guess et al., Citation 2018 ). Other comparative research suggests that the share trusting ‘most news most of the time’ is about 49 percent across all countries investigated (Newman et al., Citation 2019 , p. 20). While claims that media trust in general is falling are exaggerated (Hanitzsch et al., Citation 2018 ), it is thus clear that news media trust is at least fragile.

Adding to the above, the transformation into high-choice media environments (Prior, Citation 2007 ; Van Aelst et al., Citation 2017 ) has brought with it several new or increased challenges for traditional news media and news media trust. First, like never before, news media today face competition for people's attention from a myriad of other sources of information. Second, many of news media's newer competitors are so-called alternative and partisan media, in which attacks on traditional news media for being untrustworthy is a prominent feature (Jamieson & Cappella, Citation 2008 ; Ladd, Citation 2012 ). Third, digital and social media have made political and other social actors less dependent on news media to reach the public, allowing them to by-pass the news media but also providing channels for attacks on the news media (Groshek & Koc-Michalska, Citation 2017 ). Fourth, there is probably more so-called ‘fake news’ (Egelhofer & Lecheler, Citation 2019 ), disinformation and misinformation circulating in the public arena than ever (Benkler et al., Citation 2018 ; Kavanagh & Rich, Citation 2018 ). There are also indications that leading politicians are less afraid than before of being caught with providing misinformation, with president Trump as a prime example (PolitiFact, Citation 2019 ). Fifth, it is an established fact that people tend to prefer attitude-consistent information (Flynn et al., Citation 2017 ) and to engage in motivated reasoning and skepticism when encountering challenging information (Kunda, Citation 1990 ; Taber & Lodge, Citation 2006 ). This holds particularly true for partisans and those whose worldviews are challenged by attitude-discrepant information (Lewandowsky et al., Citation 2012 ). Those are also the ones most likely to fall prey for the hostile media phenomena, i.e. the tendency to perceive news media as being hostile towards one's own side while favoring the other side in a political conflict (Hansen & Kim, Citation 2011 ; Vallone et al., Citation 1985 ).

With all those challenges facing contemporary news media, it has become increasingly important for news media to be trusted. After all, why would people otherwise have more faith in the veracity of information coming from news media compared to that coming from other information sources? How could news media otherwise shield themselves from accusations from political actors or partisan media? And why would people otherwise choose to use news media when they can get information from other sources that will provide them with information that confirm their own attitudes and beliefs? In fact, there is some research showing that lack of trust in news media is related to less use of these and greater use of non-mainstream information sources (Kalogeropoulos et al., Citation 2019 ; Ladd, Citation 2012 ; Mourão et al., Citation 2018 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 , Citation 2005 ), suggesting that there is a linkage between news media trust and selective (non)exposure to news media.

At the same time, the extent to which (a) people trust the news media and (b) how much it matters for their use of these and other types of media is not clear. One reason is that too often, studies rely on single or too general indicators of media trust, while another is a lack of common conceptualizations and operationalizations of media trust (Engelke et al., Citation 2019 ; Fischer, Citation 2016 ). In addition, there are surprisingly few studies addressing the impact of news media trust on people's media use. Taken together, this suggests that there is a need for a reassessment of research on news media trust and its consequences in terms of how it relates to media use.

Against this background, the purpose of this article is twofold. The first is to offer a focused review of (a) how news media trust has been conceptualized and operationalized in previous research and of (b) research on the extent to which news media trust influences the use of traditional news media versus non-mainstream media. Footnote 1 Based on that, the second is to suggest a framework for further research on news media trust and its influence on people's use of traditional news media as well as non-mainstream media.

Before proceeding, two caveats should be noted. First, in the literature, ‘media trust’ and ‘news media trust’ are often used interchangeably, but most of the time, the terms refer to trust in traditional news media such as newspapers. In this article, if nothing else is stated, we refer to traditional news media such as newspapers, television news and radio news – in their offline or online formats – when writing about news media and news media trust. Second, while a full understanding of the linkages between people's trust in news media and their media use would require equal attention to conceptualizations and operationalizations of news media trust and media use, in this article, we will focus on news media trust.

In the relevant literature, media trust is often discussed alongside related concepts such as media credibility and media trustworthiness (Engelke et al., Citation 2019 ; Kiousis, Citation 2001 ; Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 ; Otto & Köhler, Citation 2018 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ). Its opposite is usually conceptualized as distrust, media cynicism or media skepticism. As other types of trust, media trust describe a relation between two sides: ‘a trustor, the side that places trust, and a trustee, the side being trusted’ (Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 , p. 505). Inherent in all such relationships is a degree of uncertainty, making the credibility of the trustee imperative for understanding the degree to which people trust the trustee. As Kohring ( Citation 2019 , p. 1) explains, ‘news media users do not have at their disposal the resources and capabilities to evaluate thoroughly the reliability of news … Thus, somehow they have to find clues to legitimate their trust and to compensate for this inevitable risk.’ Perceptions of media credibility can thus be conceptualized as encapsulating the clues that people use to evaluate their trust in media. This is one reason why news credibility is closely linked to, and often discussed interchangeably with, news media trust. Another important part of virtually all conceptualizations of both trust in general and news media trust is the expectation on the part of the trustor that interactions will lead to gains rather than losses for the trustor (Gambetta, Citation 1988 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ; Patterson, Citation 1999 ; Warren, Citation 1999 ).

Research on media credibility dates back to Hovland and colleagues’ research on source credibility , which investigated how different source characteristics influence people's willingness to change their attitudes toward different issues (Hovland et al., Citation 1953 ). Their research focused mainly on individual communicators, although they noted that ‘the impact of a message probably depends also upon the particular publication or channel through which it is transmitted’ (p. 19). Since then, it is common to distinguish between source credibility and medium credibility (Kiousis, Citation 2001 ).

According to Hovland et al. ( Citation 1953 ), source credibility consists of two main components: expertise and trustworthiness . As noted by Kohring and Matthes ( Citation 2007 , p. 233), it remains unclear however whether expertise and trustworthiness should be conceptualized as dimensions of or reasons for credibility. More importantly, subsequent research suggests that media credibility includes more components than expertise and trustworthiness (Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 ; Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 ; Meyer, Citation 1988 ; West, Citation 1994 ). Some components that have been identified are the degree to which the media are perceived to be fair, unbiased and accurate (Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 ; Meyer, Citation 1988 ; West, Citation 1994 ). Worth noting, in some of the research attempting to develop and validate a scale for measuring media credibility, media trust is conceptualized as a dimension of media credibility rather than the other way around (Meyer, Citation 1988 ; West, Citation 1994 ).

More recently, several attempts have been made at developing and validating a multidimensional scale for the measurement of media trust. Beginning with Kohring and Matthes ( Citation 2007 ), they build upon the notion that all trust relationships involve a certain degree of uncertainty where one social actor needs another social actor but cannot be sure how that second actor – be it an individual, organization or an institution – will behave in the future (p. 238). Furthermore, they assume that the most important function of news media is to select and convey the kind of information people need to understand politics and society (Kovach & Rosenstiel, Citation 2014 ). As news reporting by necessity is selective, they argue that selectivity should be the basis for analyses of news media trust: ‘when people put their trust in news media, they take a certain risk. This is because journalists selectively choose some information over other information. Therefore, when trusting news media, people trust in specific selections’ (Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 , p. 239). More specifically, they posit that trust in news media consists of four separate dimensions: trust in the selectivity of topics , trust in the selectivity of facts , trust in the accuracy of depictions , and trust in journalistic assessment .

Another attempt at examining first- and second-order factor structures for news credibility was undertaken by Yale et al. ( Citation 2015 ). More specifically, they focused on whether news credibility consists of several, empirically separate subdimensions, as suggested by some earlier studies (Abdulla et al., Citation 2004 ; Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 ; Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 ). Using experiments with individual news articles as stimuli and confirmatory factor analysis, they found insufficient discriminant validity among the subdimensions investigated, leading them to conclude that it is not possible to empirically establish that media credibility or media trust consists of different subdimensions. Instead, they recommend that any credibility scale ‘must be treated as a single-factor measure when used as a variable’ (p. 166).

The most recent study in this area was done by Prochazka and Schweiger ( Citation 2019 ), in which they test both the trust in news media scale by Kohring and Matthes ( Citation 2007 ) and the news credibility scale by Yale et al. ( Citation 2015 ). Among other things, they found that both scales entailed a good model fit when applied to general trust in news media, but also – similar to Yale et al. ( Citation 2015 ) – problems with discriminant validity among the subdimensions. This suggests that while it theoretically makes sense to conceptualize news media trust as consisting of different subdimensions, empirically, media trust should rather be considered a higher-order factor that need to be measured by multi-item scales but not different dimensions that are measured and used as separate variables (Prochazka & Schweiger, Citation 2019 ).

Another thorny issue is related to the trustee, i.e. what ‘media’ as in ‘media trust’ refers to. Early on, research noted that trust in and the credibility of television and newspapers tend to differ, although there is usually a correlation between the two (Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 ; Kiousis, Citation 2001 ; Metzger et al., Citation 2003 ; Newhagen & Nass, Citation 1989 ; Westley & Severin, Citation 1964 ). Recent research has furthermore established that levels of media trust differ depending on whether it refers to news overall, news that people use, or news in digital and social media (Newman et al., Citation 2019 ), whether it refers to an unspecified referent (such as ‘the press’ or ‘the media’) or specified news sources (Daniller et al., Citation 2017 ; Eberl, Citation 2019 ), and whether it refers to commercial versus public service broadcast news (Matsa, Citation 2018 ). Media trust might also differ depending on whether it refers to national versus local media, across individual news media, and across the coverage of different topics (Matsa et al., Citation 2018 ; Metzger et al., Citation 2003 ; Mitchell et al., Citation 2014 ; Mitchell et al., Citation 2016 ).

Hence, it is clear that the concept of media is polysemic and might refer to many – partly overlapping – different facets of media, in particular in contemporary high-choice media environments with a greater media abundance than ever. This is important also when assessing time trends, in particular when questions relate to unspecified media. Assuming an accessibility bias is at work, in earlier low-choice media environments, people were likely thinking about quite similar mainstream news media when responding to questions about media trust (Ladd, Citation 2012 ; Tsfati, Citation 2002 ; Tsfati & Peri, Citation 2006 ). In contemporary media environments, the media they are thinking about might be more diverse as well as more partisan or high-profile, in particular in countries where such media are prominent. In fact, Daniller et al. ( Citation 2017 ) suggest that as much as 60 percent of the decline in Americans’ trust in ‘the press’ can be explained by shifts in the most accessible referent – i.e. what media people are thinking of – when responding to questions about media trust (p. 81). This is a reminder that ‘Even when the survey wording for an item remains constant, the meaning of answers to a survey question can still change’ (Daniller et al., Citation 2017 , p. 82).

Summing up, this review shows that there is significant variability in terms of how ‘trust’ as well as ‘news media’ in the context of ‘news media trust’ has been conceptualized (see also Engelke et al., Citation 2019 ), and although it makes sense theoretically to think of news media trust as consisting of several subdimensions, empirically the conclusion must be that it is difficult to measure subdimensions of news media trust with sufficient discriminant validity (Prochazka & Schweiger, Citation 2019 ; Yale et al., Citation 2015 ). Having said so, at the broadest conceptual level, there is significant consensus that news media trust refers to the relationship between citizens (the trustors) and the news media (the trustees) where citizens, however tacit or habitual, in situations of uncertainty expect that interactions with the news media will lead to gains rather than losses (Gambetta, Citation 1988 ; Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 ; Ladd, Citation 2012 ; Prochazka & Schweiger, Citation 2019 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ; Warren, Citation 1999 ; Yale et al., Citation 2015 ).

In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media – such as newspapers, TV and radio – when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all. (Jones, Citation 2018 )

I am going to name a number of organizations. For each one, could you tell me how much confidence you have in them: is it a great deal of confidence, quite a lot of confidence, not very much confidence or none at all.

I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For each of the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it.

Turning to individual studies, there are many different operationalizations of media trust. Some of them include items from News Credibility Scale, developed by Gaziano and McGrath ( Citation 1986 ). This includes 12 items asking respondents to ‘think about the daily’ newspaper or television news show ‘that you are most familiar with’ and, using a five-point scale anchored with word pairs with opposite meaning, state the value ‘that best represents how you feel about the’ daily newspaper or television news show they have in mind. The word pairs used were fair–unfair, biased–unbiased, tells – does not tell the who story–, accurate–inaccurate, invades–respects people's privacy, does–does not watch after readers’/viewers’ interests, is–is not concerned about the community's well-being, does–does not separate fact and opinion, can–cannot be trusted, is concerned about the public interest–is concerned about making profits, factual–opinionated, and has well-trained–poorly trained reporters (Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 , pp. 454–455). Tsfati and Cappella ( Citation 2003 ), for example, used four of these items (fair, accurate, tell the whole story, can be trusted), in addition to an item asking whether the media care more about being the first to report a story or about being accurate in reporting the story and one asking whether media help society or get in the way of society's solving its problems (adapted from Cappella & Jamieson, Citation 1997 ) (see also Tsfati, Citation 2010 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2005 ). Kiousis ( Citation 2001 ) also used five items from the News Credibility Scale (the media's factualness, motivation by public interest or commercial considerations, whether they invade or respects people's privacy, its concern for the community and whether they can be trusted), but measured on a four-point scale and for newspapers, television news and online news, respectively. Others have used Meyer's Credibility Index ( Citation 1988 ), which consist of five statements from Gaziano and McGrath ( Citation 1986 ): fair–unfair, unbiased–biased, tells–does not tell the whole story, accurate–inaccurate and can–cannot be trusted (Turcotte et al., Citation 2015 ).

Quite many studies use single items to measure media trust, even if asked for different types of news media. Jones ( Citation 2004 ) and Lee ( Citation 2010 ), for example, used an item from the American National Election Study asking respondents ‘How much of the time do you think you can trust the news media to report the news fairly?,’ with the response alternatives ‘just about always, most of the time, only some of the time, almost never, and none of the time.’ Somewhat similarly, Ardèvol-Abreu and Gil de Zúniga ( Citation 2017 ) used the single item ‘how much do you trust the news’ from alternative media, social media sites, mainstream news media and news aggregators, respectively, using a ten-point scale ranging from do not trust to trust completely. Less focused on the news that media report, Hopmann et al. ( Citation 2015 ) on their end measured media trust by asking people ‘generally speaking, how much trust do you have in … ,’ Swedish national public service television and radio, respectively, morning newspapers, tabloids, and journalists. The response alternatives ranged from no trust at all (1) to very high trust (5). More focused on the content of news, Elvestad et al. ( Citation 2018 ) used the measure ‘How much do you trust the news distributed by the sources listed below’ (on a four-point scale ranging from no trust at all to complete trust), including public service and commercial broadcasters and newspapers. As noted, several studies also use data from the World Values Survey (WVS) or the European Values Study (EVS) (Ariely, Citation 2015 ; Hanitzsch et al., Citation 2018 ; Tsfati & Ariely, Citation 2014 ).

Then there are some studies that combine questions about news content, journalists and media corporations or outlets. Williams ( Citation 2012 ), for example, assessed media trust by five items measured on a 10-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree: ‘I trust the information that I get from the news media/the Internet,’ ‘Individuals reporting the news stories are helpful to others,’ ‘Individuals reporting news stories can be trusted,’ ‘Media corporations can be trusted’ and ‘Media corporations help solve social problems.’ Jackob ( Citation 2010 ) similarly mixed measures of the extent to which respondents trust media reports with their trust in various professions and institutions.

While this review of operationalizations could be extended, it would not change the most important conclusions that can be drawn. First and most importantly, there is no agreed-upon measurement or operationalization of media trust (Engelke et al., Citation 2019 ; Fischer, Citation 2016 , Citation 2018 ). Second, there is great variability in terms of whether media trust refers to generalized news media trust or trust in different types of media, specific news outlets, in the news that is reported, or in journalists. Third, there is great variability in whether ‘trust’ refers to media as institutions or organizations, the people working in these institutions or organizations, or the news reported by various media. When questions deal with the news reported by various media, it also differs whether or not a specification is made in terms of whether the news coverage is, for example, comprehensive, accurate and fair. Fourth, there are only few studies that investigate if or how trust varies depending on the topic of news stories. Fifth, there are virtually no studies that link trust in media content to trust in journalists (but see Andersson, Citation 2017 ), media organizations or brands, and media at the more institutional or general level.

On top of these limitations, the nature of mistrust as measured by media trust items is not clear (Engelke et al., Citation 2019 ). Following Cappella and Jamieson ( Citation 1997 ), an important distinction can be made between media skepticism – distrust based on close examination and consideration – and media cynicism – distrust without examination, based on a disposition not to trust. With respect to this distinction, we do not know whether the different scales or items used tap the former or the latter. This is important in relation to the impact of news media trust (and the lack thereof) on media use, as it impinges on the extent to which people avoid certain media because of experiences that they do not provide trustworthy information or because of hearsay or presumptions. In fact, overall there is quite limited research on the reasons people have for not trusting news media (but see Newman & Fletcher, Citation 2017 ). The extent to which different scales reflect the concept of trust versus general attitudes (‘the affect for or against a psychological object,’ Thurstone, Citation 1931 ) towards media is also unclear. Ladd ( Citation 2012 , pp. 94–96), for example, demonstrates that the trust item behaves similarly to, and is rather strongly correlated with, a more general media thermometer rating, and questions asking respondents to evaluate the performance of media coverage of a specific scandal.

The end result is that despite extensive research, our knowledge of news media trust might be more limited than what appears at first glance. Presumably this holds true also for the effects of media trust – including the effects on media use.

Turning to the consequences of media trust, a common assumption in the general trust literature is that trust matters and has behavioral consequences, both on the individual and at the societal level (Easton, Citation 1965 ; Gambetta, Citation 1988 ; Putnam, Citation 2000 ; Warren, Citation 1999 ). This assumption is backed by empirical research demonstrating that trust affects a range of attitudes and behaviors such as civic engagement (Putnam, Citation 1993 ), taxpaying (Batrancea et al., Citation 2019 ), and teamwork (De Jong et al., Citation 2016 ), to mention some examples. Based on this, it could be – and often is – assumed that levels of news media trust influences people's news media use as well. This holds particularly true as the relationship between individuals and the news media involves a certain degree of uncertainty in the sense that people usually cannot verify news media reports with non-media sources – although digital media have made this easier than before.

One a theoretical level, Tsfati and Cappella’s ( Citation 2003 , p. 508) theory connecting news media trust and assumes audience rationality, and in particular utility maximization. It further assumes that people turn to news in order to obtain accurate information about the world, and given utility maximization and the impossibility of attending to all news, all the time, that people have an incentive to ignore many stimuli. Given these theoretical assumptions and the definition of trust as ‘the expectation that the interaction with the trustee would lead to gains rather than losses’ (Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 , p. 506), it does not make much sense to follow media that one does not trust. Theoretically, a correlation between news media trust and exposure can be expected.

However, it is also a fact that in many cases, people's media use is ritualized rather than instrumental and habitual rather than active (Rubin, Citation 2009 ; Ruggiero, Citation 2000 ), and that people use media, even news media and news genres, for other purposes than getting informed. These include diversion and entertainment, as substitute companionship, for social utility, and to serve personal or social identity needs (Blumler, Citation 1979 ; Katz et al., Citation 1973 ; Rubin, Citation 2009 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2005 ). In these cases, for example when people are seeking diversion or to understand diverse perspectives, the level of media trust might matter less compared to when media are used for informational and surveillance purposes. Also important are people's need for cognition (Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2005 ), their political or ideological preferences, and that people tend to prefer information that is attitude-consistent (Flynn et al., Citation 2017 ; Garrett et al., Citation 2013 ; Knobloch-Westerwick, Citation 2014 ; Stroud, Citation 2011 ). This might lead people to select media that are aligned with their political views rather than the media that they otherwise trust the most, although it is also a fact that people tend to trust news media that are aligned with their political views. In the US, for example, liberals tend to trust and use media such as PBS, while conservatives tend to trust and use media such as Fox News (Mitchell et al., Citation 2014 ).

Beyond the individual level, research also shows that news media use is shaped by structural and semi-structural factors as well as situational ones (Althaus et al., Citation 2009 ; Hallin & Mancini, Citation 2004 ; Hartmann, Citation 2009 ; Norris, Citation 2002 ; Shehata & Strömbäck, Citation 2011 ; Webster, Citation 2014 ; Wonneberger et al., Citation 2011 ). The media systems and the overall supply of different types of media, media platforms and media content also matter, as do the contexts in which people use news media and what alternatives to news media there are (Hartmann, Citation 2009 ; Skovsgaard et al., Citation 2018 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ; Webster, Citation 2014 ).

In other words, the relationship between media trust and media use is complex. The question then is whether and how much news media trust matters for people's use of news media. Somewhat surprisingly, there is rather limited research directly addressing this question. There are some exceptions though. One example is Tsfati and Cappella ( Citation 2003 ), who investigated the associations between mainstream media skepticism and exposure to mainstream news and non-mainstream news. In that study, non-mainstream news exposure was defined as political talk radio and internet. Among other things, their results showed that media skepticism was negatively associated with exposure to mainstream news media and positively associated with exposure to non-mainstream news media, and that media skepticism was associated with news diets consisting of a larger share of non-mainstream news media. These results lend some support to the notion that media trust influences the use of news media. At the same time, the associations between media trust and exposure were quite modest. As the authors note, ‘media skepticism is indeed associated with exposure, but it is definitely not the only factor that comes into play in the exposure decision’ (p. 518). In a follow-up study, Tsfati ( Citation 2010 ) also found that media skepticism was positively associated with exposure to non-mainstream news sites. The same pattern was found by Jackob ( Citation 2010 ). In both cases, the associations were again quite modest. In a more recent comparative study using data from the Digital News Report, Fletcher and Park ( Citation 2017 , p. 1291) also found that ‘very low trust is significantly associated with a preference for non-mainstream news sources,’ while the opposite pattern held for very high trust. The strength of the association varied across countries however, and in several cases was not significant. Similar results were found by Prochazka and Schweiger ( Citation 2019 ) when testing different scales of media trust, by Mourão et al. ( Citation 2018 ) when investigating the linkage between media trust on the one hand and different news repertoires on the other, and by Yuan ( Citation 2011 ) when investigating the linkage between media credibility and the likelihood to include different media types in their news media repertoires. On the other hand, a study by Kalogeropoulos and colleagues ( Citation 2019 ), also using data from the Digital News Report, found that using non-mainstream media (defined in this study as digital-born news outlets and news on social media) was positively – not negatively – associated with trust in the news. However, use of social media as the main source of information was associated with lower levels of trust (see also Schranz et al., Citation 2018 ).

Nevertheless, overall previous research suggests that media trust is associated with greater use of news media while media distrust is associated with greater use of non-mainstream news sources, but that the relationship between media trust and media use is quite modest (see also Ladd, Citation 2012 ). Three caveats should be added though. The first is that there is rather limited research, and that operationalizations of media trust as well as non-mainstream news sources differ. In addition, there are no studies on how media trust at different levels of analysis might influence media use, hindering a more nuanced and detailed understanding of the relationship between media trust and use. In fact, most studies correlate media trust on one level with media use on another (e.g, in Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 and in Kalogeropoulos et al., Citation 2019 , trust is measured on the general level and use on the media type level). This lack of correspondence does not suit the theory's rational choice foundations, and may in and of itself explain the modest correlations (Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ).

The second caveat is that most albeit not all studies were done before the more recent transformation into media environments characterized by, among other things, greater abundance of alternative and partisan media, social media, and more frequent attacks on news media. Social media, in particular, add a new layer of diffusion, that includes journalists and other actors disseminating both mainstream and non-mainstream news content. Trust in the proximate disseminator (be it a journalist or a social media friend) potentially serves as a cue to the credibility of the both the information and the more distal disseminator (the news organization).

The third caveat is that almost all previous studies in this area rely on cross-sectional data. Hence, the direction of causality – i.e. the extent to which media trust influences media use versus media use influences media trust – is not clear. What limited research there is addressing this suggests that the association between media trust and media use runs in both directions (Ladd, Citation 2012 ; Tsfati, Citation 2002 ), with some evidence suggesting that for traditional news media, the causal path goes from media use to media trust, while for non-mainstream media, the causal path goes in the other direction (Tsfati, Citation 2002 ). Perhaps most interesting in this respect is the instrumental approach taken by Ladd ( Citation 2012 ), who used respondents’ average daily commute as a predictor of exposure to talk radio and found that it predicted mistrust in traditional news media. One explanation for this pattern might be the strong anti-media rhetoric of many non-mainstream or partisan media (Tsfati, Citation 2002 ; Jamieson & Cappella, Citation 2008 ), leading users to trust and use traditional news media less. More research using longitudinal data is however needed before firm conclusions can be drawn with respect to the causal and reciprocal relationship between media trust and media use. One theoretical framework that would be highly suitable in that context would be the reinforcing spirals model (Slater, Citation 2007 ).

Based on the review above, our assessment is that there is a need for further research both on news media trust in itself and on its causal relation to media use in contemporary high-choice media environments. Such research should furthermore be theory-driven and based on a solid conceptualization of and, ideally, validated measurements of media trust. The same, of course, applies for measures of media use, although it is beyond the scope of this article to address that.

Figure 1. Conceptualizing media trust at different levels of analysis.

The starting point for this framework is the individual users, the trustors. At the very bottom we have placed news media content. This refers to the news stories that individual users, in the most concrete terms, are exposed to when using different media. In terms of measurements, this level could refer to ‘news from’ the news media when covering different topics. Climbing up the ladder of abstraction, we have placed trust in journalists, as they are the ones closest to the production of the news that the media report. These are also quite visible to users and hence quite concrete. Journalists are in turn nested within different media organizations and outlets, which we refer to as individual media brands in the figure. These, in turn, belong to different types of media, such as television or newspapers. This level corresponds to the institutional level. Then, at the highest level of abstraction, we have placed news media in general. It is a deliberate choice to here talk about news media rather than media in general, as the diversity of the latter category makes it close to meaningless in terms of measuring trust.

The arrows at each side run in both directions, to illustrate that trust at one level of analysis might influence trust at a higher or lower level of analysis, although to date there is insufficient research to know if, and if so how or to what extent, trust at different levels of analysis influences trust at another level.

Another important aspect is related to what is meant by trust, aside from the broader notion that media trust refers to the relationship between citizens (the trustors) and the media (the trustees) where citizens, in situations of uncertainty, expect that interactions with the news media will lead to gains rather than losses. One key problem in previous research is that the measures used often leave the meaning of trust unspecified, which leaves it to respondents to interpret the concept of trust. In extension, this means that respondents might have quite different things in mind when responding to the very same questions of media trust. To the extent that trust is specified, the focus is usually on the objects of trust (see above review). While specifications are preferable compared to leaving the meaning of trust unspecified, as they narrow down the degree of freedom when interpreting the questions, there are however important conceptual differences between, for example, ‘the people running’ media institutions and ‘reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly.’ The end result is not only that results are quite hard to interpret in substantial terms – as we do not know what people mean when responding that they trust or do not trust media at different levels of analysis – but also insufficient comparability across studies and hence cumulativity of findings (c.f. Esser et al., Citation 2012 ).

In order to increase conceptual clarity, comparability across studies, cumulativity of findings, and our understanding of how news media trust matters both in general and for people's news media use, what is needed is a specification of news media trust that both (a) stays close to the broader definition of trust and (b) the specific nature and function of news media in democratic societies. From that perspective, it follows that the focus should be on trust not in media as institutions or in the people running media institutions, but trust in the information coming from news media at different levels of analysis. There are several reasons why this should be the focus. First, a key democratic function of news media is to provide people with the kind of information they need to ‘be free and self-governing’ (Kovach & Rosenstiel, Citation 2014 , p. 12; McQuail, Citation 1992 ; Patterson, Citation 2013 ; Strömbäck, Citation 2005 ). That presupposes that the information provided corresponds to reality and is factually verified. Hence, Kovach and Rosenstiel call journalism ‘a discipline of verification,’ which ultimately is what sets journalism apart from other types of media content such as, for example, entertainment, propaganda, or art (Kovach & Rosenstiel, Citation 2014 , p. 71). Second, within the journalistic community, providing factual and reliable information to the public is generally thought of as the most important role of journalism (Hanitzsch et al., Citation 2011 ; Weaver & Willnat, Citation 2012 ). Thus, focusing on trust in the information reported by news media at different levels of analysis offers a way of investigating the extent to which news media is perceived as living up to its ideals according both to democratic theory and the journalistic community at large. Third, accepting the veracity of the information is the risk people take when they consume news. When people act upon this information in their daily lives (when voting, buying or selling stocks, planning trips etc.) they risk taking the wrong decision, and this risk is the most central element in the definition of trust (Coleman, Citation 1990 ; Gambetta, Citation 1988 ; Mayer et al., Citation 1995 ). Fourth, it is no coincidence that political actors and non-mainstream or partisan media that attack traditional news media for delivering ‘fake news’ or otherwise seek to undermine the legitimacy of traditional news media focus on the trustworthiness of the information coming from traditional news media (Benkler et al., Citation 2018 ; Egelhofer & Lecheler, Citation 2019 ; Jamieson & Cappella, Citation 2008 ). That illustrates that what matters is ultimately not the other roles of news media as institutions or organizations but the information coming from these. Fifth, virtually all research on news media trust and news media credibility in fact shares an understanding that what matters is trust in the information coming from news media (Gaziano & McGrath, Citation 1986 ; Kohring & Matthes, Citation 2007 ; Ladd, Citation 2012 ; Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 ; Yale et al., Citation 2015 ), although that is not always sufficiently mirrored in the measurements used.

Beyond these normative and logical reasons, the most important reason for the proposed focus on information is theoretical. The theory connecting trust in media and news use assumes (Tsfati & Cappella, Citation 2003 , Assumption 2, p. 508) that the main motivation for spending time and energy on news consumption is the necessity of acquiring information about the non-immediate environment. While this information does not have to be full or fully accurate, it is required for adjusting our behavior to changes in the environment in order to reach our goals. As information is at the core of the trust-news-use theoretical proposition, its incorporation into the measurement of the theory's main construct is required.

Table 1. Proposed measures of trust in information coming from news media at different levels of analysis.

Table 2. using multiple items to measure media trust at different levels of analysis..

The key point is that the focus should be on trust in the information coming from news media regardless of the level of analysis and, when using multiple items to form a trust scale, adapting items used to measure the concept that comes closest, which is (perceptions of) the credibility of news. This would allow scholars to get a better understanding of the extent to which people trust the news media in the dimension that matters the most from the perspective of democratic theory as well as the journalistic community and those who seek to delegitimize the media, while staying true to the core of previous research on news media trust. In extension, the framework proposed here would also allow for more fine-grained and focused research on whether, how and to what extent media trust at different levels of analysis is related and how it influences citizens’ use of news media. In addition, we believe it would also open up new avenues for research on the reasons that people have for not trusting the news media (c.f. Newman & Fletcher, Citation 2017 ).

Following both the public debate and the scholarly literature, it is often assumed that media trust is falling virtually everywhere. The perhaps most important reason is the long-term trend with respect to Americans’ shrinking trust in the ‘press,’ which then is extrapolated, and that people – even scholars – tend to infer the accuracy and consensus of opinion from the number of times it has been repeated (Weaver et al., Citation 2007 ). The fact though is that media trust – in terms of levels as well as trends – differs across countries (Newman et al., Citation 2019 ; Hanitzsch et al., Citation 2018 ).

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that many people do not trust traditional news media. It is also clear that the transformation into high-choice media environments has brought with it a host of new and exacerbated challenges threatening to undermine news media trust, regardless of whether it is already on decline or thus far has been more stable. And although there are important differences across countries and media environments, there are more so-called non-mainstream and partisan media that compete with traditional news media. Such non-mainstream media in many cases even actively engage in attempts to undermine trust in traditional news media – something which, to an increasing extent, is supported by politicians who also themselves perform attacks on news media and accuse them of producing ‘fake news.’ Where political polarization (Hopkins & Sides, Citation 2015 ) and more or less authoritarian political populism (Aalberg et al., Citation 2017 ; Moffitt, Citation 2016 ; Norris & Inglehart, Citation 2019 ) in addition is on the rise, it becomes even harder for traditional news media to stay above the fray and be seen as credible when claiming to provide news that is truthful and objective or neutral in intent (if not necessarily in consequences) and thus deserves to be trusted more than information from partisan actors (see Ladd, Citation 2012 , for a discussion regarding the connection between media trust and political polarization). In addition, there are – although the evidence is not consistent – indications that trust in various sets of experts and knowledge institutions is declining (Nichols, Citation 2017 ), among which news media is but one. In combination with people's tendency to prefer attitude-consistent information and engage in motivated reasoning (Flynn et al., Citation 2017 ; Kunda, Citation 1990 ; Lewandowsky et al., Citation 2012 ; Taber & Lodge, Citation 2006 ), this might contribute not only to less use of news media but also more widespread misperceptions and increasing knowledge resistance (Klintman, Citation 2019 ).

In light of this, it has become increasingly important to investigate and understand not just news media trust in itself, but also if, how and to what extent it influences people's use of traditional news media and other types of information more broadly. Research suggests a reciprocal relationship between media trust and news media use with modest correlations, but the number of studies is limited, many were done before the transformation into contemporary high-choice media environments, the measures used were arguably imperfect, and in addition inconsistent within and across studies as to the level of analysis of the object of trust. Furthermore, these studies were mainly based on cross-sectional data with all the limits that such data entail in terms of understanding causal relationships.

To help remedy this situation, in this article we have offered a focused review of how news media trust has been conceptualized and operationalized in previous research. We have also offered a theoretically derived framework and specific measures for investigating news media trust at different levels of analysis. An important aspect of this framework is our suggestion to focus on trust in the information coming from news media rather than on media as institutions or organizations. Altogether, we believe that our proposed framework will allow research not only to investigate how news media trust at different levels of analysis are related to each other, but also if, how and to what extent news media trust at different levels of analysis are related to news media use. It might very well be the case that news media trust at one level of analysis does not have much of an impact on news media use, while news media trust at another level has a more significant impact. The same, of course, holds true for the effects of media use on news media trust. It could also be the case that the associations between media trust and use will be considerably higher when both constructs (trust and news consumption) will refer to specific referents at specific levels. Finally, it could be the case that trust in the media coverage of certain topics – for example, more politically polarized topics – have more influence on media trust at higher levels of abstraction than trust in the coverage of other topics.

While we believe the offered framework and measures represents an important step forward in research on news media trust and its impact on media use, ultimately it needs to be investigated+empirically before it can be evaluated. In light of that, our hope is that this article will help stimulate more, and more theory-driven, research in this area. The game is afoot, to quote Shakespeare.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Jesper Strömbäck http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7392-9791

Yariv Tsfati http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7395-3257

Hajo Boomgaarden http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5260-1284

Alyt Damstra http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7753-018X

Elina Lindgren http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9032-1347

1 The review was systematic in the sense that we systematically searched for relevant publications using ‘media trust,’ ‘media trustworthiness’ and ‘media credibility’ as keywords, but the review presented here is focused in the sense that we focus on those articles that are most relevant in terms of how news media trust has been conceptualized and operationalized and on the extent to which news media trust influences the use of different types of media.

• Aalberg, T., Esser, F., Reinemann, C., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. (Eds.). (2017). Populist political communication in Europe . Routledge.   Google Scholar
• Abdulla, R. A., Garrison, B., Salwen, M. B., Driscoll, P. D., & Casey, D. (2004). Online news credibility. In M. B. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P. D. Driscoll (Eds.), Online news and the public (pp. 147–163). Lawrence Erlbaum.   Google Scholar
• Althaus, S. J., Cizmar, A. M., & Gimpel, J. (2009). Media supply, audience demand, and the geography of news consumption in the United States. Political Communication , 26 (3), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903053361   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Andersson, U. (2017). Lågt förtroende för rapporteringen om invandring. In L. Truedson (Ed.), Misstron mot medier (pp. 17–50). Institutet för mediestudier.   Google Scholar
• Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúniga, H. (2017). Effects of editorial media bias perception and media trust on the use of traditional, citizen, and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 94 (3), 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654684   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ariely, G. (2015). Trusting the press and political trust: A conditional relationship. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties , 25 (3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.997739   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Batrancea, L., Nichita, A., Olsen, J., Kogler, C., Kirchler, E., Hoelzl, E., Weiss, A., Torgler, B., Fooken, J., Fuller, J., Schaffner, M., Banuri, S., Hassanein, M., Alarcón-García, G., Aldemir, C., Apostol, O., Bank Weinberg, D., Batrancea, I., Belianin, A., … Zukauskas, S. (2019). Trust and power as determinants of tax compliance across 44 nations. Journal of Economic Psychology , 74 , 102191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.102191   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda. Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics . Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research , 6 (1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600102   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. The press and the public good . Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.   Google Scholar
• Daniller, A., Allen, D., Tallevi, A., & Mutz, D. C. (2017). Measuring trust in the press in a changing media environment. Communication Methods and Measures , 11 (1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1271113   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 (8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life . University of Chicago Press.   Google Scholar
• Eberl, J. M. (2019). Lying press: Three levels of perceived media bias and their relationship with political preferences. Communications , 44 (1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-0002   Google Scholar
• Egelhofer, J. L., & Lecheler, S. (2019). Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: A framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association , 43 (2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782   Google Scholar
• Elvestad, E., Phillips, A., & Feuerstein, M. (2018). Can trust in traditional news media explain cross-national differences in news exposure of young people online? Digital Journalism , 6 (2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1332484   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Engelke, K. M., Hase, V., & Wintterlin, F. (2019). On measuring trust and distrust in journalism: Reflection of the status quo and suggestions for the road ahead. Journal of Trust Research , 9 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Esser, F., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. (2012). Reviewing key concepts in research on political news journalism: Conceptualizations, operationalizations, and propositions for future research. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism , 13 (2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427795   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018). Standard Eurobarometer 90 .   Google Scholar
• Fischer, C. (2016). The trouble with “trust” in news media. Communication Research and Practice , 2 (4), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1261251 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Fischer, C. (2018). What is meant by “trust” in news media? In K. Otto & A. Köhler (Eds.), Trust in media and journalism. Empirical perspectives on ethics, norms, impacts and populism in Europe (pp. 19–38). Springer.   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R., & Park, S. (2017). The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital Journalism , 5 (10), 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1279979   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology , 38 (S1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making or breaking cooperative relations . Blackwell.   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior , 35 (1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly , 63 (3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908606300301   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society , 20 (9), 1389–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329334   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). All media trust is local? Findings from the 2018 Poynter media trust survey . Poynter Institute.   Google Scholar
• Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics . Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F., Mellado, C., Anikina, M., Berganza, R., Cangoz, I., Coman, M., Hamada, B., Elena Hernández, M., Karadjov, C. D., Virginia Moreira, S., Mwesige, P. G., Plaisance, P. L., Reich, Z., Seethaler, J., Skewes, E. A., Vardiansyah Noor, D., & Yuen, E. K. W. (2011). Mapping journalism cultures across nations. Journalism Studies , 12 (3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2010.512502   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hanitzsch, T., Van Dalen, A., & Steindl, N. (2018). Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. International Journal of Press/Politics , 23 (1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740695   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports , 28 (2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565280   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T. (Ed.). (2009). Media choice. A theoretical and empirical overview . Routledge.   Google Scholar
• Holbert, R. L. (2005). Back to basics: Revisiting, resolving, and expanding some of the fundamental issues of political communication research. Political Communication , 22 (4), 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600500311436   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hopkins, D. J., & Sides, J. (Eds.). (2015). Political polarization in American politics . Bloomsbury.   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, D. N., Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2015). Contagious media effects: How media use and exposure to game-framed news influence media trust. Mass Communication and Society , 18 (6), 776–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1022190   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion . Yale University Press.   Google Scholar
• Jackob, N. G. E. (2010). No alternatives? The relationship between perceived media dependency, use of alternative information sources, and general trust in mass media. International Journal of Communication , 4 , 589–606.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber. Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment . Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans don’t trust the media: A preliminary analysis. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics , 9 (2), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X04263461   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jones, J. M. (2018). U.S. media trust continues to recover from 2016 low. https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx   Google Scholar
• Kalogeropoulos, A., Suiter, J., Udris, L., & Eisenegger, M. (2019). News media trust and news consumption: Factors related to trust in news in 35 countries. International Journal of Communication , 13 , 3672–3693.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly , 37 (4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M. D. (2018). Truth decay. An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life . Rand.   Google Scholar
• Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication and Society , 4 (4), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_4   Google Scholar
• Klintman, M. (2019). Knowledge resistance. How we avoid insights from others . Manchester University Press.   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Choice and preference in media use. Advances in selective exposure theory and research . Routledge.   Google Scholar
• Kohring, M. (2019). Public trust in news media. The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0056 .   Google Scholar
• Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media. Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research , 34 (2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). Elements of journalism. What newspeople should know and the public should expect . Crown.   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin , 108 (3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ladd, J. M. (2012). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters . Princeton University Press.   Google Scholar
• Lee, T.-T. (2010). Why they don’t trust the media: An examination of factors predicting trust. American Behavioral Scientist , 54 (8), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376308   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 13 (3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Matsa, K. E. (2018). Across Western Europe, public news media are widely used and trusted as sources of news. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/08/western-europe-public-news-media-widely-used-and-trusted/   Google Scholar
• Matsa, K. E., Silver, L., Shearer, E., & Walker, M. (2018). Despite overall doubts about the news media, younger Europeans continue to trust specific outlets. https://www.journalism.org/2018/10/30/despite-overall-doubts-about-the-news-media-younger-europeans-continue-to-trust-specific-outlets/   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review , 20 (3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance. Mass communication and the public interest . Sage.   Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & Mccann, R. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association , 27 (1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029   Google Scholar
• Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly , 65 (3), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The modern news consumer. News attitudes and practices in the digital era. Retrieved May 14, 2018, from https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., & Matsa, K. E. (2014). Political polarization and media habits. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/   Google Scholar
• Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism. Performance, political style, and representation . Stanford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Mourão, R., Thorson, E., Chen, W., & Tham, S. M. (2018). Media repertoires and news trust during the early Trump administration. Journalism Studies , 19 (13), 1945–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500492   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Newhagen, J., & Nass, C. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly , 66 (2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908906600202   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Newman, N., & Fletcher, R. (2017). Bias, bullshit and lies. Audience perspectives on low trust in the media . Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.   Google Scholar
• Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Reuters Institute digital news report 2019 . Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.   Google Scholar
• Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise. The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters . Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing political activism . Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash. Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism . Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Otto, K., & Köhler, A. (Eds.). (2018). Trust in media and journalism. Empirical perspectives on ethics, norms, impacts and populism in Europe . Springer.   Google Scholar
• Patterson, O. (1999). Liberty against the democratic state: On the historical and contemporary sources of American distrust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 151–207). Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E. (2013). Informing the news. The need for knowledge-based journalism . Vintage.   Google Scholar
• Politifact. (2019). Donald Trump’s file. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/   Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections . Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Prochazka, F., & Schweiger, W. (2019). How to measure generalized trust in news media? An adaptation and test of scales. Communication Methods and Measures , 13 (1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1506021   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy . Princeton University Press.   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community . Simon & Schuster.   Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses and gratifications. An evolving perspective of media effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 147–159). Sage.   Google Scholar
• Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society , 3 (1), 3–37. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02   Google Scholar
• Schranz, M., Schneider, J., & Eisenegger, M. (2018). Media trust and media use. In K. Otto & A. Köhler (Eds.), Trust in media and journalism. Empirical perspectives on ethics, norms, impacts and populism in Europe (pp. 73–91). Springer.   Google Scholar
• Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2011). A matter of context. A comparative study of media environments and news consumption gaps in Europe. Political Communication , 28 (1), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.543006   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Skovsgaard, M., Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2016). Opportunity structures for selective exposure: Investigating selective exposure and learning in Swedish election campaigns using panel survey data. International Journal of Press/Politics , 21 (4), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216658157   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory , 17 (3), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies , 6 (3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500131950   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice . Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science , 50 (3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 26 (3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070363   Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y. (2002). The consequences of mistrust in the news media: Media skepticism as a moderator in media effects and as a factor influencing news media exposure [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3043970   Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y. (2003). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 15 (1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.65   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y. (2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist , 54 (1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376309   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y., & Ariely, G. (2014). Individual and contextual correlates of trust in media across 44 countries. Communication Research , 41 (6), 760–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213485972   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research , 30 (5), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology , 7 (3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y., & Peri, Y. (2006). Mainstream media skepticism and exposure to sectorial and extranational news media: The case of Israel. Mass Communication and Society , 9 (2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0902_3   Google Scholar
• Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 20 (5), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49 (3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political Communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 (1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1999). Democratic theory and trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 310–345). Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar
• Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92 (5), 821–833. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Weaver, D. H., & Willnat, L. (Eds.). (2012). The global journalist in the 21st century . Routledge.   Google Scholar
• Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention. How audiences take shape in a digital age . The MIT Press.   Google Scholar
• West, M. D. (1994). Validating a scale for the measurement of credibility: A covariance structure modeling approach. Journalism Quarterly , 71 (1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100115   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Westley, B. H., & Severin, W. J. (1964). Some correlates of media credibility. Journalism Quarterly , 41 (3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906404100301   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Williams, A. E. (2012). Trust or bust? Questioning the relationship between media trust and media attention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 56 (1), 116–131. http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.651186   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Wonneberger, A., Schoenbach, K., & van Meurs, L. (2011). Interest in news and politics—or situational determinants? Why people watch the news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 55 (3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.597466   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Yale, R. N., Jensen, J. D., Carcioppolo, N., Sun, Y., & Liu, M. (2015). Examining first- and second-order factor structures for news credibility. Communication Methods and Measures , 9 (3), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1061652   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Yuan, E. (2011). News consumption across multiple media platforms. Information, Communication & Society , 14 (7), 998–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.549235   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Mass Communication, Media, and Culture - An Introduction to Mass Communication

(32 reviews)

Copyright Year: 2016

ISBN 13: 9781946135261

Publisher: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Jenny Dean, Associate Professor, Texas Wesleyan University on 2/27/24

This book is pretty comprehensive, but it is getting old in the media world where things are changing at a great pace. The basic text is good, but needs supplementary materials to truly keep pace with technology today. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This book is pretty comprehensive, but it is getting old in the media world where things are changing at a great pace. The basic text is good, but needs supplementary materials to truly keep pace with technology today.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

I am sure the book was accurate when it was published, but the world keeps changing, and it isn't as current as it needs to be. But, it still isn't bad for a free book to access.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

Once again, same issue. The book is almost seven years old and hasn't been updated. The issue is that the examples and illustrations are getting to be a bit dated. I suspect that there aren't any updates of this book planned, which is unfortunate. If updated, this would be a fantastic read for students.

Clarity rating: 5

It is simple to read and is easily accessible. It meets the needs of a young college student.

Consistency rating: 5

Yes, the textbook is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 5

It is well-subdivided and easy to access. Good use of subheadlines. It is a smooth read, and easy to find information through headers, subheads, headlines, and blocks of type.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Everything is presented in a clear and concise manner.

Interface rating: 5

This textbook comes in a wide variety of formats and can be accessed by almost everyone through one method or another. It was super easy to access.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The text is clean and clear of errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

I don't think this book is as inclusive as the typical book written today. This is simply because times have changed, and the need for inclusive and culturally sensitive books has escalated exponentially from the time this book was written. It needs more culturally relevant examples. I wouldn't say that anything in the book is culturally insensitive or offensive, but it isn't as diversified as it needs to be.

This is an excellent book for an introduction to mass communication or an introduction to media and society course. It covers all the basics that I would expect to cover. It just needs some updating which can be done through supplementary materials.

Reviewed by Ryan Stoldt, Assistant Professor, Drake University on 12/15/22

Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication thoughtfully walks readers through popular media and connects these media to questions about culture as a way of life. The book undoubtedly is comprehensive in its scope of... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication thoughtfully walks readers through popular media and connects these media to questions about culture as a way of life. The book undoubtedly is comprehensive in its scope of American media but largely fails to consider how media and culture relate in more global settings. The book occasionally references conversations about global media, such as the differences between globalization and cultural imperialism approaches, but is limited in its engagement. As media have become more transnational their reach and scope (due to technological access, business models, and more), the American focus makes the text feel limited in its ability to explain the relationship between media and culture more broadly.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The text is accurate although it has limited engagement in some of the topics it explores. As such, this would be a good introductory text but would need to be paired with additional resources to dive into many topics in the book with both accuracy and nuance.

Many of the sections of the book are relevant, as the book often contextualizes media through a historical lens. However, the more current sections of the book (such as the section on the Internet and social media) have become outdated quickly. These, once again, would be useful starting places for classroom conversation about the topic but would need to be paired with more current readings to hold a deeper conversation about social media and society today.

Some terms could be further explained, but the text is overall well written and easy to understand.

Consistency rating: 4

The book pulls from multiple approaches to researching and discussing media and culture. The introductory chapter draws more heavily from critical media studies in its conceptualizations of the relationship between media and culture. The media effects chapters draw more heavily from more social scientific approaches to studying media. The author does a nice job weaving these approaches into a consistent conversation about media, but different approaches to studying media could be more forwardly discussed within the text.

The author has made the text extremely easy to use modularly. Chapters are self-contained, and readers could easily select sections of the book to read without losing clarity.

The book employs consistent organization across the subjects discussed. Each chapter follows a similar organizational structure as well.

Interface rating: 4

Because the text is so modular, the text does not flow easily when read on the publisher's website. Yet, downloading the text also raises some issues because of strange formatting around images.

I have not seen any grammatical errors.

As stated previously, the book is extremely biased in its international representation, primarily promoting Americans' engagements with media. The book could go further in being more representative of different American cultures, but it is far from culturally insensitive.

Understanding Media and Culture would be an extremely useful introductory text for a class focusing on American media and society. A more global perspective would require significant engagement with other texts, however.

Reviewed by David Fontenot, Assistant Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 11/15/22

The text comprehensively covers forms of media used for mass communication and includes issues towards emerging forms of mass communication. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The text comprehensively covers forms of media used for mass communication and includes issues towards emerging forms of mass communication.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

In some places there is nuance missing, where I feel brief elaboration would yield significantly clearer comprehension without bias or misleading associations about media's influence on behavior.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Still relevant and up-to-date with a valuable emphasis on issues related to internet mass media.

Very readable, with little jargon. Definitions are presented clearly and used in subsequent discussions.

Internal consistency is strong within the chapters.

Modularity rating: 4

The majority of chapters can be taken independently, with only a few larger structural pieces that lay the foundation for other sections.

The book takes an historical approach to media, which lends itself to a logical progression of topics. I might suggest, however, that for most students the material that is most accessible to their daily lives comes last with such an approach.

Interface rating: 3

The downloaded file has some very awkward spots where images seem clipped or on separate pages than the content that reference them. I only viewed this textbook in the online downloaded PDF format.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

No grammatical errors have jumped out at me in sections read so far.

There are quite a few opportunities to include discissions of media and culture that don't seem so anglo-centric but they are passed up.

I am using this textbook as the basis for an interdisciplinary class on media and the criminal justice system, and in that regard I think it will serve very well for an introductory level textbook. It provides a concrete set of core ideas that I can build off of by creating tailored content to my students' needs.

Reviewed by Elizabeth Johnson-Young, Assistant Professor, University of Mary Washington on 7/1/22

Appropriately comprehensive. Having some more up-to-date citations, particularly in the media effects theories criticisms section (with some more explanations) would be beneficial--perhaps supplementing with some ways these have been updated would... read more

Appropriately comprehensive. Having some more up-to-date citations, particularly in the media effects theories criticisms section (with some more explanations) would be beneficial--perhaps supplementing with some ways these have been updated would help a class.

Overall, content is clear and accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Mass media may always need updating, but this is appropriate and up-to-date.

Clarity rating: 4

Is an accessible text in terms of clarity and provides necessary definitions throughout in order to provide the reader with an understanding of the terminologies.

Text introduces terms and frameworks and uses them consistently throughout.

Small, easy to read blocks of text--could easily be used in a variety of courses and be reorganized for a particular course.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Topics presented clearly and in an order that makes sense.

Easy to read through and images clear and displaying readily. It would help if there was a way to move forward without having to click on the table of contents, particularly in the online format.

No errors that stick out.

While appropriately comprehensive for an intro text, more examples and/or acknowledgment of who has been left out and those impacts could be helpful in the social values or culture discussions.

Overall, this is a great text and one that could be used in full for a course or in sections to supplement other communication/media studies courses!

Reviewed by David Baird, Professor of Communication, Anderson University on 4/18/22

I don’t know if any intro textbook can cover “all areas and ideas,” but this text was adequate to the task—basically on par with any other textbook in this space. I didn’t see a glossary in the chapters or an index at the back of the book. On the... read more

I don’t know if any intro textbook can cover “all areas and ideas,” but this text was adequate to the task—basically on par with any other textbook in this space. I didn’t see a glossary in the chapters or an index at the back of the book. On the other hand, the text is searchable, so the lack of an index is not a major problem as far as I’m concerned.

When the text was published, it would have been considered “accurate.” The content was competently conceptualized, well written and reflective of the standard approach to this kind of material. I didn’t notice any egregious errors of content aside from the fact that the book was published some years ago is no longer very current.

The primary weakness of the book is that it was published more than a decade ago and hasn’t been updated for a while. The text is relevant to the focus of the course itself, but the examples and illustrations are dated. For example, the book uses a graphic from the presidential election of 2008 in a treatment of politics, and “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” is an example of current television programming.

I conducted a text search that tabulated the number of references to the following years, and these were the results: 2010: 588 2011: 49 2012: 8 2013: 4 2014: 0 2015: 2 2016: 0 2017: 0 2018: 1 2019: 1 2020: 0 2021: 1 2022: 1

The references to the more-recent years tended to crop up in forward-looking statements such as this one: “With e-book sales expected to triple by 2015, it’s hard to say what such a quickly growing industry will look like in the future.”

The second part of the question referred to the implementation of updates. I doubt that any updates are planned.

The text is well written and meets the usual standards for editorial quality.

The framework and "voice" are internally consistent.

The chapter structure provides the most obvious division of the text into accessible units. Each chapter also has well-defined subsections. Here’s an example from one chapter, with page numbers removed:

• Chapter 13: Economics of Mass Media

Economics of Mass Media Characteristics of Media Industries The Internet’s Effects on Media Economies Digital Divide in a Global Economy Information Economy Globalization of Media Cultural Imperialism

This aspect of the text makes sense and is largely consistent with similar textbooks in this area.

The text is available in these formats: online, ebook, ODF, PDF and XML. I downloaded the PDF for purposes of my review. The formatting was clean and easy to work with. I didn’t notice any problems that made access challenging.

I can’t say with certainty that a grammatical error or typo can’t be found in the textbook, but as I noted above, the writing is strong. I’ve seen much worse.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The text seems to be around a dozen years old now, so it doesn’t include discussion of some of the high-profile perspectives that have surfaced in more recent years related to race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. However, the book does discuss examples of media issues “inclusive of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds,” and this material is presented with sensitivity and respect.

This is a reasonably good resource for basic, intro-level definitions and explanations of some of the major concepts, issues and theories in the “Mass Communication” or “Media and Society” course, including:

• functions of the media • gatekeeping • media literacy • media effects • propaganda • agenda setting • uses and gratifications

The textbook also offers the standard chapters on the various media—books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, etc. These chapters contextualize the various media with standard accounts of their historical development. My feeling is that much of the historical background presented in this book is more or less interchangeable with the material in newer textbooks.

However, the media industries have changed dramatically since the textbook was written, so all of the last decade’s innovations, developments and controversies are entirely missing. Of course, even a “new” textbook is going to be somewhat dated upon publication because of the book’s production timeline and the way that things change so quickly in the media industries—but a book published in 2021 or 2022 would be far more up-to-date than the book under review here.

The bottom line for me is that if one of an instructor’s highest priorities is to provide a free or low-cost textbook for students, this book could work with respect to the historical material—but it would have to be supplemented with carefully selected material from other sources such as trade publications, industry blogs and news organizations.

Reviewed by Kevin Curran, Clinical Assistant Professor, Loyola Marymount University on 3/21/22

This is one of the most comprehensive media studies books I’ve read. It attacks each media platform separately and with sufficient depth. That is followed by economics, ethics, government/law, and future predictions. Takeaways attend of each... read more

This is one of the most comprehensive media studies books I’ve read. It attacks each media platform separately and with sufficient depth. That is followed by economics, ethics, government/law, and future predictions.

Takeaways attend of each section will aid comprehension. Exercises at end of sections could be jumping off point for discussions or assignments. Chapters end with review and critical thinking connections plus career guidance.

The Chapter 2 rundown on both sides of media theories and summary of research methods was well-done.

Everything about this tome is good, except for its dating.

The book is well-researched and provides valuable, although often dated, information. The author used a variety of sources, effective illustrations, and applicable examples to support the points in the book.

It can be very hard to keep up with constant changes in the mass media industry. This book was reissued in 2016, but it has not been revised since the original copyright in 2010. The dated references start on page 2 when it speaks of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey as existing, when that circus ceased in 2017. The medium-by-medium exploration is well done, although the passage of time affects the end of each chapter.

Adoption of the book as-is will mean developing an update lesson for each chapter. For example, while smartphones are mentioned, they had not achieved saturation status at the time this volume was published.

The points are presented clearly. References with hyperlinks are available at the end of each section for those who still have questions or want more information. However, it is possible that because of the age of the book, some of those links may no longer be available.

The media chapters each follow a similar pattern in writing and order.

This will break up easily. The first chapter gives a good taste of what is to come. The book provides a comprehensive look at the history and influence of each medium individually. The last group of chapters necessarily contains many flashbacks to the medium sections.

It follows a logical pattern from the introduction to the individual medium chapters to the “big picture” chapters. That does require signposting between the two sets of chapters that some might find frustrating.

Interface rating: 2

The book is a standard PDF with links. The scan could have been better, as there is a lot of white space and illustrations are inconsistently sized. Users hoping for lots of interactivity are going to be disappointed.

The book is well edited. It is hard to find errors in writing mechanics.

The authors took a broad view of the mass media world. The music chapter was very well done.

Reviewed by Lisa Bradshaw, Affiliate Faculty, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 11/26/21

This textbook, downloaded as a 695-page PDF, contains 16 chapters and covers a variety of media formats, how they evolved, and how they are created and used, as well as issues related to media impact on society and culture. It is quite... read more

This textbook, downloaded as a 695-page PDF, contains 16 chapters and covers a variety of media formats, how they evolved, and how they are created and used, as well as issues related to media impact on society and culture. It is quite comprehensive in its coverage of media for the time of its writing (copyright year 2016, “adapted from a work originally produced in 2010”).

Content seems accurate for its time, but as technology and media have evolved, it omits current references and examples that did not exist when it was written. There does not seem to be bias and a wide variety of cultural references are used.

As mentioned previously, this textbook’s copyright year was 2016, and it was adapted from a 2010 work. It’s not clear how much of the content was updated between 2010 and 2016, but based on the dates in citations and references, the last update appears to have been in 2011. Even if it had been updated for the year 2016, much of the information is still out-of-date.

There is really no way to write a textbook about media that would not be at least partially out of date in a short time. This text’s background and history of the evolution of the various media forms it covers is still accurate, but there is much about the media landscape that has changed since 2010–2016.

Due to the textbook’s age, references to media platforms and formats such as MySpace, Napster, and CDs seem outdated for today’s media market. The textbook refers to previous political figures, and its omission of more recent ones (who were not on the political landscape at the time of writing) makes it seem out-of-date. To adapt it for modern times, these references need to be updated with fresh examples.

The writing level is relatively high. A spot check of the readability level of several passages of text returned scores of difficult to read, and reading level 11-12 grade to college level. The author does a good job of explaining technical terminology and how different media work. If adapting the text for students with a lower level of reading, some of the terminology might need to be revised or explained more thoroughly.

The text is consistent in its chapter structure and writing style. The order of topics makes sense in that chapters are mostly structured by media type, with beginning and end sections to introduce each respective media type in general, and conclude with a look to the future.

If adapting and keeping the same structure (intro to media in general, coverage of different media types in their own chapters, and main issues related to media), this 695-page textbook could be condensed by eliminating some of the detail in each chapter. There are a number of self-referential sentences that might need to be removed. If adapting the text to a more specific subject, the instructor would need to go through the text and pick out specific points relevant to that subject.

Each chapter introduces the respective media type and concludes with a summary that reflects on the future of that type and how it might evolve further. The chapters overall follow the same structure for consistency: overview, history, the media in popular culture, current trends, and potential influence of new technologies, with end-of-chapter Key Takeaways, Exercises, Assessment, Critical Thinking Questions, Career Connection, and References.

The text is well written and logically structured and sequenced. Despite its length, it’s easy to find information, as it’s ordered by chapters that address each media type and major issues related to media, and each chapter has a parallel structure with the others, all following mostly the same pattern.

I did not notice grammatical errors. The text is clearly and accurately written, and appears to have been thoroughly copyedited and proofread.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I did not notice cultural insensitivity in the text. A wide variety of cultural references are used. Examples from around the world and from many different cultures are included, including discussions of digital divide and inequity issues related to media access in disadvantaged populations.

Reviewed by Adria Goldman, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Mary Washington on 7/11/21

The text nicely breaks down different forms of mass communication. The text provides some historical background and discussion of theory to provide context for discussing mass media, which is all useful in helping students understand media and... read more

The text nicely breaks down different forms of mass communication. The text provides some historical background and discussion of theory to provide context for discussing mass media, which is all useful in helping students understand media and communication. There is not much discussion about the cultural significance of media. If using the text in a course, supplemental readings on the significance of culture and diversity, the importance of media representation, and media influence on an individual level (ex: impact on identity), would be especially helpful for a course exploring media and culture. The text does not feature a glossary or index, however the bolding of key concepts throughout the text is helpful in defining key terms.

The content is error-free. More discussion on culture would provide a more accurate account of mass communication and its significance.

The subject is very relevant and the book features topics important for a discussion on mass communication. As mentioned in other parts of this review, there is not much diversity featured throughout the text, which can impact the relevancy of the material to audiences and impacts the relevancy of the content in discussions on mass media and society. Updates would be straightforward to implement.

The text is clear and easy to follow.

The text is consistent in its use of terms and its framework. Since the book title mentions a focus on culture, an interesting add-on would be to have each section (on a specific type of mass communication) feature a discussion of culture and its significance.

The text's modularity is useful. It looks like it would be easy for students to follow and for instructors to re-structure in order to fit their course design.

The information follows a logical order, beginning with a discussion on the significance of mass communication and then going into each type.

No issues with interface noted.

No glaring grammatical issues noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

There is not much focus on the significance of culture. More discussion on the role of race, class, sex, gender, religion and other elements of identity would be helpful in exploring mass communication--past, present, and potential for the future. The text could also use an update in images and examples to include diverse representation and to further communicate the role of culture, diversity, and representation in communication and mass media.

The book provides an understanding of mass communication that would be easy for undergraduate college students to follow. The optional activities would also spark interesting discussion and give students the opportunity to apply concepts. Students using the text would benefit from (1) more discussion on culture's significance in media and communication and (2) more diversity in the images and examples used.

Reviewed by Brandon Galm, Instructor in English/Speech, Cloud County Community College on 5/4/21

One of the strong suits of this particular resource is its comprehensiveness, with topics ranging from specific mass comm mediums to the intersections/impacts of media on culture, politics, and ethics. There's enough here to easily cover a full... read more

One of the strong suits of this particular resource is its comprehensiveness, with topics ranging from specific mass comm mediums to the intersections/impacts of media on culture, politics, and ethics. There's enough here to easily cover a full semester's worth of material and then some.

The content is well-sourced throughout with a list of references at the end of each chapter. The hyperlinks on the references page all seem functional still. Hyperlinks within the chapters themselves--either sending the reader to the reference list or to the articles themselves--would be helpful.

As of this review writing, some of the content is relatively up-to-date. However, with a quickly changing landscape in mass communications and media, certain chapters are becoming out-of-date more quickly than others. The information discussed is more current than most of the information cited. The structure of the book lends itself to easy updating as technologies and culture shift, but whether or not those updates will take place seems unclear with the most recent edition being 5 years old at this point.

All information is presented in a way that is very clear with explanations and examples when further clarification is needed.

For a book covering as many different topics as it does, the overall structure and framework of this textbook is great. Chapter formats stay consistent with clearly stated Objectives at the start and Key Takeaways at the end. Visual examples are provided throughout, and each chapter also includes various questions for students to respond to.

Chapters are broken down into smaller sub-chapters, each with their own sub-headings hyperlinked in the Table of Contents. Each sub-chapter also includes the above-mentioned Objects, Key Takeaways, and questions for students. Chapters and/or sub-chapters could easily be assigned in an order that fits any syllabus schedule and are in no way required to be read in order from Chapter 1 to Chapter 16.

I would like to have seen the book laid out a bit differently, but this is a minor concern because of the overall flexibility of assigning the chapters. The book starts with broad discussions about media and culture, then shifts into specific forms of media (books, games, tv, etc.), then returns to more broad implications of media and culture. Personally, I'd like to see all of those chapters grouped together--with all of the media and culture chapters in one section, and all of the specific forms chapters in another. Again, this is a minor issue because of the overall flexibility of the book.

As mentioned above, hyperlinks--including in the Table of Contents and references--are all functional. I would have liked to have hyperlinks for the references in the text itself, either as a part of the citation or with a hyperlinked superscript number, rather than just in the references page. All images are easily readable and the text itself is easy to read overall.

No grammatical errors that immediately jumped out. Overall seems clear and well-written.

The text provides lots of examples, though most do come from US media. The sections dealing with the intersections between media and culture are similarly US-centric.

Overall, a solid introductory textbook that covers a wide range of topics relevant to mass communications, media, and culture. The text is bordering on out-of-date at this point, but could easily be updated on a chapter-by-chapter basis should the publisher/author wish to do so.

Reviewed by Dong Han, Associate Professor, Southern Illinois University Carbondale on 3/30/21

It covers all important areas and topics regarding media, culture, and society. Different media forms and technologies from printing media to social media all have their own chapters, and academic inquiries like media effects, media economics,... read more

It covers all important areas and topics regarding media, culture, and society. Different media forms and technologies from printing media to social media all have their own chapters, and academic inquiries like media effects, media economics, and media and government also receive due attention. This textbook will meet the expectation of students of all backgrounds while introducing them to theoretical concerns of the research community. Its chapter layout is properly balanced between comprehensiveness and clarity.

Its content is accurate and unbiased. The textbook is written with ample research support to ensure accuracy and credibility. References at the end of each chapter allow readers to track sources of information and to locate further readings.

It is up-to-date in that the major cultural and media issues it identifies remain highly relevant in today’s world. However, since it was first produced in 2010, some more recent occurrences are not part of the discussion. This is not meant to be a criticism but a reminder that an instructor may want to supplement with more recent materials.

It is written with clear, straight-forward language well-suited an introductory textbook. The chapter layout, as mentioned earlier, is easy to access.

The book is consistent in terms of terminologies and its historical approach to media growth and transformation.

Each chapter is divided in sections, and sections in turn have various reading modules with different themes. For undergraduates taking an introductory course, this textbook will work well.

The topics are presented in an easy-to-access fashion. The textbook starts with a general overview of media and culture and a persistent scholarly concern with the media: media effects. Then it moves through different media in alignment with the chronological order of their appearance in history. The last few chapters focus on important but non-technology-specific topics including advertising and media regulations. For an introductory textbook, it is very accessible to the general student body.

The textbook does not have significant interface issues. Images, charts, and figures all fit well with the text.

There are no grammatical errors.

The textbook has a number of examples of minority cultures and ethnicities. It does not, however, have ample discussions on media and culture phenomena outside of the US, except those that have had significant impact on American culture (e.g., Beatlemania).

All considered, this is a very good textbook to be used in an introductory course. It is comprehensive, easy-to-read, and can help prepare students for future in-depth discussions on media, culture, and society.

Reviewed by Elizabeth Johnson-Young, Assistant Professor, University of Mary Washington on 7/6/20

Comprehensive text regarding mass communication, culture, and effects. The historical perspectives are helpful for understanding, particularly as it goes on to focus in on convergence throughout the text. A more complete glossary or index would be... read more

Comprehensive text regarding mass communication, culture, and effects. The historical perspectives are helpful for understanding, particularly as it goes on to focus in on convergence throughout the text. A more complete glossary or index would be helpful for terms for an introduction text, but key terms are highlighted and defined throughout. Extra examples would help throughout, particularly with theories and research methods.

Accurate, up to date information on history, concepts, and theories.

The information focuses on important historical moments, theories, cultural impacts, and moves to the present with ideas and examples that will likely remain relevant for quite some time.

Clear, easy to read text that would benefit introductory students of mass comm.

Introduces terms and concepts and then utilizes them throughout.

The separation of the larger text into smaller sections is incredibly helpful and makes reading and assignments of readings easy, leading also to the ability to separate into sections that would be appropriate for any course organization.

Organization is logical and easy to follow. Importantly, because of the modularity, it would also be easy to re-organize for one's course.

Navigation works, images clear and detailed.

No glaring grammatical errors.

The examples and images demonstrate diversity in race and also provides examples outside of the United States, which is important. There is some diversity in terms of gender and sexual diversity, more of which would be beneficial and various sections would be appropriate for that inclusion.

This is an excellent and comprehensive text for intro students that includes important historical moments and thorough coverage of main concepts and theories in the field, with a diverse set of moments and examples.

Reviewed by Emily Werschay, Communication Studies Instructor, Minnesota State University System on 10/22/19

Overall, this textbook is quite comprehensive in covering various channels of media, particularly from a historical perspective, and would work well for an introductory course. It features the same focused areas of content that are in my current... read more

Overall, this textbook is quite comprehensive in covering various channels of media, particularly from a historical perspective, and would work well for an introductory course. It features the same focused areas of content that are in my current publisher textbook and incorporates elements of culture as well. It does not provide a glossary or index, which would be helpful, but key terms are in bold.

The text contains accurate research with clearly-cited references that give credibility to the content.

The historical content is well-crafted. The text provides a clear and informative introduction to the history of media and does well with the rise of newspapers, television, and movies. You will not, however, find a reference more recent than 2010, which means any advancements in media and technology in the past decade are not covered. An instructor using this text would have to supplement content on current types of media such as streaming television and music services and the current debate of social media shifting toward news publishing in terms of content delivery. While the text includes culture and political climate of the past, much would need to be supplemented for the last ten years.

The text is professional and well-written. It is well-suited to a college reading level.

The chapter format, writing style, and overall presentation of information are consistent throughout the text. I appreciate the defined learning outcomes and key takeaways pulled out in each chapter.

The text is divided into clear chapters focusing on one medium at a time, much like other publisher texts for mass communication. For example, books, newspapers, magazines, music, radio, movies, and television each get their own chapter. Each chapter begins with clearly defined learning outcomes, and features key takeaways, exercises, assessments, and critical thinking questions at the end, as well as a section on career connections.

The topics are presented in chronological order from the history of mass communication, through the various mediums, and finally to the future of mass communication (though most will find the content particularly about recent and current trends will need to be supplemented as it is outdated).

I didn't find any problems with the interface as it is a standard text that can be viewed as a PDF, but an index would really help navigation. I will say that it's not particularly user-friendly, so I may try integrating the online format chapter-by-chapter into D2L so that I can break it up by modules and add links to make it more interactive with supplemental resources.

Professional, well-written text with no errors.

I don't believe readers will find any of the text culturally insensitive or offensive. The text is focused on U.S. media, however, so some supplemental content may be needed.

This textbook is very comprehensive and will work well for an introductory course. It covers the same focus areas as my publisher text, so I feel comfortable switching to this textbook for my Introduction to Mass Communication course with the awareness that it does not cover the past decade. I will need to provide supplemental information to update examples and cover current topics, but that is generally accepted in this particular field as it is continually changing with advancements in technology.

Reviewed by Bill Bettler, Professor, Hanover College on 3/8/19

This text is comprehensive on several levels. Theoretically, this text echoes the framework employed by Pavlik and McIntosh, which displays sensitivity to convergence. However, this text understands convergence on multiple levels, not just the... read more

This text is comprehensive on several levels. Theoretically, this text echoes the framework employed by Pavlik and McIntosh, which displays sensitivity to convergence. However, this text understands convergence on multiple levels, not just the three employed by P and M. This text is well-researched, with ample citations on a whole host of media topics. Each chapter has multiple ways that it tests the reader, with "Key Takeaways," "Learning Objectives," etc. And finally, the text features chapters on the history and development of key historical media, as well as key emerging media.

Some students find Pavlik and McIntosh a bit too transparent in their Marxist assumptions. While this text certainly introduces Marx-based theories about media, it seems to do a better job of contextualizing them among several other competing perspectives.

Some of the popular culture texts felt a bit dated--for example, opening the "Music" chapter (Chapter 6) with an extended case study about Colbie Caillat. Unfortunately, this is the nature of mass media studies--as soon as books come into print, they are out of date. But I have a hard time imagining my mass communication students being inspired and engaged by a Colbie Caillat case study. I'm not sure what the alternative is; but it seemed worth mentioning. Other examples are much more effective and successful. The historical examples from different types of media are well-chosen, thoroughly explained, and insightful. Also, this text discusses emerging media more successfully than any other texts I have used.

The style of this text is straightforward and scholarly. It seems to strike an effective balance between accessibility and specialized language. For example, key concepts such as "gatekeeper" and "agenda setting theory" are introduced early and applied in several places throughout the text.

Like Pavlik and McIntosh, this text uses the concept of "convergence" to explain several key phenomena in mass communication. Unlike P and M, this text understands "convergence" on more than three levels. Like P and M, this concept becomes the "glue" that holds the various topics and levels of analysis together. As mentioned before, this text is especially effective in that it introduces foundational concepts early on and applies them consistently across succeeding chapters.

On one hand, this text rates highly in "modularity," because I could imagine myself breaking its chapters apart and re-arranging them in a different order than they are presented here. This is in no way meant as a criticism. I routinely have to assign chapters in more conventional texts in a different order. The fact that the technology involved in delivering this text makes it easier to re-arrange is one of its best selling points. The reason I scored this as a "4" is because some of the chapters are quite dense, in terms of volume (not in terms of difficulty). Therefore, I could see students perhaps losing focus to some degree. I might combat this by making further breakdowns and re-arrangements within chapters. This is not a fatal flaw--but it does seem like a practical challenge of using this text.

As mentioned above, some of the chapters are quite dense, in terms of volume. Chapter One is such a chapter, for example. I could easily see Chapter One comprising two or three chapters in another textbook. Consequently, there is a likelihood that students would need some guidance as they read such a dense chapter; and they would likely benefit from cutting the chapter down into smaller, more easily digestible samples. On the other hand, the Key Takeaways, and Learning Objectives, will counteract this tendency for students to be overwhelmed or confused. They are quite helpful, as are the summarizing sections at the ends of each chapter.

I did not encounter any problems with interface. In fact, the illustrations, figures, charts, photographs, etc. are a real strength of this text. They are better than any other text I have seen at creating "symbolic worlds" from different forms of media.

The writing style is professional and free of errors.

This is a genuine concern for mass media texts. Media content is a direct reflection of culture, and today's culture is characterized by a high level of divisiveness. I did not detect any examples or samples that were outwardly offensive or especially controversial. But, perhaps, there is a slight bias toward "the status quo" in the case studies and examples--meaning that many (but certainly not all) of them seem to be "Anglo," Caucasian artists. Looking at the "Music" chapter, for example, some popular culture critics (and students) might lament that Taylor Swift is an exemplar. While this choice is undeniable in terms of the popularity of her recordings and concerts, some might hope for examples that represent stylistic originality, genre-transcending, and progressive ideas (Bruno Mars, Kendrick Lamar, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, etc.).

I have been using the same text for seven years (Pavlik and McIntosh). I have decided to adopt Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication. It is simply more thorough in its sweep of history and contextualization of culture, more multi-layered in its theoretical perspectives, and more rich in its examples and insights. This books is recommendable not just as an open source text, but as it compares to any conventional text. Students will benefit greatly from reading this text.

Reviewed by Hsin-Yen Yang, Associate Professor, Fort Hays State University on 11/29/18

Understanding Media and Culture: an Introduction to Mass Communication covers all the important topics in mass communication and media history. It also provides case studies, Key Takeaways, Exercises, End-of-Chapter Assessment, Critical Thinking... read more

Understanding Media and Culture: an Introduction to Mass Communication covers all the important topics in mass communication and media history. It also provides case studies, Key Takeaways, Exercises, End-of-Chapter Assessment, Critical Thinking Questions, and Career Connections in every chapter. Although this book does not provide a glossary, the comprehensiveness of the book still makes it a great textbook choice.

While the information was accurate and the discussions on key issues were supported by good references, it was odd to see the questionable formatting and quality of the first reference on page 3: Barnum, P. T.” Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/p-t-barnum. --> First of all, Answers.com is not considered as a credible source by many scholars and the other half of the quotation marks was missing.

The major weakness of this book is the fact that many of the references were outdated. For example, on page 479, the statistics in the section, "Information Access Like Never Before," the cited reports were from 2002 and 2004. When discussing topics such as Net Neutrality, digital service providers, new policies and technologies, the urgency for updated information becomes evident. However, as the author correctly pointed out: "Although different forms of mass media rise and fall in popularity, it is worth noting that despite significant cultural and technological changes, none of the media discussed throughout this text has fallen out of use completely."

The writing in this book is very clear and easy to understand. The colored images, figures and tables should be very helpful in terms of student comprehension and engagement.

The framework and terminology are consistent throughout the book.

Each chapter can be assigned to students as a stand-along reading, and can be used to realign with other subunits should an instructor decide to compile reading within this book or from different sources.

Each chapter follows similar flow/ format: the history, evolution, economics, case studies and social impact of a mass medium, followed by Key Takeaways, Exercises, End-of-Chapter Assessment, Critical Thinking Questions, Career Connections and References. It was easy to navigate the topics and sections in this book.

I downloaded the book as a PDF and had no problem to search or navigate within the file. The book can also be viewed online or in a Kindle reader.

I spotted a few minor formatting or punctuation issues such as the missing quotation marks stated earlier, but no glaring errors as far as I know.

While it mainly focuses on American media and culture, this book contains statistics and cases from many countries (e.g. Figure 11.7), provides many critical thinking exercises and is sensitive towards diverse cultures and backgrounds.

Overall, this is a high-quality textbook and it contains almost all the key issues in today's media studies in spite of the somewhat outdated data and statistics. The strengths of this book are: Excellent historical examples, critical analysis and reflections, clearly defined key issues and in-depth discussions. Even when using the most recent edition of textbooks, I always research for updates and recent cases. This open resource textbook makes an outstanding alternative to those high-priced textbooks.

Reviewed by Hayden Coombs, Assistant Professor, Southern Utah University on 8/2/18

Perhaps the best quality of this text, Understanding Media and Culture is a very comprehensive textbook. I have used this text in my Mass Media & Communication course for two years now. Each chapter focuses on a different type of medium,... read more

Perhaps the best quality of this text, Understanding Media and Culture is a very comprehensive textbook. I have used this text in my Mass Media & Communication course for two years now. Each chapter focuses on a different type of medium, starting with the earliest books and working its way up to the latest technological advancements in mass media. Other beneficial topics include: Media & Culture, Media Effects, Economics of Mass Media, Media Ethics, Media and Government, and the Future of Mass Media. These topics provide a solid base for a 100 or 200-level introductory communication course. They also were written in a way that each chapter provided sufficient material for a week's worth of discussion.

This book was written in a very unbiased manner. It is completely factual, and not much room is left for subjective interpretation. The discussion questions allowed multiple themes and schools of thought to be explored by the students. Because this book is intended for an introductory course, the information is fairly basic and widely-accepted.

My biggest issue with this title was that the latter chapters were not written with the same quality as the first ten or so chapters. However, that was the thought I had after the first semester I used this text. Since then, multiple updates have been written and the entire text is now written in the same high-quality throughout. Because this title is being constantly updated by its authors and publishers, the text is never obsolete.

Terminology is clearly defined, and students have little trouble finding definitions in the glossary. Because this text is written for an introductory course, there are not many intense or confusing concepts for students to understand.

Consistency rating: 3

As previously mentioned, the biggest struggle I've had with this text is the fact that the latter third was not written to the same quality of the first ten chapters. However, this issue seems to have been remedied in the latest edition of this text.

The modularity was the biggest selling point for me with this text. Our semester runs 15 weeks, the same number of chapters in this text. I was able to easily focus our classroom discussions and assignments on the chapter theme each week. The text also provides plenty of material for two or three discussions.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

The text starts by introducing some basic concepts like culture and effects. From there, it focuses on ten different types of media (books, newspaper, radio, television, etc.). The concluding three chapters go back to concepts such ethics and the future of mass media. While not a major issue, there was a major difference in the tone of the two types of chapters.

This text is available in .pdf, kindle, .epub, and .mobi formats, as well as in browser. While nothing fancy or groundbreaking in terms of usability, it is simple and all of my students were able to download the format that best suited their individual needs.

The text contained no grammatical errors that I noticed in the latest edition, a tremendous improvement from the first semester I used this text.

I did not find the content to be culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. It used a variety of examples from the world's history, but I found none of them to be inherently offensive. The subject matter and the fact that this is an introductory text probably assist with the cultural relevance because it is easy to understand, but the themes rarely get into "deep" discussion.

This is a fantastic text. Comparing it to other texts for my COMM 2200 Mass Media & Society text, this textbook was not only easier for my students to understand, but it was written and compiled in a way that made teaching the material enjoyable and easy. I have recommended this book to the other instructors of this course because it allows our students to save money without sacrificing anything in terms of content or learning.

Reviewed by Heather Lubay, Adjunct Faculty, Portland Community College on 8/2/18

Overall the book is comprehensive, covering everything from books to radio to electronic media & social media. Each topic has a descent amount of information on both the history and evolution, as well as where we are today (though, as tends to... read more

Overall the book is comprehensive, covering everything from books to radio to electronic media & social media. Each topic has a descent amount of information on both the history and evolution, as well as where we are today (though, as tends to be the nature of the industry, the “today” piece gets outdated quickly. However, the text covers the topics that most other texts of this subject cover as well. I would have liked to have seen just a bit more depth and analysis, instead of the broad, surface-level coverage.

The text is fairly accurate, though, with the rapid rate of change, it’s difficult to be accurate shortly after publication. Using sites such as MySpace as an example, or only looking at movies put out through about 2007, impacts the accuracy as society has changed and moved on. Students in 2018 are given more of a historical perspective from when they were kids more so than having a representation of what media means in today’s world.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

This is a hard one because the historical information stands the test of time, but many of the examples fall short for today’s students. The Social Media chapter still references MySpace and Friendster as current platforms and only goes as far as FaceBook & Twitter. The author makes it a point to clarify when the book what published, which helps, but, again, it’ll be hard for a current student to see past that when they’ve grown up with the platform being discussed as “new” and have moved on.

The book is fairly fast-paced and easy enough to follow for lower level or beginner students. Examples are easy to follow and the key takeaway boxes and exercises help further basic understanding.

The chapters are fairly consistent, covering the basic history, evolution, and influence/impact.

The text can easily be used as formatted, or broken up into sections and moved around.

The organization is fairly straightforward. Earlier forms of mass communication are covered first, moving on to newer forms. Once students have a basic understanding of each form, they can then move on to topics like ethics, government, and economics, which need that basic understanding to fully grasp the larger concepts.

The book is easy to navigate with had no issues viewing the photos or charts.

The book is well written and free of any gratuitous errors.

The book does a good job of focusing on US media and society. It uses pretty typical examples, though it could incorporate more relevant examples to today’s students. Some case studies reference minority groups, but it would have been nice to see even more examples featuring minority groups. Also, Using YouTube as a “new” viewing outlet and discussing “The war between satellite and cable television” and DirectTV versus Dish makes the cultural relevance more towards older generations than younger ones.

Overall the book does a great job with the history of mass communication and society. It would work for any lower level course. However, the examples are fairly out of date and the instructor would have to present more recent and relevant examples in class.

Reviewed by Randy (Rachel) Kovacs, Adjunct Associate Professor, City University of New York on 6/19/18

I like the way that the author has broadened the scope of the book to incorporate so many aspects of culture, society, politics and economics that some people would be inclined to distinguish from the mass media, when in reality, all these aspects... read more

I like the way that the author has broadened the scope of the book to incorporate so many aspects of culture, society, politics and economics that some people would be inclined to distinguish from the mass media, when in reality, all these aspects of contemporary life are intertwined with and influenced by media messages. It provides an historical retrospective but also shows how convergence and constantly-evolving technologies have driven the way consumers use the media and the way producers will use those technologies to rivet the attention (and influence the purchasing choices) of today’s consumers. The text incorporates the most salient areas of media’s evolution and influence.

The book appears to be objective and adopts a critical but non-partisan perspective. It presents data, including media laws and policies, accurately, and the cases it cites are well documented. The author provides sufficient references to support the facts he states and the conclusions he draws. Caveat--The media landscape and technologies are constantly evolving, so the book is accurate for its time of publication but needs to be updated to include new developments.

The way that the author integrates the historical perspective with current roles of social media in is a clear indication of its relevance. The dates may change, as may the celebrities, industrialists, spokespersons, and there may be geopolitical and cultural shifts, but the author’s explanation of theories/principles and the cases selected show how mass media power and influence are here to stay. The author advances the salient issues at each juncture and contextualizes so they we can relate them to current events. The book could be updated but is still has relevance/longevity.

The book is written in a language that is accessible to the layman/beginning student of mass media. The cases that are boxed, and key takeaways at the end of each chapter further distill what is already explicated. There are many concrete facts but a minimum of jargon and any terms used are adequately explained.

The framework and the terminology are consistent. There is also a consistent structure in terms of the visual layout and breakdown of each chapter’s sections, which makes the material far more accessible to students. It’s reassuring in a way, because students know where to go in each chapter for clarification of terms and restatement of the major media developments or areas of impact.

The book’s content is broken down within chapters into (pardon the expression) digestible chunks. The way each subsection is organized makes sense. The major sections where media, developments, policies, etc., are first introduced are illustrated by boxed portions and then reiterated clearly at the end of the chapter with small, chunked takeaways and questions that challenge the students to ponder issues more deeply. The modules are distinguished by color, typset, size of font, etc. which is aesthetically appealing.

The organization makes sense and the topics segue smoothly from one area of media focus to another. Also, the way the book opens with an overview of mass media and cultural is a good starting point from which to document specific historical eras in the development of communication and to transition from one era of communication to another within a context of technology, politics, industry and other variables.

: The text does not have any interface issues, as it is easy to navigate, all illustrations, charts, and other visuals are clear and distortion-free. All features of the book are legible and all display features are legible and functional.

The book is grammatically accurate and error-free.

The book represents a range of cultural groups in a sensitive and bias-free way. Its discussions of media with regard to both dominant cultures and various minority cultures is respectful, bias-free, and non-stereotypical. It is culturally relevant and inclusive.

For many years, I have used a textbook that I have regarded as very high quality and comprehensive, but as it has become increasingly expensive and out of reach financially for many of my students, I find it hard to justify asking my struggling students to add another financial burden to them. Why should I when they can use this OER textbook? I am seriously considering using Understanding Media and Culture in future semesters and recommending it to my colleagues.

Reviewed by Stacie Mariette, Mass Communication instructor, Anoka-Ramsey Community College on 5/21/18

This OER is very comprehensive. I used it for an online course as a PDF textbook. While this discipline evolves faster than any other communication area I teach, this book remains solidly grounded in a wide variety of resources and foundational... read more

This OER is very comprehensive. I used it for an online course as a PDF textbook. While this discipline evolves faster than any other communication area I teach, this book remains solidly grounded in a wide variety of resources and foundational theories.

As I use it more often, I find myself wanting to update it only for examples regarding the evolution in technology/platforms and the societal/cultural changes that result – not to change the historical content of what is already there.

I haven't come across any factual errors at all.

The examples in this book are often dated. This is my one very mild criticism of this text and only reflects the nature of the information. As we grow into new media and adapt as a society to those delivery methods, it's only natural. I actually use updating the examples in the textbook as an assignment for students.

Some closer to up-to-date examples that I have added into my teaching of the course and to the materials are:

"Fake news" and social media's role in spreading it, especially in terms of Facebook and the last election

Data mining and algorithm practices

"Listening" devices and digital assistants, like Siri and Alexa

The subculture of podcasts

Business models – both for artists and consumers – of streaming services across all media

The chapter on convergence is short and could be a text all on its own. Information relating to this topic is sprinkled throughout the book, but the concept itself is so important to analyze that I like to think about it on its own. This is an area I will beef up in future semesters for my own students.

Streaming services and online journalism overall are two areas that I have noted to update and reference in nearly every chapter.

The short segments and snippets of information are very helpful and clear for students. It's all very digestible and the vocabulary is at just the right level.

The discussion questions and further reading/information are placed in logical places in each chapter. And this consistency helps the reader understand their prompts and what to do next – and additionally the important topics to take away.

I love how this text can be reordered very easily. Since it's so comprehensive, I actually omit a couple of the chapters (radio and magazines) to take the info at a slower pace and have never struggled with remixing other chapters.

In fact, I plan to blend Chapters 11 and 16 (Social Media and New Technology) for my upcoming semesters and have no doubt the text and materials will allow for this.

I like how the chapters primarily focus on one medium at a time. From there, the structure of evolution, technological advancements, social/cultural implications and then a look at trends and emerging controversies helps to build to exciting and relevant discussions and for students to have the backdrop to bring their own insights.

The interface is reliable and easy-to-use. I deliver it as a PDF within my online classroom software. I have never had issues with students downloading and reading on multiple devices – or even printing and referencing – based on their preferences.

This book is very concise and grammatically crisp. It's clear that the authors of the version I am using valued precision in their language and it helps students to see this resource as high-quality!

Cultural and societal relevance are important in this discipline and it's purposely covered in each and every chapter. However, as I mentioned earlier, the examples are outdated in many cases. So I layer this into class discussions and supplement with further readings and assignments. Some of the topics I add are: Representation in entertainment media, like TV and film, for example how the #MeToo movement gained ground based on the film industry Ways that online gaming culture is permissive of the communication of –isms, like sexism and racism Ways that social media and screen time are impacting attention spans, interpersonal relationships/communication and child development How citizen-sourced video and reporting differs from that of trained journalists and how important the differences are The section on media effects is helpful and thorough. I always include a key assignment on this topic. It's also an area I plan to emphasize even more in the future – particularly the idea of tastemaking and gatekeeping. There are many crossovers to many examples that are more up-to-date than the version of the text I have been using.

I love this book and it is on-par with many others I have reviewed for my Introduction to Mass Communication class.

Reviewed by Stacy Fitzpatrick, Professor, North Hennepin Community College on 5/21/18

The presentation of the historical context of media evolution in the US is clear and reasonably detailed, providing a good foundation for an introductory level course. As other reviewers have mentioned, this text was published in 2010 and is out... read more

The presentation of the historical context of media evolution in the US is clear and reasonably detailed, providing a good foundation for an introductory level course. As other reviewers have mentioned, this text was published in 2010 and is out of date in multiple areas, particularly with respect to media laws and regulation, social media, and newer developments of technology (e.g. preference for streaming television, technological and social advancements in gaming). Beyond needing updates to reflect newer advancements in media, this text would benefit from more attention to global media structures, including how they vary across political systems and how they impact how citizens use media to communicate. Additionally, an index and glossary would be helpful for navigation.

I am basing this on the fact that this was published in 2010. Considering the publication date, the factual content for that particular time frame is presented accurately, clearly cited, and reasonably unbiased. There is perhaps an unintended gender bias in the presentation of some content (e.g. Sister Rosetta Tharpe is absent in the music section, as is Nina Simone), though this could be a result of a broader, societal gender bias. Images, charts, and graphs are used well and clearly explained.

The historical content is fine, but the text is almost 9 years out of date and there is a great deal of content that needs to be updated. Making the necessary updates may take some time since the content is tightly written and there are reflections of the date of publication throughout the examples used, images presented, and media discussed. Using this text in class would require the instructor to provide supplemental content on newer advancements in media.

This text is appropriate for a freshman/sophomore level course and reads well. Important terms are defined and each section includes an overview to set a context and clearly defined learning objectives.

The language, terminology, and organization of the text is consistent throughout. This makes moving between chapters easy since they follow a similar format.

With a few exceptions (chapters 1 and 2), the text lends itself well to using different sections at different points. Where there are self-references, there is typically a hyperlink to the section referenced. This is useful for those reading the text online, but less useful if printed sections of text were used.

Chapters 1 and 2 clearly present a structure that the following chapters follow. The only chapter that seems to really break that flow is Chapter 16, but that is more a result of the text being so out of date than a significant change in structure.

I found the online reading format the easiest to navigate. The Word and PDF versions are somewhat more awkward to navigate without using a search keyboard function.

There were a couple minor typos, but no significant grammatical errors that might impact comprehension. The readability assessment (via MS Word) indicated a reading grade level of 13.1, which is consistent with lower division college coursework.

There is a heavy focus on US media, which is acknowledged early on in the text. More integration of content related to global media would strengthen the text. There should be more examples that integrate multiple forms of diversity, such as gender, ability, age, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. Additionally, without an update, younger students may not understand some of the references. For example, younger students in 2018 don’t know Napster as a file-sharing site since it has rebranded to become a streaming site more similar to Spotify.

It would be great to see an update in the content of this text for 2018 that also incorporates broader perspectives of multiple identities and global perspectives. As is, I would use sections of the text and supplement that content with more current examples and issues. Balancing the cost of textbooks in this field with the quality and recency of the content is an ongoing challenge.

Reviewed by Craig Freeman, Director, Oklahoma State University on 5/21/18

The book covers all of the topics you would expect in an inter/ survey course. read more

The book covers all of the topics you would expect in an inter/ survey course.

The book does a good job of accurately surveying mass communications. Good job sourcing information.

The most recent citations are from 2010. That's just too far in the past for a rapidly changing subject like mass communication.

The book is clear and easy to read. Well written.

The book is internally consistent, with recurring sections.

The book does a good job breaking the information down into smaller reading sections.

The book follows the standard structure and flow for introductory texts in mass communication.

The interface is fine. It's a big book. Would appreciate active links to help skip chapters.

No grammatical errors.

I would appreciate a little more diversity in the examples used.

Really wish the authors would update this a bit. It does a great job with the history. Needs updating on the modern issues.

Reviewed by Kateryna Komarova, Visiting Instructor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

The title Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication suggests that we are looking at a comprehensive introductory text. In my opinion, this book is the most valuable to GE courses and entry level courses across Mass... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The title Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication suggests that we are looking at a comprehensive introductory text. In my opinion, this book is the most valuable to GE courses and entry level courses across Mass Communication disciplines, as it does excellent job in covering the fundamentals of mass communication. The textbook is heavy on history, which is a great thing.

I found the content to be accurate and, to my knowledge, error-free.

In comparison with other introductory texts, the content is generally up-to date with current trends. Yet, the distribution of attention towards various forms of media tends to be slightly disproportional. For instance, print magazines alone (essentially, one of many forms of print media that’s experiencing a stable continuous decline) receive as much attention as all forms of social media altogether. As a communications practitioner and an instructor, I was pleased to see information on the merge of paid media and social media (content partnerships and native advertising being the prime examples, albeit these particular terms were not used by the author). On the other hand, some aspects of current media landscape (such as the role of mobile apps, for instance) could be explored further.

The text is written in simple, easy-to-understand language and would be appropriate to non-native speakers.

I find this text to be consistent in terms of terminology.

The book is organized in rather non-trivial fashion, without a unified approach to chapter categorization. Yet, I found this approach refreshing. I loved that the author suggests specific learning outcomes for each section (example: "Distinguish between mass communication and mass media"), key takeaways, and practical exercises. The question bank provided as part of this textbook is a treasure box! It’s a great resource that allows me to have more fun in the classroom by asking interesting questions that wake up the students and generate some amazing answers. The chapters are designed to be used selectively, in no particular order. Big plus.

The content is presented in chronological pattern: from past to future. Other than that, I did not trace much consistency in the material. For instance, Media and Culture is followed by Media Effects, after which the author switches to reviewing various forms of media (Radio, Magazines, Newspapers, etc.). The chapters to follow are Economics of Mass Media and Ethics of Mass Media. I find to be an advantage, as the subsections may be used selectively, and the order may be easily redesigned.

I read the textbook online via the Open Library portal http://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/1-2-intersection-of-american-media-and-culture/ . I found the navigation to be very easy. Good interface.

I did not spot any grammatical errors.

I found the content USA-centric. For this reason, it may have limited application to global courses (such as Global Citizens Project courses offered at USF). The majority of case studies are drawn from the United States; much attention is paid to the history of mass media in the USA and current U.S. legislation safeguarding privacy. In today’s increasingly globalized culture and economy, a broader outlook on media and culture may be expected. More international references would enhance the points made by the author. It is important for students to understand that major trends in mass communication, such as convergence of the media, are not unique to the United States. Similarly, increasing media literacy should be positioned as a global, rather than national, priority.

It is a great introductory text that provides a current overview of various forms of media and highlights the role of mass communication in society.

Reviewed by Joel Gershon, Adjunct Professor, American University on 2/1/18

The book should be the perfect fit for my course Understanding Media, as it indeed covers all of the subject matter of the course. The problem is that it is not up to date and therefore detracts from the complete picture that each one of these... read more

The book should be the perfect fit for my course Understanding Media, as it indeed covers all of the subject matter of the course. The problem is that it is not up to date and therefore detracts from the complete picture that each one of these topics delves into. For example, the music section poses the question: How do the various MP3 players differ? It refers to Spin as a magazine (it ceased its print operations in 2012). Or in the section on television, there is a question about the war between satellite and cable television. I think the winner of that is neither, as streaming a la carte is what people are talking about in 2017 as the direction TV is going in.

This criticism, of course, is obvious and easy. It's actually an exhaustive book that does contain a wealth of useful information, although no glossary or index – glaring omissions. Unfortunately, it suffers from not being up to 2017, when we are living in an up-to-the-second world. Especially in a field like media studies, it makes this book unusable in its entirety. The chapter ethics and economics aren't as badly out of date.

It is accurate for the time it was written in, but in today's world, much of this doesn't hold up. Just one example, there is the claim that Reader's Digest has the third highest circulation of all magazine, which is no longer the case in 2017. It is not in good shape. Even the references to "President Obama," obviously show that it was written a different era with a very different landscape for the media world. Still, the great majority of it appears to be represented fairly, albeit in an outmoded way. It's just that the trends and latest innovations in 2010 won't even make sense to a college freshman whose frame of reference likely came about three years after

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

Obviously, this is a major weak link of the textbook. I've already commented on this, but I think any time the textbook is referring to MySpace or Friendster in a way that suggests that they are viable social media sites, it makes itself into a caricature of an outdated guide.

No real problem here. The book is fully clear, well-written and to the point. The problem is that the point was made in 2010. That said, there is no glossary or index.

Again, this book is solid as a foundational textbook to get students the basic information regarding the history and meaningful cultural highlights of different forms of media. From radio to media and democracy, the lessons are thorough and contain useful and important information. It's just that some of this information is outdated.

The book is quite easy to read, the organization is fine and reads like any typical textbook. I will say that there have been advancements made, and that this book should be more interactive and multi-media if it wants to keep up with the Joneses.

It's fine in this regard. The writing itself is great and it's broken up nicely. Very readable and I wish it was up to date because it's a solid textbook.

This is fine for 2010, but there is no interactivity or video or things to let us know that we are in 2017.It's basic and fine, but nothing stands out are particularly innovative.

Written well. No issue here at all.

Again, this is the fatal flaw of the book. It's just not going to be persuasive if it doesn't manage to maintain the sensibilities of someone in 2017. Between politics and technology there have been extreme shifts in the media in the past few years and a book like this would need to be updated monthly to stay relevant. It could work as a historical document to see how people thought in 2010, but not really as a relevant book today.

Reviewed by Suzi Steffen, Instructor, Linn-Benton Community College on 6/20/17

This text is rather comprehensive, at least for the time it was published. It covers pretty much any topic one might want to cover in a Media and Society or introductory media and communications class, though for those interested in topic areas... read more

This text is rather comprehensive, at least for the time it was published. It covers pretty much any topic one might want to cover in a Media and Society or introductory media and communications class, though for those interested in topic areas like journalism, advertising, and public relations, this textbook is much more about the history of those areas than how they are surviving and functioning today (and that's fine with me; I can update with information that's more recent). There is no index (at least in this form), and there is no glossary, but terms are well-defined within each chapter and within pull-out boxes as well. It would be incumbent upon the professor and students to keep some kind of glossary or wiki, which is not a bad idea for a media history/media and society class in any case.

Often in a textbook for media and society or media history, one can see the author's world view shining through - is capitalism too much for media? Should media creators take an "unbiased" view of the world? How is a medium influenced by the way it is funded? The book has a solid conversational tone and is authoritative on its history, but I might prefer a little more analysis of media ownership and consolidation. As for accuracy, yes, the facts seem quite accurate to the best of my knowledge, and the text is written (and edited) by someone with a journalist's view of language - it's useful, it's best done well, and occasionally it lends itself to some essayistic moments.

I'm not sure there's a way to write a book like this that can keep it relevant past the month in which it was written, much less seven years later. Many of the examples the author uses to illustrate music, social media, books, newspapers (some of which don't exist anymore), magazines (ditto), etc., are simply no longer relevant. It *is* interesting to read about what the author thought was relevant at the time, and what the author thought would last, but this kind of book needs almost constant updating during this time of constant media churn and reinvention. I am giving it a 3, but really it's more like a 2.5 as any instructor would need constantly to find new examples that students will understand.

The book is accessible and lucid, absolutely. As with any history of a large discipline, the book contains a fair amount of jargon that is relevant to each portion of the subject matter covered, and the book is good about not only giving context and giving definitions but also setting aside boxed or special areas for examples that reinforce what it's talking about. The key takeaways at the end of each chapter, added to the exercises that are meant to help the students understand what's important in the dense historical detail and context of each chapter, are helpful as well.

This book is wonderfully consistent with terminology and the framework it employs to discuss media across a wide range of areas. From the beginning of each chapter, where an introduction lays out the plan of the chapter, to the end of each chapter - where a box of "key takeaways" explains what students should have learned - the book keeps a tone of very slightly amused detachment, mixed with earnest passion for certain topics, throughout, which is utterly consistent with how media people actually live their lives.

The text is definitely modular. It's written in a way that could easily be read in various chunks as the instructor or professor wishes to assign it. Blocks of text are broken up with images, a few charts, and a few stories that are boxed and that illustrate examples of topics within the chapters.

I think it's hard to know how to organize a media history/media and society textbook. Do you start with the printed word? But then, what about radio? Should radio come closer to magazines or closer to movies and TV? In that case, where do audiobooks and podcasts go? So, even as any instructor would grapple with these sorts of questions, the book is laid out in a way that made sense to the author - and that can be ripped apart and reassigned by each instructor. There's no need to read economics at the end of the course; perhaps, despite the fact that it's at the end of the book, it should come at the front end of the course - and because it's modular enough for flexibility, that's not a problem.

I read the textbook on my desktop Kindle and on my phone. It's not super with the images or charts, and the boxed questions and exercises at the end are especially hard to take. This interface could use a little attention, at least in the Kindle applications area. It's not impossible; it just needs some work.

No errors that I saw, though a textbook without at least a few grammatical errors is a miracle.

It's hard to say whether it's culturally insensitive or offensive because, well, I'm a white woman. I note that it talks about U.S. media's places (different for advertising, PR, newspapers, etc.) in the Civil Rights Movement and to a certain extent it discusses the ways that major media have been controlled or run by men, by white men, by straight white men. But I don't think the text addresses any of these things in the depth or with the clarity of thought that one would like to see in 2017. (Yes, it's a 2010 text.) In gaming, in Twitter discussions, in talking about newspapers or online media, the book is simply behind the times, and that makes it culturally problematic if not insensitive.

I am reluctant to adopt this book with students who really need more recent examples to make sense of how things are going now, today, in 2017, though it's also relevant for them to learn the history of how we got here (if anyone can really understand that at this point). I'd love to use a newer edition if one comes out. I might use or adapt parts of it along with other readings for my media and society class in 2018, but I'll be cautious about that.

Reviewed by Shearon Roberts, Assistant Professor of Mass Communication, Xavier University of Louisiana on 6/20/17

The textbook hits the standard areas for a typical Introduction to Mass Communication course: evolution of media industries, media and society, media effects and theories, media law and ethics, the digital age, and global media. It is... read more

The textbook hits the standard areas for a typical Introduction to Mass Communication course: evolution of media industries, media and society, media effects and theories, media law and ethics, the digital age, and global media. It is comprehensive in its case studies and historical events that are typically taught for an Introduction to Mass Communication course. The text is current as there is a chapter on the Internet and Social Media and several chapters look at the digital revolution as it impacts media industries. There is no glossary or index, however. Instructors will have to rely on chapter sections for lesson planning.

From Gutenberg to Apple and Google, the book provides content that is accurate on the development of media. The author thoroughly cites case studies and provides questions for critical thinking about issues affecting media industry trends and on the impact of the media on the public. Statistics, data and trends are appropriately cited for reference check on accuracy of estimates.

Case studies and citations stop at 2010. However, the author makes projections for media trends up to 2020. Since media industries are most vulnerable to yearly change, the information in the book holds for now, although the positions of some of the digital media players have changed since the book has come out. However, the author is careful to clarify dates for events that were transformative for media industry changes, at the point in which these events occurred, even if changes have occurred since the book was published in 2010. Within another 5 years, the book is likely to need some updates to digital age developments.

The language used is accessible for a first year student taking an Introduction to Mass Communication course. The theory, ethics and law chapters are broken down for a 1000-2000 level course. The case studies and critical thinking boxes are useful in helping to break down and apply a wealth of information in the text for students to conceptualize the importance of historical events and their social or cultural impacts.

The author is clear on defining media industries, digital convergence and common theories in mass communication.

Instructors can easily use the text as is, or piece together sections on history, digitization and media and society from several chapters, depending on the instructor’s preference.

The text follows the standard logic for media introduction courses moving students through print, to audio, to film to broadcasting and to the digital age. The author wisely weaves in the impact of new media in each of these phases of evolution so the student does not have to wait until the end of the text to see the impacts of the changes of the industry, as they understand media to be today.

While the interface is simple, all graphics and text boxes, as well as assignments are designed similarly throughout the text and easy to locate as an e-text for student work.

Sentences throughout the text are concisely written and the text appears thoroughly proofed.

It was important for me to see examples of race, gender and global dimensions of the media represented as case studies, assignments and critical thinking in the book. From using The Birth of a Nation and its outcry from the NAACP in the film chapter to the rice of BET, or the understanding stereotyping of African Americans in TV, this book has relevant examples that relate to minority students or for a Historically Black University. I did however see no mention of the black press, or the work of alternative media in introduction narratives left out of the mainstream media. However, most introductory media textbooks, also leave this out. If this is an interest area for diverse students, unfortunately instructors are left to source that information themselves. But the most prominent case studies for diverse groups can be found in this text.

It was surprising to discover such an open-textbook as the cost of Intro to Mass Communication textbooks are typically over $100 and students only use this textbook once. This is a valuable resource. I hope the author would consider updating in a few years for recent developments and important case studies such as the #BlackLivesMatter movement and President Donald Trump's election for an examination of media literacy.

Reviewed by Gwyneth Mellinger, Professor and Director, School of Media Arts & Design, James Madison University on 6/20/17

The book covers all of the subject areas typically touched on in a media and society survey course; however, the discussions within chapters would benefit greatly from more examples and, in some cases, greater detail in explanation. I often... read more

The book covers all of the subject areas typically touched on in a media and society survey course; however, the discussions within chapters would benefit greatly from more examples and, in some cases, greater detail in explanation. I often thought the content was pretty thin. This was particularly so in Chapter 2, where the treatment of effects theories and media studies controversies required much more supporting discussion to be relevant to undergraduates. The greatest weakness in the text, and the specific reason I would not adopt it for my own course, is that the book's engagement of social and digital media is, for the most part, woefully out of date and separated into discrete chapter segments, rather than synthesized into discussions directly. A text on media and society assigned in 2017 cannot be comprehensive if it does not engage media in a way that makes sense to the students who are reading it. There is no index or glossary.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

There is no bias in the text and historical detail appeared to be represented accurately. Again, I question whether a book written in 2010, which lacks full context for the subject matter, can accurately reflect media and society for students in 2017. For example, in 4.6, online journalism is represented as blogs and online newspapers. That is an accuracy issue for today's students.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 1

The book is out of date. Examples and context stop at 2010, and many cultural references will not resonate with current students, which is the point of examples and cultural context. The Beatlemania example early in the book and the references to 2009 in the opening paragraphs advertise the lack of currency. Significantly, the book cannot be easily updated in its current form because its approach and perspective are also out of date. By failing to integrate social media and the Internet into the central narrative, the book emphasizes legacy media in a way that is no longer relevant.

The book is clearly written, though additional examples and context would be helpful in places.

The narrative is consistent in terminology and framework.

The modularity of the text would allow use of sections of the text at different points in a course.

The content in Chapter 11 on evolution of the Internet and the impact of social media belongs near the beginning, not the end, of the text. In addition, the impact of media economics on content is downplayed by sequestering this discussion in Chapter 13. Each chapter on legacy media ends with a section on the impact of new technology on that medium. These sections feel tacked on.

There were no interface issues. That said, the book lacked the visual engagement used by many media and society texts to capture and maintain the interest of today's students.

The text is clean. Of note, the text correctly uses "media" as a plural noun. There was, however, this awkward subheading at 1.2: "What Does Media Do?"

The text is not culturally insensitive. It acknowledges cultural imperialism and the digital divides as issues. There are examples of media content that would be deemed inclusive. That is not to say, however, that today's students would find the examples culturally relevant. The book is written from their grandparents' perspective.

Without irony, the unknown author of the text includes in a media literacy checklist and discussion (1.8) the advice that students should scrutinize the identity and credentials of authors. This same section warns against anonymous online sources. This is a conceptual problem with this particular online text. It's not clear why the author wants to distance her/himself from the project, but it creates a question of credibility.

Reviewed by Elizabeth England-Kennedy, Assistant Professor, Rhode Island College on 4/11/17

The book is extremely comprehensive. Not only does it include all forms of mass media, but it intelligently and thoughtfully addresses critical concepts such as ethics and culture. Photojournalism (especially the work of muckrakers such as Jacob... read more

The book is extremely comprehensive. Not only does it include all forms of mass media, but it intelligently and thoughtfully addresses critical concepts such as ethics and culture. Photojournalism (especially the work of muckrakers such as Jacob Riis) is not included, and investigative reporting is too briefly addressed, although including advocacy journalism was a sound choice. There is no index or glossary. The lack of a glossary is surprising since key words are already highlighted in text.

The text is accurate and information is fairly represented and free of personal bias. No errors were found.

This is the most concerning characteristic of the book: The information has long-term relevance and is written in a highly readable way that will enhance its longevity. However, the examples tend to be temporally but often not generationally up-to-date and positioned for longevity. For example, beginning the book with an example that is this far removed from today's undergraduates' world may lessen their interest in reading further, as opposed to beginning with more focus on Beatlemania and then moving to an example of an artist/group more accessible to their generation. Additional examples used later in the book are drawn from recent time frames, but may not be commonly accessed. This is the only aspect of the book that would make me hesitate to adopt it.

The text is written in lucid prose that is accessible to introductory readers, though individuals whose first language is not English could have some difficulty reading independently. However, with minimal pre-reading guidance (e.g., introducing concepts that will be included in an upcoming reading assignment, instruction on how to use the Learning Objectives and Key Takeaways to best effect), these readers should also be able to understand and effectively use the text. Context is given for jargon/technical terminology, and definitions are generally clear.

The text is consistent in format, terminology, framework, and tone.

Modularity rating: 1

The book is clearly divided into relatively short subsections that are logically sequenced. Longer sections tend to be broken up by images, all of which are relevant examples of concepts being discussed in the section. The Learning Objectives, Key Takeaways, End-of-Chapter Assessments, and Critical Thinking Questions sections for each module are useful for guiding student reading and could be easily adapted into learning exercises and assessments such as discussions, quizzes, exams, and writing assignments. The Career Connection section at the end of chapters is innovative, and could be especially useful for students considering majors in communications-related fields. Chapters and sub-sections could be used independently in reading packets or rearranged without their being weakened, making it a more flexible resource or textbook.

The organization is clear. Sections are clearly labeled and of approximately the same length. Titles of chapters and subsections are logical and clear. Topics are logical laid out: An overview of foundational concepts in the first two chapters frames the remaining chapters effectively. The remaining chapters are organized in a historically-logical order. This structure is well-designed to helps readers better understand how an increase in the number and forms of media channels impacts audiences and media effects. Chapters are also internally well-organized and could be used separately as desired.

There are no interface difficulties. Pictures are clear and free of distortion. Navigation is clear and easy to use. Because the sections are short, reader interest should be maintained despite the low level of images included. Multiple platforms can be used.

The text contains no grammatical errors. A nice touch by the author is to clarify and model the correct grammatical usage of "medium" vs "media."

No cultural insensitivity or offensiveness was found. The author acknowledges that the book is focused on US media and includes culturally diverse examples. Topics such as cultural imperialism are addressed specifically. Related topics such as cultural appropriation and marginalization are referenced, although these specific terms are not necessarily used (e.g., the latter is addressed in the chapter on music as an outcome of the oligopoly in music without using the term "marginalization"). This could have been taken further; for example, the section on "Issues and Trends in Film" does not address concerns about "whitewashing" or lack of diversity in Hollywood movies and the section on Independent films does not address movies that countered these trends (e.g., the work of Spike Lee and Robert Rodriguez). However, the book lays the groundwork necessary for a discussion of such concepts in class or for use of supplemental materials that build on this text.

The book could be used as a stand-alone for an introductory class. Sections could be used in more advanced classes as supplemental readings or in reading packets.

Reviewed by Kevin Smith, Instructor, Chemeketa Community College on 2/15/17

This text is comprehensive in its coverage of all major media platforms and key general concepts related to mass media. There are times (e.g. Chapter 2: Media Effects) when some concepts are defined vaguely, but this is not indicative of the book... read more

This text is comprehensive in its coverage of all major media platforms and key general concepts related to mass media. There are times (e.g. Chapter 2: Media Effects) when some concepts are defined vaguely, but this is not indicative of the book as a whole. There is no glossary nor index, but most terms are defined well in the context of each chapter. The review sections at the end of each chapter would also help students organize and recall relevant information as they study. There is little that I feel is missing from this textbook that would be appropriate for an introductory mass media course.

A neutral, objective tone is struck throughout, with no apparent errors or gaps in coverage of major media and concepts. To the best of my knowledge, I believe this text to be free of errors, although it needs to be updated.

While this text is outstanding in its coverage and clarity, it is now seven years out-of-date and needs to be updated. A text on mass media should reflect the most recent changes in technology and economic and political contexts.

This text appears to be written for college freshmen and sophomores. Perhaps even upper-level high school students could successfully grasp its content. Most jargon particular to the discipline is defined and illustrated thoroughly.

The text is rigorous throughout, with even weight given to all concepts. There are occasional overlaps between chapters in coverage of terms (e.g. media bias), but nothing that seems sloppy or out-of-place. The historical overview of media technologies blends seamlessly with the beginning and later chapters on media studies concepts.

The structure of the book lends itself exceptionally well to divisibility, while demonstrating the ability to maintain its own internal coherence. The text seems designed for a semester-long course, so those looking to use it for quarters or with students whose expected reading loads might be lighter will find it easy to pull only what they need from it without sacrificing clarity.

The book's content is designed expertly, with introductory chapters leading into a chronological overview of the history of media technologies (books to social media). The text concludes by expanding its scope to cover more general concepts (e.g.media ethics) that scaffold on previously discussed ideas. This framework would greatly aid students in comprehending central ideas in media studies as they relate to specific technologies and historical periods.

I did not notice any problems in this area, although a cover might be helpful in identifying the text.

I noticed some minor typos, but nothing that reflects poorly on the high level of discourse and mechanical aspects of the text.

The text employs examples that would be helpful to students as they seek to understand mass media in diverse settings. There was no inappropriate content noted. The text is respectful and inclusive in this sense.

The end of chapter summaries, takeaways, exercises and critical thinking questions are outstanding and would serve any instructor well in designing a course with relevant activities tied directly to the text, while also pointing to other sources in contemporary mass media. The book is an invaluable resource that deserves the attention of a group of scholars who can update its content in order that it be more relevant to students.

Reviewed by Amy Rawson, Professor, Century College on 2/8/17

Interestingly, this textbook was more comprehensive than I originally expected. The text covered all of the major areas to be expected in a mass communication textbook: Media, Books, Newspapers, Magazines, Radio, Movies, TV, Games, Internet &... read more

Interestingly, this textbook was more comprehensive than I originally expected. The text covered all of the major areas to be expected in a mass communication textbook: Media, Books, Newspapers, Magazines, Radio, Movies, TV, Games, Internet & Social Media, Advertising & PR, Economics, Ethics, Media & Government and the Future of Mass Media. However, I am giving 4 stars because there is no index or glossary which I deem especially important for a mass communication textbook.

The textbook is accurate. I also like the chapter on the future of mass media. The textbook seems to be error-free and unbiased. Each chapter section includes a few learning objectives and a few "key takeaways." There are also exercise questions at the end of each chapter section. The examples in the exercise questions are dated. It would be nice to have more current examples. However, I would prefer questions about the chapter at the end of the entire chapter or at the end of each section in addition to the objectives, takeaways and exercises. Thus, I am giving 4 stars for outdated examples.

I agree with another reviewer that the examples are a bit dated (which quickly happens in a mass communication textbook). This affects the credibility of the overall text. For example, in Chapter 16.1 Changes in Media Over the Last Century the example box titled "Pay-for-it Content: Will it Work?" is from 2009! This is 2017.

The textbook is written in clear and easily understood language. It is accessible and comprehensible. It would be nice to have a glossary for students for the mass communication jargon.

The text seems to be consistent with terminology and framework. However, the textbook seems dated overall and new terminology and frameworks could be added to make it more relevant and interesting for students.

The modularity of the textbook is good. It is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned different points within the course. I like the division of the chapters into subsections.

The organization/structure/flow of the textbook is good. However, I agree with another reviewer that the textbook is too lengthy. In my opinion, 647 pages is too long. Although I have used other textbooks of similar length, there are many more vivid visuals for students and more timely information and examples.

The text is free of significant interface issues that may confuse or distract the reader.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

The textbook examples for cultural relevance could be more current.

Thank you for this opportunity. I like the idea of an open textbook and would be interested in doing more reviews in the future.

Reviewed by Tom Grier, Professor, Winona State University on 8/21/16

The book is comprehensive, covering the study of media and its intersection with culture, through an in-depth look at each of the major mediums, then content considerations, economics and ethics issues related to the mass media. read more

The book is comprehensive, covering the study of media and its intersection with culture, through an in-depth look at each of the major mediums, then content considerations, economics and ethics issues related to the mass media.

This text seems accurate. I didn't find glaring errors of fact in my reading. Though, as I will mention later in my review, many of the examples used in the text are now several years outdated, when more recent examples or case studies would be more relatable to a youthful college audience.

This is one area where I find some difficulty with the book -- as is the case with every text of this type. The world of media is ever-changing and fast-changing. The historical information about the invention, early adoption, and improvements to the mediums of mass communication (books, newspapers, radio, television, etc.) are fine. A few of the examples and case studies used to describe events related to the media feel outdated. This is most apparent in Chapters 1 and 2 on Media and Culture and Media Effects. Examples from 2010 and 2011, are not relative to college freshmen in 2016 who were in middle-school and probably not paying attention when these things happened. Therefore, the longevity of this text is limited, unless it is updated-revised at least every third year.

The author's writing style is informative and engaging. While the writing is clear and understandable, the chapters often get too deep and try to cover anything and everything in a particular content area-- or sub-chapter, when a couple statements and one case study would suffice.

I found the chapter formatting, writing style and narrative flow to be consistent from chapter to chapter.

Here, the text shines. First, it is broken into chapters that are easily identifiable and segment the content nicely. Within each chapter are several sub-chapters that allow readers to read and absorb material in smaller chunks. This will be helpful to the learning styles of younger people today.

For the most part, I agree with the author's organization and flow. My only thought, and it's just an opinion, is: Chapter 2 on Media Effects should be moved to Chapter 14, so it comes after the major media categories and then the economics of the media, and just before the ethics and law of media. To be fair, most mass media textbooks follow this same organization. When I teach the class, I always move the "effects" chapter to later in the semester, after I've discussed the media types, their history and development.

A second thought, I'd hold the footnoted source credits to the end of each chapter, or preferably to the end of the book. The sometimes very long list of footnoted sources between each sub-chapter stops the flow for readers that may wish to read a full chapter.

I downloaded the PDF version, and read that. I found the interface cumbersome. I wish paragraphs were indented. I wish it was easier to navigate from chapter to chapter or topic to topic without scrolling, scrolling, scrolling. I wish there was an easy way to get to a Table of Contents with one click, and then from there click topic-anchored reference points to skip to specific information sought.

I wish it had an index that had anchor links. I realize this would be a large undertaking to create and connect the links. But that would make searching and finding specific information easy and fast. If I was a college student studying for a chapter quiz or exam on the foundations of radio, I might like to scoot to the Index and click on Radio-Invention, or on Marconi and be led instantly to that content within the text.

And, probably an easy fix, I wish it was more evenly spaced. In my opinion, there should consistently be two spaces between sub-headed sections or sub-chapters. In most places in this text, a new, bolded subhead appears on the very next line under its preceding paragraph. This looks jammed and messy.

I have no problem with the grammar. It's clear, easy to follow, and written to be accessible to a college audience. I used the Gunning Fog Index to test several paragraphs throughout the text and found some of the writing aimed at an audience with 10-11 years of formal education, and in a few cases more than 15 years of education. The average of my selected readings came out at 12-13 years of education -- perfectly appropriate for a freshmen-level college course.

Other than my hope for some more recent case studies and examples, I find the text to be culturally relevant. A few of the examples mention MySpace, Napster and Kazaa as internet entities with which the audience should be familiar. In reality, today's college freshmen know almost nothing of these three internet terms. In my current Media and Society class, less than ten percent of the class had ever had a MySpace account. They had heard of MySpace, but really knew nothing. No one in the class knew about Napster or Kazaa first-hand... perhaps had heard of them in another class.

This text feels too long. This is a difficult thing. The author includes everything he feels needs to be discussed in each chapter. But it's too much for a college freshman-level class. Example: The chapter on Music is more than 50 pages long. While I agree college students should be able to read this much each week for a class, I'm confident they will not read this much. I believe the text could be condensed quite a bit while maintaining the content necessary to make it meaningful at the freshman level. It's a complete text, and would make a nice reference tool -- with better indexing and searching links within the body -- but it won't work at an entry level to the study of media. At my university, the "Media and Society" class is a 100-level course, used as a general education class that can fulfill a categorical credit-need for all students, not just Mass Communication majors. And we consider the class a "feeder" to the major, introducing students to the study of media and hopefully igniting an interest in students to consider a career in media, and therefore declare a Mass Communication major. This book, with its depth, might be more appropriate in an upper-vision media studies course.

Reviewed by Nick Marx, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

The text is a broad and comprehensive overview of all relevant forms of media today. Although this is a common organizational approach for survey textbooks of media, this particular volume utilizes it in a particularly clear and cogent manner. ... read more

The text is a broad and comprehensive overview of all relevant forms of media today. Although this is a common organizational approach for survey textbooks of media, this particular volume utilizes it in a particularly clear and cogent manner. Instructors approaching media and culture from a mass comm/journalism standpoint are much likelier to find this text useful than are instructors who approach media and culture from a perspective emphasizing critical/cultural studies, historical poetics, and/or aesthetics.

Content is accurate and strikes appropriately diplomatic tones where contentious issues might arise that concern social and cultural power.

The text is quite relevant for the most part, but by the very nature of its subject matter will undoubtedly require updates every few years. Framing the intro of the "Future of Mass Media" chapter with a specific device--the iPad--rather than the set of cultural protocols such devices foster, for example, might prove to be one area where instructors redirect conversations after the next new device inevitably cycles through.

The text is lucid and easy to follow. The book is ideal for introductory-level courses, but is likely too survey-oriented for courses beyond that level.

The text is consistent in structure, tone, and subject matter.

Here the book really excels at guiding students through a programmatic approach to studying media. Each section of history/description is followed by useful discussion prompts and activities, easily lending itself to course adoption.

The book flows logically. Some medium-specific chapters might arguably be collapsed into others, but their separation provides instructors with a good range of options for organizing lesson plans as they wish rather than having to proceed sequentially.

The text is a cleanly organized PDF, but is quite cumbersome to navigate internally. At 700+ pages, there's no table of contents and little in the PDF that allows for quick and easy browsing without intense scrolling. I'd recommend a hyperlinked TOC and some mechanism that affords instructors/students the freedom to teach/read in a modular, not linear, fashion.

The book is very clean and free of any obvious errors.

The book appropriately qualifies and focuses on the US media context, drawing on a good diversity of examples throughout.

Reviewed by Robert Kerr, Professor, University of Oklahoma on 1/12/15

This book devotes almost 800 pages to achieving an impressive level of comprehensiveness, considering the vast subject material upon which it focuses. Moving from Gutenberg’s 15th-century invention of the movable type printing press, through the... read more

This book devotes almost 800 pages to achieving an impressive level of comprehensiveness, considering the vast subject material upon which it focuses. Moving from Gutenberg’s 15th-century invention of the movable type printing press, through the beginning of the contemporary media age launched by the introduction of the telegraph in the mid 19th century, on into the explosive era opened with the beginnings of wireless communication, and ultimately into the revolution of Internet communication that by 2008 meant that U.S. households were consuming 3.6 zettabytes of information annually, the equivalent of a seven-foot-foot tall stack of books that covered the entire nation and represented a 350 percent increase from just three decades previously. This book manages to cover that remarkable series of media developments, and actually a good bit more, while keeping it all in broader context and without getting bogged down in the tedium of too much minutia from any one topic area.

This reviewer came across no errors of fact nor any pattern of bias in presentation.

The author of any text on this subject is faced with the challenge of achieving up-to-date content on a subject that explodes with new developments faster than any static text could ever stay fully up to date on for long. This text addresses that challenge by focusing on presenting a fully, dynamic framework that is so fully developed that it provides readers with a quite useful and enduring framework for considering crucial issues of media and culture in a manner that should give it a considerable shelf life. That framework is designed to help readers understand not only today’s media landscape but to consider what may be ahead for that landscape in terms of the future of media and culture.

The text breaks down relevant concepts and terminology with lucid, accessible prose so that even readers at the most introductory level should be able to always understand the discussion. Throughout the text, it very clearly helps readers think about each concept and related elements very clearly and in context that illuminates their significance.

This book’s use of terminology and framework is remarkably consistent. The author clearly has an instinctive, unified understanding of the essential dynamics driving the media world as it has evolved, exists today, and is unfolding going forward, and consistently discusses all topics in a context that never loses connection with that broad, fluid picture.

Chapters are organized into small modules, short subsections that by and large can stand alone and could be reorganized as an instructor might find more useful for the purposes of particular courses. Each chapter and each subsection includes highly useful learning objectives, key takeaways, and exercises, links to source materials and end-of-chapter assessments.

The book begins with a thorough overview that takes the reader quickly through a multifaceted assessment of the relationship between media and culture. With that foundation established, it moves into discussion of what is understood about the complex subject of media effects. Then it moves into narrower topics within the broader view considered so far, moving on to discussions of books, newspapers, magazines, music, radio, movies, and television, and then on to more recent developments such as electronic games, the Internet and social media. Then it steps back again to consider broader media influences such as advertising/PR, the role of economics in shaping the nature of mass media, ethical considerations, and government influence, before concluding with a substantial discussion of the future of mass media. The final chapter very effectively brings together the many strands of discussion from preceding chapters and synergizes them with a forward looking discussion of what the media future may hold. A table of contents within the book pdf itself would be helpful, as would content outlines at the beginning of each chapter. However, each chapter does contain very good breakdown highlights of each subsection’s learning objectives, key takeaways, and exercises, as well as extensive links to source materials and end-of-chapter assessments.

There do not seem to be any interface problems. The book is easy to navigate and the images/charts are displayed clearly, without distortion. Display features are presented quite distinctly and effectively throughout and should present readers with not distractions or confusion. The layout is somewhat visually plain, compared to many websites and even many traditional textbooks with more graphically elaborate designs, but the simple layout is easy to negotiate. The number of images/charts is not abundant, but is sufficient.

Grammar is used correctly throughout -- including use of the term “media” as a plural noun, which even too many academics have begun to use incorrectly as a singular term. It even includes an explanation of why it is incorrect to make that term singular, despite its popular usage in such manner. The text is very well written throughout, lively and to the point, with an easy flow that should enable readers to move through it almost effortlessly.

Over the course of this 761-page book, the reader is taken through an extensive range of discussion examples that span a multitude of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. This reviewer did not detect any instances of cultural insensitivity or offensiveness.

This book is written well enough to be of general interest as a stand-alone read, apart from the context of its use as a textbook.

Reviewed by Doug Trouten, Professor, University of Northwestern - St. Paul on 7/15/14

The text covers all of the major forms of media and significant related topics (advertising, media economics, ethics, etc.). While the text lacks a dedicated chapter for journalism, this topic is covered at length in some of the other chapters. No... read more

The text covers all of the major forms of media and significant related topics (advertising, media economics, ethics, etc.). While the text lacks a dedicated chapter for journalism, this topic is covered at length in some of the other chapters. No glossary or index is provided.

Content is accurate and free of glaring errors. Although written in a personal, conversational tone, the text avoids obvious personal bias.

The content is up-to-date, including discussion of social media and references to recent works of media criticism. The rapid development of new media makes it likely that some of the material in this (or any) book will quickly seem dated, but the most time-sensitive material is confined to a few chapters, which should facilitate future updates.

The book is written in clear, easy-to-understand language that should appeal to today's college-age reader.

The text shows good consistency, introducing key ideas early and using them to facilitate understanding of material covered in subsequent chapters.

The chapters are clearly divided into subsections, each with clearly stated learning objectives, key takeaways and learning exercises. Most subsections could stand on their own, and chapters focusing on specific forms of mass media could easily be rearranged or skipped if desired.

The topics are presented in a logical fashion. After introducing basic ideas about media and culture and media effects, the text moves to discussion of various forms of media in chronological orders, and ends with chapters on various mass media applications and issues, such as advertising, public relations, ethics and government regulation.

The text is a basic PDF, with fixed line breaks that limit display options. Most URLs are live links. Footnote numbers and references to chapter sections look like links but are not, which may confuse some readers. A format better-suited for e-readers would be welcome.

The text strives to be culturally neutral, and should not offend any particular group of readers. The text clearly focuses on the U.S. media context, and acknowledges this limitation early on.

This is an impressively comprehensive overview of mass communication, written in a clear and engaging manner. Discussion questions and exercises are helpful resources for classroom use. A glossary, index and more flexible e-format would make this text even more useful. This text is a welcome addition to the field, and will serve students and teachers well.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1: Media and Culture
• Chapter 2: Media Effects
• Chapter 3: Books
• Chapter 4: Newspapers
• Chapter 5: Magazines
• Chapter 6: Music
• Chapter 7: Radio
• Chapter 8: Movies
• Chapter 9: Television
• Chapter 10: Electronic Games and Entertainment
• Chapter 11: The Internet and Social Media
• Chapter 12: Advertising and Public Relations
• Chapter 14: Ethics of Mass Media
• Chapter 15: Media and Government
• Chapter 16: The Future of Mass Media

Ancillary Material

• University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

About the Book

According to the author, the world did not need another introductory text in mass communication. But the world did need another kind of introductory text in mass communication, and that is how Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication was birthed.

The only question was: What would be the purpose of another introductory mass communication text?

Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication was written to squarely emphasize media technology. The author believes that an introduction to mass communication text should be a compelling, historical narrative sketching the *ongoing evolution* of media technology and how that technology shapes and is shaped by culture — and that is what he set out to deliver with his new textbook.

Today's students are immersed in media technology. They live in a world of cell phones, smart phones, video games, iPods, laptops, Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare, and more. They fully expect that new technology will be developed tomorrow. Yet students often lack an historical perspective on media technology. They lack knowledge of the social, political and economic forces that shape media technology. This is not knowledge for knowledge's sake. It is knowledge that can help them understand, comprehend, appreciate, anticipate, shape and control media technology.

With this focus, Understanding Media and Culture becomes an appropriate title. Indeed, the title has particular significance. Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media is a key text in media studies. Written in the 1960s, Understanding Media was the subject of intense debates that continue to this day. Its central message was that the technology of media — not their content — was their most important feature. In a typically pithy phrase, McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." The title, Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication , situates the introductory text in a large, engrossing theoretical conversation.

The goal is to adopt a textbook that will support and complement your teaching of this course. Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication will support an engaging and interesting course experience for students that will not only show them the powerful social, political and economic forces will affect the future of media technology, but will challenge students to do their part in shaping that future.

Contribute to this Page

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.3 Methods of Researching Media Effects

Learning objectives.

• Identify the prominent media research methods.
• Explain the uses of media research methods in a research project.

Media theories provide the framework for approaching questions about media effects ranging from as simple as how 10-year-old boys react to cereal advertisements to as broad as how Internet use affects literacy. Once researchers visualize a project and determine a theoretical framework, they must choose actual research methods. Contemporary research methods are greatly varied and can range from analyzing old newspapers to performing controlled experiments.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a research technique that involves analyzing the content of various forms of media. Through content analysis, researchers hope to understand both the people who created the content and the people who consumed it. A typical content analysis project does not require elaborate experiments. Instead, it simply requires access to the appropriate media to analyze, making this type of research an easier and inexpensive alternative to other forms of research involving complex surveys or human subjects.

Content analysis studies require researchers to define what types of media to study. For example, researchers studying violence in the media would need to decide which types of media to analyze, such as television, and the types of formats to examine, such as children’s cartoons. The researchers would then need to define the terms used in the study; media violence can be classified according to the characters involved in the violence (strangers, family members, or racial groups), the type of violence (self-inflicted, slapstick, or against others), or the context of the violence (revenge, random, or duty-related). These are just a few of the ways that media violence could be studied with content-analysis techniques (Berger, 1998).

Archival Research

Any study that analyzes older media must employ archival research, which is a type of research that focuses on reviewing historical documents such as old newspapers and past publications. Old local newspapers are often available on microfilm at local libraries or at the newspaper offices. University libraries generally provide access to archives of national publications such as The New York Times or Time ; publications can also increasingly be found in online databases or on websites.

Older radio programs are available for free or by paid download through a number of online sources. Many television programs and films have also been made available for free download, or for rent or sale through online distributors. Performing an online search for a particular title will reveal the options available.

Resources such as the Internet Archive ( www.archive.org ) work to archive a number of media sources. One important role of the Internet Archive is website archiving. Internet archives are invaluable for a study of online media because they store websites that have been deleted or changed. These archives have made it possible for Internet content analyses that would have otherwise been impossible.

Surveys are ubiquitous in modern life. Questionaires record data on anything from political preferences to personal hygiene habits. Media surveys generally take one of the following two forms.

A descriptive survey aims to find the current state of things, such as public opinion or consumer preferences. In media, descriptive surveys establish television and radio ratings by finding the number of people who watch or listen to particular programs. An analytical survey, however, does more than simply document a current situation. Instead, it attempts to find out why a particular situation exists. Researchers pose questions or hypotheses about media, and then conduct analytical surveys to answer these questions. Analytical surveys can determine the relationship between different forms of media consumption and the lifestyles and habits of media consumers.

Surveys can employ either open-ended or closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions require the participant to generate answers in their own words, while closed-ended questions force the participant to select an answer from a list. Although open-ended questions allow for a greater variety of answers, the results of closed-ended questions are easier to tabulate. Although surveys are useful in media studies, effective use requires keeping their limitations in mind.

Social Role Analysis

As part of child rearing, parents teach their children about social roles. When parents prepare children to attend school for example, they explain the basics of school rules and what is expected of a student to help the youngsters understand the role of students. Like the role of a character in a play, this role carries specific expectations that differentiate school from home. Adults often play a number of different roles as they navigate between their responsibilities as parents, employees, friends, and citizens. Any individual may play a number of roles depending on his or her specific life choices.

Social role analysis of the media involves examining various individuals in the media and analyzing the type of role that each plays. Role analysis research can consider the roles of men, women, children, members of a racial minority, or members of any other social group in specific types of media. For example, if the role children play in cartoons is consistently different from the role they play in sitcoms, then certain conclusions might be drawn about both of these formats. Analyzing roles used in media allows researchers to gain a better understanding of the messages that the mass media sends (Berger, 1998).

Depth Interviews

The depth interview is an anthropological research tool that is also useful in media studies. Depth interviews take surveys one step further by allowing researchers to directly ask a study participant specific questions to gain a fuller understanding of the participant’s perceptions and experiences. Depth interviews have been used in research projects that follow newspaper reporters to find out their reasons for reporting certain stories and in projects that attempt to understand the motivations for reading romance novels. Depth interviews can provide a deeper understanding of the media consumption habits of particular groups of people (Priest, 2010).

Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis involves examining the styles used in media and attempting to understand the kinds of messages those styles convey. Media styles include form, presentation, composition, use of metaphors, and reasoning structure. Rhetorical analysis reveals the messages not apparent in a strict reading of content. Studies involving rhetorical analysis have focused on media such as advertising to better understand the roles of style and rhetorical devices in media messages (Gunter, 2000).

Focus Groups

Like depth interviews, focus groups allow researchers to better understand public responses to media. Unlike a depth interview, however, a focus group allows the participants to establish a group dynamic that more closely resembles that of normal media consumption. In media studies, researchers can employ focus groups to judge the reactions of a group to specific media styles and to content. This can be a valuable means of understanding the reasons for consuming specific types of media.

Focus groups are effective ways to obtain a group opinion on media.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Experiments

Media research studies also sometimes use controlled experiments that expose a test group to an experience involving media and measure the effects of that experience. Researchers then compare these measurements to those of a control group that had key elements of the experience removed. For example, researchers may show one group of children a program with three incidents of cartoon violence and another control group of similar children the same program without the violent incidents. Researchers then ask the children from both groups the same sets of questions, and the results are compared.

Participant Observation

In participant observation , researchers try to become part of the group they are studying. Although this technique is typically associated with anthropological studies in which a researcher lives with members of a particular culture to gain a deeper understanding of their values and lives, it is also used in media research.

Media consumption often takes place in groups. Families or friends gather to watch favorite programs, children may watch Saturday morning cartoons with a group of their peers, and adults may host viewing parties for televised sporting events or awards shows. These groups reveal insights into the role of media in the lives of the public. A researcher might join a group that watches football together and stay with the group for an entire season. By becoming a part of the group, the researcher becomes part of the experiment and can reveal important influences of media on culture (Priest).

Researchers have studied online role-playing games, such as World of Warcraft , in this manner. These games reveal an interesting aspect of group dynamics: Although participants are not in physical proximity, they function as a group within the game. Researchers are able to study these games by playing them. In the book Digital Culture, Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader , a group of researchers discussed the results of their participant observation studies. The studies reveal the surprising depth of culture and unwritten rules that exist in the World of Warcraft universe and give important interpretations of why players pursue the game with such dedication (Corneliussen & Rettberg, 2008).

Key Takeaways

• Media research methods are the practical procedures for carrying out a research project. These methods include content analysis, surveys, focus groups, experiments, and participant observation.
• Research methods generally involve either test subjects or analysis of media. Methods involving test subjects include surveys, depth interviews, focus groups, and experiments. Analysis of media can include content, style, format, social roles, and archival analysis.

Media research methods offer a variety of procedures for performing a media study. Each of these methods varies in cost; thus, a project with a lower budget would be prohibited from using some of the more costly methods. Consider a project on teen violence and video game use. Then answer the following short-response questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Which methods would a research organization with a low budget favor for this project? Why?
• How might the results of the project differ from those of one with a higher budget?

Berger, Arthur Asa. Media Research Techniques (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), 23–24.

Corneliussen, Hilde and Jill Walker Rettberg, “Introduction: ‘Orc ProfessorLFG,’ or Researching in Azeroth,” in Digital Culture, Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader , ed. Hilde Corneliussen and Jill Walker Rettberg (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008), 6–7.

Gunter, Barrie. Media Research Methods: Measuring Audiences, Reactions and Impact (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 89.

Priest, Susanna Hornig Doing Media Research: An Introduction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010), 16–22.

Priest, Susanna Hornig Doing Media Research , 96–98.

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Radio Television and Cinema, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

• Yasemin Özkent

• Published: February 9, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725
• Reader Comments

Social media has surrounded every area of life, and social media platforms have become indispensable for today’s communication. Many journals use social media actively to promote and disseminate new articles. Its use to share the articles contributes many benefits, such as reaching more people and spreading information faster. However, there is no consensus in the studies that to evaluate between tweeted and non-tweeted papers regarding their citation numbers. Therefore, it was aimed to show the effect of social media on the citations of articles in the top ten communication-based journals. For this purpose, this work evaluated original articles published in the top 10 communication journals in 2018. The top 10 communication-based journals were chosen based on SCImago Journal & Country Rank (cited in 2019). Afterward, it was recorded the traditional citation numbers (Google Scholar and Thompson-Reuters Web of Science) and social media exposure of the articles in January 2021 (nearly three years after the articles’ publication date). It was assumed that this period would allow the impact of the published articles (the citations and Twitter mentions) to be fully observed. Based on this assessment, a positive correlation between exposure to social media and article citations was observed in this study.

Citation: Özkent Y (2022) Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725

Editor: Marcelo Hermes-Lima, Universidade de Brasilia, BRAZIL

Received: May 3, 2021; Accepted: January 25, 2022; Published: February 9, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Yasemin Özkent. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: https://github.com/yaseminozkent/minimal-data-set.git .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The social network has become a tool for bringing people together, allowing individuals to list the users they are connected to, and to see other users’ connections [ 1 ]. Social media platforms (blogs, social networking sites, microblogging, etc.) contain all Web 2.0-based services. Social media has surrounded every area of life, and social media platforms are indispensable for today’s communication [ 2 ]. Scientists from various fields frequently use SoMe, especially Twitter, in most of their professional activities [ 3 ].

Scientists often use social media platforms to produce and debate ideas, share real-time information, spread their research, and find collaborators [ 2 , 4 ]. The way information is collected, disseminated and consumed has been significantly changed because social media by it is encompassing and easily accessible. There has been a significant increase in the number of studies related to social media with an increase in the use of the Internet [ 5 ]. The increased use of social media has also significantly affected how research is spread. Circulated articles through social media are more visible than not circulated articles [ 6 ]. Various scientific studies have examined this relationship, and most have found a positive correlation between article citations and Twitter exposure [ 7 – 9 ].

Studies focusing on new media technologies in connection with the digital age since the 2000s have taken an important place in communication studies [ 10 ]. In their extensive studies on research topics in communication journals, Elisabeth Günther and Emese Domahidi (2017) observed that the Internet and social media have become the most important focus for communication research, in parallel with classical media, such as TV or newspaper [ 10 ]. Social media is an important field of study and practice in both interdisciplinary and communication fields [ 11 – 14 ]. Social media research is encouraged in the field of communication, as people today present themselves through digitally networked platforms. Therefore, this study aimed to demonstrate the effect of social media on citation numbers of articles in communication-based journals. The relationship between the traditional citation numbers of articles and social media posts was analyzed in present study. Thus, it was aimed to shed light on the relationship between social media usage and the number of article citations in the field of communication.

Literature review

The emergence of social media took place simultaneously with Web 2.0. With the introduction of Web 2.0 into our lives, the Internet has become individualized, and use of social networks increased gradually. The Internet has become an interactive virtual world from a read-only state, and it has brought a different dimension to communication [ 12 ]. Today, social media is a wide network of interactions where people from many areas [ 15 ]. In particular, Internet has become a part of life due to the widespread use of smartphones. The majority of people actively use social media in daily life [ 16 ]. A recent study has stated that 70% of peoples in the USA have at least one social media account nowadays. The peoples over 65 years old of 62% have a social media account and they are regularly on social media. This observation is also similar for adolescents. The using of social networks has been reported as 77% for teenagers aged 13–16 years in 25 European countries [ 16 , 17 ]. These social network users interact for an average of more than 2.4 hours a day on social media [ 18 ]. This increased instant interaction has further increased the use of social media. Beside, social media platforms allows independent sharing, regardless of age, venue, and gender. Thus, information spreads rapidly across a wide area [ 15 , 18 ]. Additionally, social media platforms ensure simple interaction pathways between people, companies, and scientists without leaving the desk. Therefore, many scientists use social media in their personal or professional lives [ 19 ].

The most commonly used platform for the purpose of spreading science is Twitter [ 20 ]. Twitter is the most popular microblogging platform nowadays. This platform allows the publication of short messages by its users and enables them to communicate with each other. Evan Williams, Biz Stone, and Jack Dorsey created Twitter in March 2006 and brought into use in July 2006. Twitter has become one of the 10 most visited websites in 2013 and was defined as “the SMS of the Internet” [ 21 , 22 ]. In 2019, it was reported that there were 330 million monthly and 145 million daily active Twitter users. Nowadays, it was reached 339 million users in 2020 [ 23 ]. The number of Twitter users has been increasing daily. Today, Twitter ranks as the world’s second most widely used social network. Twitter users can follow a conversation and discuss a topic using messages named “tweets.” Tweets are constrained to 140 characters of text. Later, this limit was increased to 280 characters. Twitter allows the sharing of photos or videos [ 24 ]. Twitter was initially used to share news about the lives of celebrities. Afterward, it reached a broader audience quickly, especially with the participation of famous names and the involvement of political campaigns. On average, approximately 98 thousand tweets are sent every minute on the platform, allowing an excellent interaction. Given the rise in popularity of Twitter, its use is increasing in all parts of society [ 25 ]. This widespread use has also caught the attention of the scientific community. The use of Twitter as a tool for the dissemination of academic articles has soon become the focus of attention in the scientific world.

Academic output has increased gradually worldwide. Therefore, eliminating the relevant from the irrelevant has become essential for the scientific world. Thus, an impact scale has been necessitated the published articles [ 26 ]. The primary impact of the published article has been measured by its citations [ 26 ]. However, article citations have recently become questionable due to negative factors, such as the slow process of identifying truly impactful articles. The long wait time required the emergence of the articles’ importance has led to need for an alternative metric scale [ 27 ].

Today, non-traditional metrics, altmetrics, are increasingly used to measure the real-time reach and influence of a scientific article [ 26 , 28 ]. The term altmetrics was first proposed by Jason Priem in 2010 [ 29 ]. Thereafter, it has gained wide use in highlighting previously unknown and unrecognized scholarly impact metrics of studies [ 26 , 30 ]. The alternative metric scores play a role in complementing traditional metrics or indicators [ 31 ]. Many publishers, such as SAGE, Taylor-Francis Group, Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, and Public Library of Science provide much information to their readers by their altmetrics evaluating system [ 32 ]. These altmetrics are calculated by various methods, including “Altmetric” and “Plum Analytics” [ 33 ]. All altmetrics that are an alternative to the traditional citation system provide a score for the research output.

These scores have become attractive for researchers [ 34 ]. Many scientists believe that these alternative metric scores show the real impact of published articles [ 35 – 37 ]. Many web-based platforms play a significant role in obtaining an altmetric score [ 11 , 31 ]. With the data obtained from these platforms, a digital score was acquired for academic output [ 11 ]. All altmetrics are based on the using social media and other online tools for disseminating scholarly information [ 38 ]. The use of social media platforms contributes significantly the spread of shared information in a wider environment. Thus, the sharing of academic output on social media accounts can reach more people faster by eliminating the waiting period in the traditional citation system [ 39 , 40 ]. They have also allowed the impact of articles to be more immediately determined, contrary to traditional citation metrics [ 41 ].

However, some concerns remain that the altmetric score can be manipulated [ 42 , 43 ]. In particular, the use of automatic bot can affect the altmetric scores of articles [ 44 ]. Further, Twitter accounts can affect the results of shared articles. These account holders may be social workers, companies, or politicians, and would have more followers than others [ 45 , 46 ]. Thus, some researchers suggest the use of “alt‑index” to measure the social visibility of scientific research [ 6 ]. Similarly, Haustein et al. argued that social media metrics could not actually be regarded as alternatives to traditional citations; hence, they proposed these metrics as promoters of traditional citations [ 11 ]. The authors suggested the use of “Twitter Coupling” to deal with these concerns [ 38 ]. Although this may be a solution there is a consensus in many studies that social media usage will increase the impact of academic papers, thus ignoring these concerns [ 47 , 48 ].

The potential of social media platforms to connect with other fields raises various scientific questions [ 49 ]. Therefore, the papers in the social sciences and humanities are more often found on social media platforms [ 11 ]. Today, social interaction is so intertwined with media that it is not possible to separate social media from the media sector. Thus, most studies related to social media have been published in the communication sciences. This increased usage of these social networks has led to the research question, “How are altmetrics and citation measures related in communication journals?” Tonia et al. (2016) stated that there were no statistical differences between tweeted and non-tweeted papers regarding their citation numbers [ 50 ]. Costas et al. (2015) found only weak correlations in citations suggested by altmetrics and traditional citation analysis [ 35 ]. Further, some articles can be more attractive than other on social media platforms. Hence, some researchers have argued that there is a difference between social impact and real impact [ 11 ]. However, Thelwall et al. (2013) found that altmetrics was associated with citation counts [ 51 ]. Another study stated that there is a positive relationship between social media posts and academic citations [ 52 ]. Similarly, Shuai et al. (2012) detected significant correlations between tweets and early citations on 4,606 pre-prints articles [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, there is no consensus in the studies that to evaluate between tweeted and non-tweeted papers regarding their citation numbers in communication science, which is the scientific field mostly associated with social media and Twitter. The studies related to social media are encouraged in the field of communication as people present themselves through digitally networked platforms today. Therefore, it was hypothesized that there might be a correlation between Twitter posts and traditional citations the articles in the top ten communication-based journals.

Materials and methods

Study design.

The present study was designed as a retrospective cross-sectional study. The aim was to examine the effect of Twitter and other social media platforms on academic citations. Therefore, the top ten communication-based journals [ 9 ] were evaluated based on the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (cited in 2019). It was used the SCImago Journal & Country Rank search field to select journals and filtered only “communication” journals. The selection criteria were the top ten communication-based journals according to their SCImago Journal Rank indicator. This indicator is a measure of journals’ academic impact and accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals in which the citations [ 53 ]. The impact factor of these journals was ≥ 2, and the quartile (Q) index was Q1. All ten journals had similar indexes and similar impact factors. It was assumed that this would reduce the potential for unwanted variation differences in social media activity.

Impact Factor: The impact factor has been defined as an indicator of academic journal. It reflects the year’s average number of citations per paper published during the preceding two years. It is often used as a relative indicator of a journal’s importance in its field. The journals with high impact factors are thought to be more important than those with low impact factors [ 54 ].

Q index: The journals’ rank in each specific category is separated into quartiles by the Journal Citation Report and SCImago Journal and Country Rank: Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. Q1 comprises the top 25% of journals in the list; Q2, Q3, and Q4 comprise 25% to 50%, 50% to 75%, and 75% to 100% of journals in the list, respectively ( https://www.mondragon.edu/en/web/biblioteka/publications-impact-indexes ).

These Journals “Political Communication (Q1, IF: 4.339)”, “Journal of Advertising (Q1, IF: 6.302)”, “Journal of Communication (Q1, IF: 4.846)”, Big Data and Society (Q1, IF: 4.577), Applied Linguistics (Q1, IF: 4.286), Communication Methods and Measures (Q1, IF: 5.281), New Media and Society (Q1, IF: 4.577), Human Communication Research (Q1, IF: 3.540), Public Opinion Quarterly (Q1, IF: 2.494), and Digital Journalism (Q1, IF: 4.476) were included in this present study ( Table 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.t001

Data collection

All issues of these journals in 2018 were reviewed through the journals’ web pages. All published articles in this year were evaluated on the web pages’ archive. The date range was considered based on published issues in the journals. Only original articles (meta-analyses, systematic reviews, original research articles, and research notes) in 2018 were included in this study. Articles such as editorials, book review articles, case reports, letters to the editor, and other non-research correspondences were excluded.

The findings of the articles (title, doi number, article type) were recorded. In January 2021, the title of the article or doi number was searched one by one in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS) Clarivate. The traditional citation numbers (GS and WoS) of these articles were recorded. The tweet number and social media posts of these articles were searched by their metric evaluating system ( https://www.altmetric.com/ ) and recorded. The data were appraised nearly three years after the articles’ publication date. It was thought that this period would allow the impact of published articles (the citations and Twitter mentions) to be fully observed.

Seven hundred and eleven articles were published in the top ten communication-based journals in 2018. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 572 articles were included for analysis. A total of 570 articles (99.7%) were cited at least once on GS, and 518 articles (90.6%) were cited at least once on WoS. The total cumulative number of citations for all the articles was 21,242 for GS and 5,874 for WoS. The number value of citations ranged from 0 to 868 on GS, and 0–235 on WoS. The median number of citations was 19 citations (interquartile range (IQR): 0–868 citations) for GS, and five citations (IQR: 0–235 citations) for WoS ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.t002

In all, 522 articles (91.3%) were posted at least once on Twitter or other platforms. The total number of mentions on all social media platforms was 50,624 items. Overall, the most-used social media platform was Twitter. The majority of articles (n: 500; 87.4%) were mentioned at least once on Twitter, and these articles had cumulatively tweets 13,438 tweet. The median value of Twitter posts was nine tweets (IQR: 0–502 tweet).

The median citation value of articles on GS was 21 citations (IQR: 0–868) for the articles that had been tweeted at least one. However, it was nine (IQR: 0–72) citations for non-tweeted articles. Further, the median WoS citation number was five (IQR: 0–235) for tweeted articles and two (IQR: 0–19) for non-tweeted articles.

The tweeted articles were cited more often than those with no tweets on both platforms (for GS: Mann-Whitney U: 10107, Z: -6.022, p< 0.001; for WoS: Mann-Whitney U: 10547, Z: -5.699, p< 0.001, respectively). This observation was also similar for the other platforms (for GS: Mann-Whitney U: 6493, Z: -5.875, p< 0.001; for WoS: Mann-Whitney U: 6735.5, Z: -5.671, p< 0.001, respectively) ( Table 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.t003

It was observed that a significant correlation between the number of Twitter posts and the number of citations in GS (r = 0.44, p<0.001) and in WoS (r = 0.50, P<0.001). Similarly, there was also a positive correlation between the number of mentions on all platforms and the number of citations in GS (r = 0.83, p<0.001) and WoS (r = 0.71, p<0.001) ( Fig 1 ).

A. The relationship between metric value of articles and Google scholar citations. B. The relationship between metric value of articles and Web of Science citations. C. The relationship between Twitter posts of articles and Web of Science citations. D. The relationship between Twitter posts of articles and Google Scholar citations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725.g001

Social networks in academia are rapidly improving, and significantly increasing use by the scientific community [ 55 ]. Many journals frequently use these tools for advertising and sharing information [ 56 ]. Social media platforms have brought another dimension to access the information. With developments in social sharing platforms, there has been a transition to the digital age of accessing information [ 57 ]. Thus, these platforms have presented new opportunities for researchers to extend their publications the scientific society [ 36 , 58 ]. Similarly, this present study found that the articles exposed to social media were cited more than the articles not posted on social media. This study showed that the visibility of articles might be increased by sharing them on social media, which allows the real effects of the articles to emerge more rapidly.

Generally, the use of all networks has a similar effect, but the most used platform for this purpose is Twitter. Twitter allows for the rapid sharing of information within seconds of posting a tweet. Thus, the dissemination rate of tweets increases exponentially [ 59 ]. As in other studies, it was found that more use of Twitter than other platforms in this study. Moreover, a positive correlation was observed between the altmetric score, Twitter posts, and citation rate of articles. The articles that were tweeted at least once were cited more than those with no posts on both platforms (for GS, p <0.001; and for WoS, p <0.001). The findings support the conclusion that Twitter activity may reflect the quality of articles or increase their citations. Thus, the measure of social platforms based on tweets should be used to complement the traditional metrics of article citations.

Especially the science of communication is the social sciences field most related to social networks. The traditional publishing continues in the communication sciences, but its adoption of social media-related studies is increasing daily [ 10 , 14 ]. Therefore, sharing and disseminating the articles in communication journals may significantly increase their citation rates. This present study revealed this relationship and highlighted the impact of using social networks in the academic world. Thus, authors and journals should share all articles using social media tools to increase the impact of the article.

The use of social media platforms in the scientific world will make an important contribution to traditional metric systems. Published articles can be posted on social media to reach more people, disseminate information quickly and increase their impact faster [ 60 ]. Further, academic journals’ use of Twitter will promote the journals and increase the citation numbers of the articles [ 9 , 60 ]. Many journals share all of their articles published on their social media accounts. Some journals only share articles they deem important. However, increasing the visibility of articles on social media platforms could be a tool for reaching more people. Thus, this study shows that Twitter posts could mediate these articles to reach more people.

The results of this study show that articles with exposure to social media had higher citation rates. There was also a positive correlation between exposure to social media and article citations. Therefore, the scientist and journals should develop new projects to increase the usage of social media.

However, the present study has some limitations. First, it analyzed only the number of citations and the number of tweets and did not evaluate their content or the Twitter account holders. Second, this study evaluated only the top 10 journals in the communication science. Third, multiple factors (such as sending articles to the press at the same time, focusing on some specific communication topics, and evaluating popular topics) may play a role in the emergence of the articles’ impact. Posting articles on Twitter is only one contributor to this impact. Further, this study examined the relationship between the number of Twitter posts and the number of citations of articles. However, the cause of the relationship was not analyzed. Therefore, more work is needed to explain potential causes of the relationships between posts and citations of an article. Nevertheless, this study presented significant findings that highlight the importance of using social media in academia.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 21. The top 500 sites on the web [Available from: https://www.alexa.com/topsites .
• 23. Twitter: number of monthly active users 2010–2019: Statista Research Department; 2021 [Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/ .
• 39. Ananiadou S, Thompson P, Nawaz R, editors. Enhancing search: Events and their discourse context. International conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics; 2013: Springer.
• 45. Quercia D, Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Crowcroft J, editors. Our twitter profiles, our selves: Predicting personality with twitter. 2011 IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing; 2011: IEEE.
• 46. Tsou A, Bowman TD, Ghazinejad A, Sugimoto CR, editors. Who tweets about science? Issi; 2015: Istanbul.
• 48. Darling ES, Shiffman D, Côté IM, Drew JA. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. arXiv preprint arXiv:. 2013.

Social media's growing impact on our lives

Media psychology researchers are beginning to tease apart the ways in which time spent on social media is, and is not, impacting our day-to-day lives.

Social media use has skyrocketed over the past decade and a half. Whereas only five percent of adults in the United States reported using a social media platform in 2005, that number is now around 70 percent .

Growth in the number of people who use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat and other social media platforms — and the time spent on them—has garnered interest and concern among policymakers, teachers, parents, and clinicians about social media's impacts on our lives and psychological well-being.

While the research is still in its early years — Facebook itself only celebrated its 15 th birthday this year — media psychology researchers are beginning to tease apart the ways in which time spent on these platforms is, and is not, impacting our day-to-day lives.

Social media and relationships

One particularly pernicious concern is whether time spent on social media sites is eating away at face-to-face time, a phenomenon known as social displacement .

Fears about social displacement are longstanding, as old as the telephone and probably older. “This issue of displacement has gone on for more than 100 years,” says Jeffrey Hall, PhD, director of the Relationships and Technology Lab at the University of Kansas. “No matter what the technology is,” says Hall, there is always a “cultural belief that it's replacing face-to-face time with our close friends and family.”

Hall's research interrogates that cultural belief. In one study , participants kept a daily log of time spent doing 19 different activities during weeks when they were and were not asked to abstain from using social media. In the weeks when people abstained from social media, they spent more time browsing the internet, working, cleaning, and doing household chores. However, during these same abstention periods, there was no difference in people's time spent socializing with their strongest social ties.

The upshot? “I tend to believe, given my own work and then reading the work of others, that there's very little evidence that social media directly displaces meaningful interaction with close relational partners,” says Hall. One possible reason for this is because we tend to interact with our close loved ones through several different modalities—such as texts, emails, phone calls, and in-person time.

What about teens?

When it comes to teens, a recent study by Jean Twenge , PhD, professor of psychology at San Diego State University, and colleagues found that, as a cohort, high school seniors heading to college in 2016 spent an “ hour less a day engaging in in-person social interaction” — such as going to parties, movies, or riding in cars together — compared with high school seniors in the late 1980s. As a group, this decline was associated with increased digital media use. However, at the individual level, more social media use was positively associated with more in-person social interaction. The study also found that adolescents who spent the most time on social media and the least time in face-to-face social interactions reported the most loneliness.

While Twenge and colleagues posit that overall face-to-face interactions among teens may be down due to increased time spent on digital media, Hall says there's a possibility that the relationship goes the other way.

Hall cites the work of danah boyd, PhD, principal researcher at Microsoft Research  and the founder of Data & Society . “She [boyd] says that it's not the case that teens are displacing their social face-to-face time through social media. Instead, she argues we got the causality reversed,” says Hall. “We are increasingly restricting teens' ability to spend time with their peers . . . and they're turning to social media to augment it.”

According to Hall, both phenomena could be happening in tandem — restrictive parenting could drive social media use and social media use could reduce the time teens spend together in person — but focusing on the latter places the culpability more on teens while ignoring the societal forces that are also at play.

The evidence is clear about one thing: Social media is popular among teens. A 2018 Common Sense Media report found that 81 percent of teens use social media, and more than a third report using social media sites multiple times an hour. These statistics have risen dramatically over the past six years, likely driven by increased access to mobile devices. Rising along with these stats is a growing interest in the impact that social media is having on teen cognitive development and psychological well-being.

“What we have found, in general, is that social media presents both risks and opportunities for adolescents,” says Kaveri Subrahmanyam, PhD, a developmental psychologist, professor at Cal State LA, and associate director of the Children's Digital Media Center, Los Angeles .

Risks of expanding social networks

Social media benefits teens by expanding their social networks and keeping them in touch with their peers and far-away friends and family. It is also a creativity outlet. In the Common Sense Media report, more than a quarter of teens said that “social media is ‘extremely' or ‘very' important for them for expressing themselves creatively.”

But there are also risks. The Common Sense Media survey found that 13 percent of teens reported being cyberbullied at least once. And social media can be a conduit for accessing inappropriate content like violent images or pornography. Nearly two-thirds of teens who use social media said they “'often' or ‘sometimes' come across racist, sexist, homophobic, or religious-based hate content in social media.”

With all of these benefits and risks, how is social media affecting cognitive development? “What we have found at the Children's Digital Media Center is that a lot of digital communication use and, in particular, social media use seems to be connected to offline developmental concerns,” says Subrahmanyam. “If you look at the adolescent developmental literature, the core issues facing youth are sexuality, identity, and intimacy,” says Subrahmanyam.

Her research suggests that different types of digital communication may involve different developmental issues. For example, she has found that teens frequently talked about sex in chat rooms , whereas their use of blogs and social media appears to be more concerned with self-presentation and identity construction.

In particular, exploring one's identity appears to be a crucial use of visually focused social media sites for adolescents. “Whether it's Facebook, whether it's Instagram, there's a lot of strategic self presentation, and it does seem to be in the service of identity,” says Subrahmanyam. “I think where it gets gray is that we don't know if this is necessarily beneficial or if it harms.”

Remaining questions

“It's important to develop a coherent identity,” she says. “But within the context of social media — when it's not clear that people are necessarily engaging in real self presentation and there's a lot of ideal-self or false-self presentation — is that good?”

There are also more questions than answers when it comes to how social media affects the development of intimate relationships during adolescence. Does having a wide network of contacts — as is common in social media—lead to more superficial interactions and hinder intimacy? Or, perhaps more important, “Is the support that you get online as effective as the support that you get offline?” ponders Subrahmanyam. “We don't know that necessarily.”

Based on her own research comparing text messages and face-to-face interactions, she says: “My hypothesis is that maybe digital interactions may be a little more ephemeral, they're a little more fleeting, and you feel good, but that the feeling is lost quickly versus face-to-face interaction.”

However, she notes that today's teens — being tech natives — may get less hung up on the online/offline dichotomy. “ We tend to think about online and offline as disconnected, but we have to recognize that for youth . . . there's so much more fluidity and connectedness between the real and the physical and the offline and the online,” she says.

In fact, growing up with digital technology may be changing teen brain development in ways we don't yet know — and these changes may, in turn, change how teens relate to technology. “Because the exposure to technology is happening so early, we have to be mindful of the possibility that perhaps there are changes happening at a neural level with early exposure,” says Subrahmanyam. “How youths interact with technology could just be qualitatively different from how we do it.”

In part two of this article , we will look at how social media affects psychological well-being and ways of using social media that are likely to amplify its benefits and decrease its harms.

Related and recent

Recommended reading.

APA Member Benefits

Connecting with peers

APA Community

Automate HIPAA Compliance

New products available

APA Merch Store

Competitive low rates

Student Loan Refinancing

Contact APA Membership

Knight Foundation

• Communities
• Learning and Impact
• Philadelphia
• Community Foundations Program
• Press Releases
• Arts and Technology
• Diverse Asset Managers
• Elections and Voting
• Freedom of Expression
• Knight Research Network
• Local Journalism
• Public Spaces
• Smart Cities
• Technology and Democracy
• Trust in News
• Funding Opportunities
• Board of Trustees
• Internship Program
• Financial Information

American Views 2020: Trust, Media and Democracy

Full reports.

Update: On Nov. 9, 2020, Gallup updated the report “ American Views 2020: Trust, Media and Democracy ,” to correct a methodological error. The changes do not alter the underlying integrity of the data nor the conclusions. However, specific numbers have changed for a range of results. Learn more .

There is a widening gulf between American aspirations for and assessments of the news media. With each passing benchmark study, the American people render deeper and increasingly polarized judgments about the news media and how well it is fulfilling its role in our democracy.

In 2018, Gallup and Knight Foundation published the inaugural American Views report as part of their Trust, Media and Democracy research program. This landmark study of Americans’ attitudes toward the news media and its role in our democracy is part of the ongoing Gallup/Knight research effort. The 2018 report found that while Americans valued the role of the news media as an important institution in a free society, they did not believe it was fulfilling its democratic roles well. Political party was the primary determining factor driving Americans’ opinions of and trust in the media.

For the 2020 American Views survey, Gallup and Knight polled more than 20,000 U.S. adults and found continued pessimism and further partisan entrenchment about how the news media delivers on its democratic mandate for factual, trustworthy information. Many Americans feel the media’s critical roles of informing and holding those in power accountable are compromised by increasing bias. As such, Americans have not only lost confidence in the ideal of an objective media, they believe news organizations actively support the partisan divide. At the same time, Americans have not lost sight of the value of news — strong majorities uphold the ideal that the news media is fundamental to a healthy democracy.

Gallup and Knight publish these sobering findings at a moment when America’s media landscape is increasingly shaped by the financial exigencies of the attention economy — and when journalism, like other democratic institutions, is growing more vulnerable to polarization and eroding trust.

As evidenced in this study, party affiliation remains the key predictor of attitudes about the news media. Republicans express more negative sentiments on every aspect of media performance compared to Democrats and independents. Attitudes also differ by age — likely a reflection, in part, of generational differences in news consumption, as this study documents a concerning negative trend in young Americans’ opinions of the news media.

This report is based on data collected between Nov. 8, 2019, and Feb. 16, 2020, just before the novel coronavirus became a global pandemic and the burgeoning movement for racial justice swept the nation. The low levels of public trust in the nation’s polarized media environment have left open the possibility for dangerous false narratives to take root in all segments of society during these emergent crises. At a time when factual, trustworthy information is especially critical to public health and the future of our democracy, the striking trends documented here are cause for concern. American Views offers new insights into how the public is responding to these challenges in their own media consumption and their thoughts about how to address them.

Executive Summary

1. americans still value the media’s traditional roles in society, such as providing accurate news and holding powerful interests accountable for their actions..

• The vast majority of Americans (81%) say that, in general, the news media is “critical” (42%) or “very important” (39%) to democracy.
• Large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (88%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (88%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (82%).
• More Americans say the media is performing poorly rather than well in accomplishing these goals.

2. However, Americans see increasing levels of bias in the news media; majorities see bias in the news source they rely on most.

• A majority of Americans currently see “a great deal” (46%) or “a fair amount” (37%) of political bias in news coverage.
• Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 21% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
• Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (64%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (34%).
• Sixty-eight percent of Americans say they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective as “a major problem,” up slightly from 65% in the 2017 study.

3. Americans suspect inaccuracies in reporting are designed to push a specific agenda

• Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (52%) or making them up entirely (28%).
• Nearly 3 in 4 Americans (74%) say news organizations they distrust are trying to persuade people to adopt a certain viewpoint, while 16% say they are trying to report the news accurately and fairly but are unable to do so.
• Nine percent of Americans say distrusted media are trying to ruin the country, driven largely by the 1 in 5 Americans who identify as “very conservative” and 1 in 7 Republicans who feel this way.

4. Differences in Americans’ opinions of the news media are most pronounced by political party affiliation.

• Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) have a “very” or “somewhat” unfavorable opinion of the news media, compared to 20% of Democrats and 48% of independents.
• Democrats and Republicans differ greatly in their ratings of the media on every aspect of performance, including providing objective news reports, holding political and business leaders accountable for their actions and helping Americans stay informed about current affairs.
• Sixty-five percent of Americans, including 57% of Democrats, say the increasing number of news sources reporting from a particular point of view is “a major problem.” In contrast, 75% of Republicans say the same.
• While a majority of Americans across the political spectrum (77%) say the media is under attack politically, they are divided as to whether those attacks are merited. Whereas 66% of Democrats say the media is under attack and those attacks are not justified, 58% of Republicans say such attacks are justified.
• In addition to partisan differences in media attitudes, views also vary by age, with older Americans generally more favorable toward the news media than younger Americans. Whereas 43% of Americans aged 65 and older have “very” or “somewhat” favorable views of the media, 1 in 5 Americans under age 30 (20%) say the same.

5. Majorities of Americans say news organizations should diversify their reporting staffs, but they differ — largely by politics — on the focus of diversity efforts.

• A strong majority of Americans (75%) say news organizations should hire to increase the diversity of their reporting staffs. However, while majorities say it is important for the news media to reflect the diversity of America, this ranks lowest of the priorities among the roles for media to play in society.
• The priorities cited by Americans who say news organizations should hire for more diversity differ greatly by race and political party. Democrats (47%) and Blacks (56%) prioritize racial/ethnic diversity in hiring, while Republicans (48%) and Whites (34%) are most apt to prioritize diversity in political views.

6. Americans commonly feel overwhelmed by the volume and speed of news, but say misinformation online is media’s greatest problem. Those overwhelmed are most likely to turn to one or two trusted news sources as a solution.

• Three in 4 Americans (74%) say the spread of misinformation online is “a major problem,” exceeding all other challenges posed by the media environment.
• Seventy percent of Americans want to see major internet companies find ways to exclude false/hateful information online.
• More Americans say it is harder (60%) rather than easier (38%) to be well-informed because of all the sources of information available. In 2017, 58% said it was harder to be informed.
• Reasons Americans who say it is harder to stay informed cite for feeling overwhelmed include the mix of news interspersed with non-news on the web (68%), followed by an increased number of organizations reporting the news (63%) and the pace or speed of news reporting (61%).
• More Americans (51%) say there are enough media sources to sort out the facts than say there is so much bias it’s difficult to sort out the facts (45%), a slight improvement from 2017 when the split was 50% to 47%, respectively. Republicans (64%) are much more likely than independents (50%) and Democrats (24%) to say there is too much bias to sort out the facts.
• In response to feeling overwhelmed, 39% of Americans say they only pay attention to one or two trusted sources; 30% try to consult a variety of sources to see where they agree; 18% go to the extreme of ceasing to pay attention to news altogether; and 9% rely on others to help them sort out what they need to know.

7. Local news plays a key role in political and civic engagement.

• Thirty-three percent of Americans say they follow news about issues affecting their local community “very closely,” an increase from 25% in 2017. However, most Americans are not very confident in their knowledge relating to public affairs in their community.
• Americans who follow local news closely are more likely to vote in local elections and to feel attached to their communities. They are less likely to say that “people like me don’t have any say in what the government does.”
• Americans who primarily access their news online — predominantly, younger Americans — are less likely to be knowledgeable about their local communities and to feel attached to their communities.

8. In a deeply divided nation, majorities of Americans say the media bears blame for political division. But they also see the potential for the media to heal the divide.

• Forty-seven percent of Americans say the media bears “a great deal” of blame for political division in this country, while 36% say it bears “a moderate amount.”
• But nearly identical percentages say the media could do “a great deal” (49%) or “a moderate amount” (34%) to heal those divisions.

Download Full Report:

FURTHER READING

Americans are losing faith in an objective media. A new Gallup/Knight study explores why.

Gallup/Knight Poll: Americans’ concerns about media bias deepen, even as they see it as vital for democracy

Trust, media and democracy

• Communication and Media
• Media Ethics

THE STUDY AND IMPORTANCE OF MEDIA ETHICS

• January 2020

• Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Ambreen Abbasi

• Morolake Omowumi Adekunle
• Femi Onifade

• Patrick Lee Plaisance

• Shiela Reaves
• Madabhushi Sridhar

• William K. Jones
• Thorman Sue
• Carolina Bassett
• Media Panel
• Ralph Hanson
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 28 July 2021

How to get media coverage and boost your science’s impact

• Rebecca Fuoco 0

Rebecca Fuoco leads communications at the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, California.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

At the Green Science Policy Institute, where I work to communicate science to the public, we’ve seen at first hand how using a good communications strategy for scientific papers can lead to positive change. As a non-profit organization that works to translate science on harmful chemicals into better policies and business practices, it’s an indispensable part of what we do.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02067-8

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Yang, C. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 7 , 585–593 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Whitehead, H. D. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8, 538–544 (2021).

Sumner, P. et al. BMJ 349 , g7015 (2014).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sumner, P. et al. PLoS ONE 11 , e0168217 (2016).

Adams R. C. et al. BMC Med. 17 , 91 (2019).

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Communication
• Research management

I botched my poster presentation — how do I perform better next time?

Career Feature 27 SEP 24

Researchers in Hungary raise fears of brain drain after ‘body blow’ EU funding suspension

Career News 26 SEP 24

How I apply Indigenous wisdom to Western science and nurture Native American students

Career Q&A 25 SEP 24

Harassed? Intimidated? Guidebook offers help to scientists under attack

News 20 SEP 24

Brazil’s ban on X: how scientists are coping with the cut-off

News 06 SEP 24

Guide, don’t hide: reprogramming learning in the wake of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

More measures needed to ease funding competition in China

Correspondence 24 SEP 24

Gender inequity persists among journal chief editors

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Fellow in Biomedical Optics and Medical Physics

We seek skilled and enthusiastic candidates for Postdoctoral Fellow positions in the Biomedical Optical Imaging for cancer research.

Dallas, Texas (US)

UT Southwestern Medical Center, BIRTLab

Associate Professor

J. Craig Venter Institute is conducting a faculty search for Associate Professors position in Rockville, MD and San Diego, CA campuses.

Rockville, Maryland or San Diego, California

J. Craig Venter Institute

Associate Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

University of Pittsburgh | DCSB

Assistant Professor

Assistant Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

Independent Group Leader Positions in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

NIMSB is recruiting up to 4 Independent Group Leaders in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

Greater Lisbon - Portugal

NOVA - NIMSB

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

24k Accesses

1 Altmetric

Abstractspiepr Abs1

Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain, and by its commitment to learn from everyone else seriously engaged in research. We call this kind of research scientific inquiry and define it as “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.” By “hypotheses” we do not mean the hypotheses you encounter in statistics courses. We mean predictions about what you expect to find and rationales for why you made these predictions. Throughout this and the remaining chapters we make clear that the process of scientific inquiry applies to all kinds of research studies and data, both qualitative and quantitative.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Is Research?

Have you ever studied something carefully because you wanted to know more about it? Maybe you wanted to know more about your grandmother’s life when she was younger so you asked her to tell you stories from her childhood, or maybe you wanted to know more about a fertilizer you were about to use in your garden so you read the ingredients on the package and looked them up online. According to the dictionary definition, you were doing research.

Recall your high school assignments asking you to “research” a topic. The assignment likely included consulting a variety of sources that discussed the topic, perhaps including some “original” sources. Often, the teacher referred to your product as a “research paper.”

Were you conducting research when you interviewed your grandmother or wrote high school papers reviewing a particular topic? Our view is that you were engaged in part of the research process, but only a small part. In this book, we reserve the word “research” for what it means in the scientific world, that is, for scientific research or, more pointedly, for scientific inquiry .

Exercise 1.1

Before you read any further, write a definition of what you think scientific inquiry is. Keep it short—Two to three sentences. You will periodically update this definition as you read this chapter and the remainder of the book.

This book is about scientific inquiry—what it is and how to do it. For starters, scientific inquiry is a process, a particular way of finding out about something that involves a number of phases. Each phase of the process constitutes one aspect of scientific inquiry. You are doing scientific inquiry as you engage in each phase, but you have not done scientific inquiry until you complete the full process. Each phase is necessary but not sufficient.

In this chapter, we set the stage by defining scientific inquiry—describing what it is and what it is not—and by discussing what it is good for and why people do it. The remaining chapters build directly on the ideas presented in this chapter.

A first thing to know is that scientific inquiry is not all or nothing. “Scientificness” is a continuum. Inquiries can be more scientific or less scientific. What makes an inquiry more scientific? You might be surprised there is no universally agreed upon answer to this question. None of the descriptors we know of are sufficient by themselves to define scientific inquiry. But all of them give you a way of thinking about some aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. Each one gives you different insights.

Exercise 1.2

As you read about each descriptor below, think about what would make an inquiry more or less scientific. If you think a descriptor is important, use it to revise your definition of scientific inquiry.

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

We will present three descriptors of scientific inquiry. Each provides a different perspective and emphasizes a different aspect of scientific inquiry. We will draw on all three descriptors to compose our definition of scientific inquiry.

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

Sir Ronald Fisher, often called the father of modern statistical design, once referred to research as “experience carefully planned in advance” (1935, p. 8). He said that humans are always learning from experience, from interacting with the world around them. Usually, this learning is haphazard rather than the result of a deliberate process carried out over an extended period of time. Research, Fisher said, was learning from experience, but experience carefully planned in advance.

This phrase can be fully appreciated by looking at each word. The fact that scientific inquiry is based on experience means that it is based on interacting with the world. These interactions could be thought of as the stuff of scientific inquiry. In addition, it is not just any experience that counts. The experience must be carefully planned . The interactions with the world must be conducted with an explicit, describable purpose, and steps must be taken to make the intended learning as likely as possible. This planning is an integral part of scientific inquiry; it is not just a preparation phase. It is one of the things that distinguishes scientific inquiry from many everyday learning experiences. Finally, these steps must be taken beforehand and the purpose of the inquiry must be articulated in advance of the experience. Clearly, scientific inquiry does not happen by accident, by just stumbling into something. Stumbling into something unexpected and interesting can happen while engaged in scientific inquiry, but learning does not depend on it and serendipity does not make the inquiry scientific.

Descriptor 2. Observing Something and Trying to Explain Why It Is the Way It Is

When we were writing this chapter and googled “scientific inquiry,” the first entry was: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.” The emphasis is on studying, or observing, and then explaining . This descriptor takes the image of scientific inquiry beyond carefully planned experience and includes explaining what was experienced.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “explain” means “(a) to make known, (b) to make plain or understandable, (c) to give the reason or cause of, and (d) to show the logical development or relations of” (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ). We will use all these definitions. Taken together, they suggest that to explain an observation means to understand it by finding reasons (or causes) for why it is as it is. In this sense of scientific inquiry, the following are synonyms: explaining why, understanding why, and reasoning about causes and effects. Our image of scientific inquiry now includes planning, observing, and explaining why.

We need to add a final note about this descriptor. We have phrased it in a way that suggests “observing something” means you are observing something in real time—observing the way things are or the way things are changing. This is often true. But, observing could mean observing data that already have been collected, maybe by someone else making the original observations (e.g., secondary analysis of NAEP data or analysis of existing video recordings of classroom instruction). We will address secondary analyses more fully in Chap. 4 . For now, what is important is that the process requires explaining why the data look like they do.

We must note that for us, the term “data” is not limited to numerical or quantitative data such as test scores. Data can also take many nonquantitative forms, including written survey responses, interview transcripts, journal entries, video recordings of students, teachers, and classrooms, text messages, and so forth.

Exercise 1.3

What are the implications of the statement that just “observing” is not enough to count as scientific inquiry? Does this mean that a detailed description of a phenomenon is not scientific inquiry?

Find sources that define research in education that differ with our position, that say description alone, without explanation, counts as scientific research. Identify the precise points where the opinions differ. What are the best arguments for each of the positions? Which do you prefer? Why?

Descriptor 3. Updating Everyone’s Thinking in Response to More and Better Information

This descriptor focuses on a third aspect of scientific inquiry: updating and advancing the field’s understanding of phenomena that are investigated. This descriptor foregrounds a powerful characteristic of scientific inquiry: the reliability (or trustworthiness) of what is learned and the ultimate inevitability of this learning to advance human understanding of phenomena. Humans might choose not to learn from scientific inquiry, but history suggests that scientific inquiry always has the potential to advance understanding and that, eventually, humans take advantage of these new understandings.

Before exploring these bold claims a bit further, note that this descriptor uses “information” in the same way the previous two descriptors used “experience” and “observations.” These are the stuff of scientific inquiry and we will use them often, sometimes interchangeably. Frequently, we will use the term “data” to stand for all these terms.

An overriding goal of scientific inquiry is for everyone to learn from what one scientist does. Much of this book is about the methods you need to use so others have faith in what you report and can learn the same things you learned. This aspect of scientific inquiry has many implications.

One implication is that scientific inquiry is not a private practice. It is a public practice available for others to see and learn from. Notice how different this is from everyday learning. When you happen to learn something from your everyday experience, often only you gain from the experience. The fact that research is a public practice means it is also a social one. It is best conducted by interacting with others along the way: soliciting feedback at each phase, taking opportunities to present work-in-progress, and benefitting from the advice of others.

A second implication is that you, as the researcher, must be committed to sharing what you are doing and what you are learning in an open and transparent way. This allows all phases of your work to be scrutinized and critiqued. This is what gives your work credibility. The reliability or trustworthiness of your findings depends on your colleagues recognizing that you have used all appropriate methods to maximize the chances that your claims are justified by the data.

A third implication of viewing scientific inquiry as a collective enterprise is the reverse of the second—you must be committed to receiving comments from others. You must treat your colleagues as fair and honest critics even though it might sometimes feel otherwise. You must appreciate their job, which is to remain skeptical while scrutinizing what you have done in considerable detail. To provide the best help to you, they must remain skeptical about your conclusions (when, for example, the data are difficult for them to interpret) until you offer a convincing logical argument based on the information you share. A rather harsh but good-to-remember statement of the role of your friendly critics was voiced by Karl Popper, a well-known twentieth century philosopher of science: “. . . if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can” (Popper, 1968, p. 27).

A final implication of this third descriptor is that, as someone engaged in scientific inquiry, you have no choice but to update your thinking when the data support a different conclusion. This applies to your own data as well as to those of others. When data clearly point to a specific claim, even one that is quite different than you expected, you must reconsider your position. If the outcome is replicated multiple times, you need to adjust your thinking accordingly. Scientific inquiry does not let you pick and choose which data to believe; it mandates that everyone update their thinking when the data warrant an update.

Doing Scientific Inquiry

We define scientific inquiry in an operational sense—what does it mean to do scientific inquiry? What kind of process would satisfy all three descriptors: carefully planning an experience in advance; observing and trying to explain what you see; and, contributing to updating everyone’s thinking about an important phenomenon?

We define scientific inquiry as formulating , testing , and revising hypotheses about phenomena of interest.

Of course, we are not the only ones who define it in this way. The definition for the scientific method posted by the editors of Britannica is: “a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments” (Britannica, n.d. ).

Notice how defining scientific inquiry this way satisfies each of the descriptors. “Carefully planning an experience in advance” is exactly what happens when formulating a hypothesis about a phenomenon of interest and thinking about how to test it. “ Observing a phenomenon” occurs when testing a hypothesis, and “ explaining ” what is found is required when revising a hypothesis based on the data. Finally, “updating everyone’s thinking” comes from comparing publicly the original with the revised hypothesis.

Doing scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, underscores the value of accumulating knowledge rather than generating random bits of knowledge. Formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is an ongoing process, with each revised hypothesis begging for another test, whether by the same researcher or by new researchers. The editors of Britannica signaled this cyclic process by adding the following phrase to their definition of the scientific method: “The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again.” Scientific inquiry creates a process that encourages each study to build on the studies that have gone before. Through collective engagement in this process of building study on top of study, the scientific community works together to update its thinking.

Before exploring more fully the meaning of “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses,” we need to acknowledge that this is not the only way researchers define research. Some researchers prefer a less formal definition, one that includes more serendipity, less planning, less explanation. You might have come across more open definitions such as “research is finding out about something.” We prefer the tighter hypothesis formulation, testing, and revision definition because we believe it provides a single, coherent map for conducting research that addresses many of the thorny problems educational researchers encounter. We believe it is the most useful orientation toward research and the most helpful to learn as a beginning researcher.

A final clarification of our definition is that it applies equally to qualitative and quantitative research. This is a familiar distinction in education that has generated much discussion. You might think our definition favors quantitative methods over qualitative methods because the language of hypothesis formulation and testing is often associated with quantitative methods. In fact, we do not favor one method over another. In Chap. 4 , we will illustrate how our definition fits research using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Exercise 1.4

Look for ways to extend what the field knows in an area that has already received attention by other researchers. Specifically, you can search for a program of research carried out by more experienced researchers that has some revised hypotheses that remain untested. Identify a revised hypothesis that you might like to test.

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

To get a full sense of the definition of scientific inquiry we will use throughout this book, it is helpful to spend a little time with each of the key terms.

We first want to make clear that we use the term “hypothesis” as it is defined in most dictionaries and as it used in many scientific fields rather than as it is usually defined in educational statistics courses. By “hypothesis,” we do not mean a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected by statistical analysis. Rather, we use “hypothesis” in the sense conveyed by the following definitions: “An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved” (Cambridge University Press, n.d. ), and “An unproved theory, proposition, or supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts and to provide a basis for further investigation or argument” (Agnes & Guralnik, 2008 ).

We distinguish two parts to “hypotheses.” Hypotheses consist of predictions and rationales . Predictions are statements about what you expect to find when you inquire about something. Rationales are explanations for why you made the predictions you did, why you believe your predictions are correct. So, for us “formulating hypotheses” means making explicit predictions and developing rationales for the predictions.

“Testing hypotheses” means making observations that allow you to assess in what ways your predictions were correct and in what ways they were incorrect. In education research, it is rarely useful to think of your predictions as either right or wrong. Because of the complexity of most issues you will investigate, most predictions will be right in some ways and wrong in others.

By studying the observations you make (data you collect) to test your hypotheses, you can revise your hypotheses to better align with the observations. This means revising your predictions plus revising your rationales to justify your adjusted predictions. Even though you might not run another test, formulating revised hypotheses is an essential part of conducting a research study. Comparing your original and revised hypotheses informs everyone of what you learned by conducting your study. In addition, a revised hypothesis sets the stage for you or someone else to extend your study and accumulate more knowledge of the phenomenon.

We should note that not everyone makes a clear distinction between predictions and rationales as two aspects of hypotheses. In fact, common, non-scientific uses of the word “hypothesis” may limit it to only a prediction or only an explanation (or rationale). We choose to explicitly include both prediction and rationale in our definition of hypothesis, not because we assert this should be the universal definition, but because we want to foreground the importance of both parts acting in concert. Using “hypothesis” to represent both prediction and rationale could hide the two aspects, but we make them explicit because they provide different kinds of information. It is usually easier to make predictions than develop rationales because predictions can be guesses, hunches, or gut feelings about which you have little confidence. Developing a compelling rationale requires careful thought plus reading what other researchers have found plus talking with your colleagues. Often, while you are developing your rationale you will find good reasons to change your predictions. Developing good rationales is the engine that drives scientific inquiry. Rationales are essentially descriptions of how much you know about the phenomenon you are studying. Throughout this guide, we will elaborate on how developing good rationales drives scientific inquiry. For now, we simply note that it can sharpen your predictions and help you to interpret your data as you test your hypotheses.

Hypotheses in education research take a variety of forms or types. This is because there are a variety of phenomena that can be investigated. Investigating educational phenomena is sometimes best done using qualitative methods, sometimes using quantitative methods, and most often using mixed methods (e.g., Hay, 2016 ; Weis et al. 2019a ; Weisner, 2005 ). This means that, given our definition, hypotheses are equally applicable to qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Hypotheses take different forms when they are used to investigate different kinds of phenomena. Two very different activities in education could be labeled conducting experiments and descriptions. In an experiment, a hypothesis makes a prediction about anticipated changes, say the changes that occur when a treatment or intervention is applied. You might investigate how students’ thinking changes during a particular kind of instruction.

A second type of hypothesis, relevant for descriptive research, makes a prediction about what you will find when you investigate and describe the nature of a situation. The goal is to understand a situation as it exists rather than to understand a change from one situation to another. In this case, your prediction is what you expect to observe. Your rationale is the set of reasons for making this prediction; it is your current explanation for why the situation will look like it does.

You will probably read, if you have not already, that some researchers say you do not need a prediction to conduct a descriptive study. We will discuss this point of view in Chap. 2 . For now, we simply claim that scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, applies to all kinds of research studies. Descriptive studies, like others, not only benefit from formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, but also need hypothesis formulating, testing, and revising.

One reason we define research as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is that if you think of research in this way you are less likely to go wrong. It is a useful guide for the entire process, as we will describe in detail in the chapters ahead. For example, as you build the rationale for your predictions, you are constructing the theoretical framework for your study (Chap. 3 ). As you work out the methods you will use to test your hypothesis, every decision you make will be based on asking, “Will this help me formulate or test or revise my hypothesis?” (Chap. 4 ). As you interpret the results of testing your predictions, you will compare them to what you predicted and examine the differences, focusing on how you must revise your hypotheses (Chap. 5 ). By anchoring the process to formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, you will make smart decisions that yield a coherent and well-designed study.

Exercise 1.5

Compare the concept of formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses with the descriptions of scientific inquiry contained in Scientific Research in Education (NRC, 2002 ). How are they similar or different?

Exercise 1.6

Provide an example to illustrate and emphasize the differences between everyday learning/thinking and scientific inquiry.

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

We noted earlier that a measure of what you have learned by conducting a research study is found in the differences between your original hypothesis and your revised hypothesis based on the data you collected to test your hypothesis. We will elaborate this statement in later chapters, but we preview our argument here.

Even before collecting data, scientific inquiry requires cycles of making a prediction, developing a rationale, refining your predictions, reading and studying more to strengthen your rationale, refining your predictions again, and so forth. And, even if you have run through several such cycles, you still will likely find that when you test your prediction you will be partly right and partly wrong. The results will support some parts of your predictions but not others, or the results will “kind of” support your predictions. A critical part of scientific inquiry is making sense of your results by interpreting them against your predictions. Carefully describing what aspects of your data supported your predictions, what aspects did not, and what data fell outside of any predictions is not an easy task, but you cannot learn from your study without doing this analysis.

Analyzing the matches and mismatches between your predictions and your data allows you to formulate different rationales that would have accounted for more of the data. The best revised rationale is the one that accounts for the most data. Once you have revised your rationales, you can think about the predictions they best justify or explain. It is by comparing your original rationales to your new rationales that you can sort out what you learned from your study.

Suppose your study was an experiment. Maybe you were investigating the effects of a new instructional intervention on students’ learning. Your original rationale was your explanation for why the intervention would change the learning outcomes in a particular way. Your revised rationale explained why the changes that you observed occurred like they did and why your revised predictions are better. Maybe your original rationale focused on the potential of the activities if they were implemented in ideal ways and your revised rationale included the factors that are likely to affect how teachers implement them. By comparing the before and after rationales, you are describing what you learned—what you can explain now that you could not before. Another way of saying this is that you are describing how much more you understand now than before you conducted your study.

Revised predictions based on carefully planned and collected data usually exhibit some of the following features compared with the originals: more precision, more completeness, and broader scope. Revised rationales have more explanatory power and become more complete, more aligned with the new predictions, sharper, and overall more convincing.

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

Doing scientific inquiry is a lot of work. Each phase of the process takes time, and you will often cycle back to improve earlier phases as you engage in later phases. Because of the significant effort required, you should make sure your study is worth it. So, from the beginning, you should think about the purpose of your study. Why do you want to do it? And, because research is a social practice, you should also think about whether the results of your study are likely to be important and significant to the education community.

If you are doing research in the way we have described—as scientific inquiry—then one purpose of your study is to understand , not just to describe or evaluate or report. As we noted earlier, when you formulate hypotheses, you are developing rationales that explain why things might be like they are. In our view, trying to understand and explain is what separates research from other kinds of activities, like evaluating or describing.

One reason understanding is so important is that it allows researchers to see how or why something works like it does. When you see how something works, you are better able to predict how it might work in other contexts, under other conditions. And, because conditions, or contextual factors, matter a lot in education, gaining insights into applying your findings to other contexts increases the contributions of your work and its importance to the broader education community.

Consequently, the purposes of research studies in education often include the more specific aim of identifying and understanding the conditions under which the phenomena being studied work like the observations suggest. A classic example of this kind of study in mathematics education was reported by William Brownell and Harold Moser in 1949 . They were trying to establish which method of subtracting whole numbers could be taught most effectively—the regrouping method or the equal additions method. However, they realized that effectiveness might depend on the conditions under which the methods were taught—“meaningfully” versus “mechanically.” So, they designed a study that crossed the two instructional approaches with the two different methods (regrouping and equal additions). Among other results, they found that these conditions did matter. The regrouping method was more effective under the meaningful condition than the mechanical condition, but the same was not true for the equal additions algorithm.

What do education researchers want to understand? In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to develop understanding that supports the improvement of learning opportunities for all students. We say “ultimate” because there are lots of issues that must be understood to improve learning opportunities for all students. Hypotheses about many aspects of education are connected, ultimately, to students’ learning. For example, formulating and testing a hypothesis that preservice teachers need to engage in particular kinds of activities in their coursework in order to teach particular topics well is, ultimately, connected to improving students’ learning opportunities. So is hypothesizing that school districts often devote relatively few resources to instructional leadership training or hypothesizing that positioning mathematics as a tool students can use to combat social injustice can help students see the relevance of mathematics to their lives.

We do not exclude the importance of research on educational issues more removed from improving students’ learning opportunities, but we do think the argument for their importance will be more difficult to make. If there is no way to imagine a connection between your hypothesis and improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Notice that we said the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. For too long, educators have been satisfied with a goal of offering rich learning opportunities for lots of students, sometimes even for just the majority of students, but not necessarily for all students. Evaluations of success often are based on outcomes that show high averages. In other words, if many students have learned something, or even a smaller number have learned a lot, educators may have been satisfied. The problem is that there is usually a pattern in the groups of students who receive lower quality opportunities—students of color and students who live in poor areas, urban and rural. This is not acceptable. Consequently, we emphasize the premise that the purpose of education research is to offer rich learning opportunities to all students.

One way to make sure you will be able to convince others of the importance of your study is to consider investigating some aspect of teachers’ shared instructional problems. Historically, researchers in education have set their own research agendas, regardless of the problems teachers are facing in schools. It is increasingly recognized that teachers have had trouble applying to their own classrooms what researchers find. To address this problem, a researcher could partner with a teacher—better yet, a small group of teachers—and talk with them about instructional problems they all share. These discussions can create a rich pool of problems researchers can consider. If researchers pursued one of these problems (preferably alongside teachers), the connection to improving learning opportunities for all students could be direct and immediate. “Grounding a research question in instructional problems that are experienced across multiple teachers’ classrooms helps to ensure that the answer to the question will be of sufficient scope to be relevant and significant beyond the local context” (Cai et al., 2019b , p. 115).

As a beginning researcher, determining the relevance and importance of a research problem is especially challenging. We recommend talking with advisors, other experienced researchers, and peers to test the educational importance of possible research problems and topics of study. You will also learn much more about the issue of research importance when you read Chap. 5 .

Exercise 1.7

Identify a problem in education that is closely connected to improving learning opportunities and a problem that has a less close connection. For each problem, write a brief argument (like a logical sequence of if-then statements) that connects the problem to all students’ learning opportunities.

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses about phenomena that are not fully understood—by you or anyone else. Even if you are able to inform your hypotheses with lots of knowledge that has already been accumulated, you are likely to find that your prediction is not entirely accurate. This is normal. Remember, scientific inquiry is a process of constantly updating your thinking. More and better information means revising your thinking, again, and again, and again. Because you never fully understand a complicated phenomenon and your hypotheses never produce completely accurate predictions, it is easy to believe you are somehow failing.

The trick is to fail upward, to fail to predict accurately in ways that inform your next hypothesis so you can make a better prediction. Some of the best-known researchers in education have been open and honest about the many times their predictions were wrong and, based on the results of their studies and those of others, they continuously updated their thinking and changed their hypotheses.

A striking example of publicly revising (actually reversing) hypotheses due to incorrect predictions is found in the work of Lee J. Cronbach, one of the most distinguished educational psychologists of the twentieth century. In 1955, Cronbach delivered his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Titling it “Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” Cronbach proposed a rapprochement between two research approaches—correlational studies that focused on individual differences and experimental studies that focused on instructional treatments controlling for individual differences. (We will examine different research approaches in Chap. 4 ). If these approaches could be brought together, reasoned Cronbach ( 1957 ), researchers could find interactions between individual characteristics and treatments (aptitude-treatment interactions or ATIs), fitting the best treatments to different individuals.

In 1975, after years of research by many researchers looking for ATIs, Cronbach acknowledged the evidence for simple, useful ATIs had not been found. Even when trying to find interactions between a few variables that could provide instructional guidance, the analysis, said Cronbach, creates “a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity, tormenting even the boldest investigators and defeating even ambitious designs” (Cronbach, 1975 , p. 119).

As he was reflecting back on his work, Cronbach ( 1986 ) recommended moving away from documenting instructional effects through statistical inference (an approach he had championed for much of his career) and toward approaches that probe the reasons for these effects, approaches that provide a “full account of events in a time, place, and context” (Cronbach, 1986 , p. 104). This is a remarkable change in hypotheses, a change based on data and made fully transparent. Cronbach understood the value of failing productively.

Closer to home, in a less dramatic example, one of us began a line of scientific inquiry into how to prepare elementary preservice teachers to teach early algebra. Teaching early algebra meant engaging elementary students in early forms of algebraic reasoning. Such reasoning should help them transition from arithmetic to algebra. To begin this line of inquiry, a set of activities for preservice teachers were developed. Even though the activities were based on well-supported hypotheses, they largely failed to engage preservice teachers as predicted because of unanticipated challenges the preservice teachers faced. To capitalize on this failure, follow-up studies were conducted, first to better understand elementary preservice teachers’ challenges with preparing to teach early algebra, and then to better support preservice teachers in navigating these challenges. In this example, the initial failure was a necessary step in the researchers’ scientific inquiry and furthered the researchers’ understanding of this issue.

We present another example of failing productively in Chap. 2 . That example emerges from recounting the history of a well-known research program in mathematics education.

Making mistakes is an inherent part of doing scientific research. Conducting a study is rarely a smooth path from beginning to end. We recommend that you keep the following things in mind as you begin a career of conducting research in education.

First, do not get discouraged when you make mistakes; do not fall into the trap of feeling like you are not capable of doing research because you make too many errors.

Second, learn from your mistakes. Do not ignore your mistakes or treat them as errors that you simply need to forget and move past. Mistakes are rich sites for learning—in research just as in other fields of study.

Third, by reflecting on your mistakes, you can learn to make better mistakes, mistakes that inform you about a productive next step. You will not be able to eliminate your mistakes, but you can set a goal of making better and better mistakes.

Exercise 1.8

How does scientific inquiry differ from everyday learning in giving you the tools to fail upward? You may find helpful perspectives on this question in other resources on science and scientific inquiry (e.g., Failure: Why Science is So Successful by Firestein, 2015).

Exercise 1.9

Use what you have learned in this chapter to write a new definition of scientific inquiry. Compare this definition with the one you wrote before reading this chapter. If you are reading this book as part of a course, compare your definition with your colleagues’ definitions. Develop a consensus definition with everyone in the course.

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

Now that you have a good idea of what research is, at least of what we believe research is, the next step is to think about how to actually begin doing research. This means how to begin formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. As for all phases of scientific inquiry, there are lots of things to think about. Because it is critical to start well, we devote Chap. 2 to getting started with formulating hypotheses.

Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (2008). Hypothesis. In Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Britannica. (n.d.). Scientific method. In Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtraction . Duke University Press..

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Hypothesis. In Cambridge dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis

Cronbach, J. L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 , 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 , 116–127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 83–107). University of Chicago Press.

Hay, C. M. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research . University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Explain. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press.

Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Duncan, G. J., Albro, E., Bueschel, A. C., Cobb, P., Eccles, J., Mendenhall, R., Moss, P., Penuel, W., Ream, R. K., Rumbaut, R. G., Sloane, F., Weisner, T. S., & Wilson, J. (2019a). Mixed methods for studies that address broad and enduring issues in education research. Teachers College Record, 121 , 100307.

Weisner, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Friends, family and neighbors are Americans’ most common source of local news

The Pew-Knight Initiative supports new research on how Americans absorb civic information, form beliefs and identities, and engage in their communities.

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. Knight Foundation is a social investor committed to supporting informed and engaged communities. Learn more >

Americans’ relationship with local news is changing. More are getting news online, and fewer are turning to sources like daily newspapers, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year. The survey is part of the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

However, one thing that has remained consistent is the importance of friends, family and neighbors as sources of local news for most Americans. In fact, they are the most common source of local news we asked about, ranking above television stations, radio stations and online forums like Facebook groups. 

About three-quarters of Americans (73%) say they often or sometimes get local news from friends, family and neighbors. The next-highest source is TV stations, at 64%. In 2018, friends and family were also a common source of local news but had not yet surpassed TV.

Friends, family and neighbors are a key source of local news for majorities of Americans regardless of age, political party, race or ethnicity.

This Pew Research Center analysis explores how U.S. adults get local news and information from friends, family and neighbors.

The survey of 5,146 U.S. adults was conducted from Jan. 22 to 28, 2024. Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, the topline and the survey methodology .

This is a Pew Research Center report from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Find related reports online at https://www.pewresearch.org/pew-knight/ .

How people get local news from those they know

Even as news consumption is becoming more digital, local news exchanges among friends, family and neighbors still largely happen through word of mouth (in person or over the phone) as opposed to on social media, in emails or in texts. A majority (62%) of those who get local news from friends and family say they usually get this news via word of mouth.

This share is down from the 71% of Americans who said they got this news via word of mouth in 2018. Meanwhile, the share who get it via social media has increased from 17% in 2018 to 25% in 2024.

Getting local news on specific topics

Friends, family and neighbors are also among the top sources for two of the most common local news topics: politics and crime. About seven-in-ten Americans say they get local government news and local crime news from friends, family and neighbors. That’s about the same share as those who say they get local political and crime news from news outlets.

Social interaction is also a way Americans commonly respond to local crime news.

About three-quarters of U.S. adults (73%) say they have spoken with friends, family or neighbors about crime in their local community. That’s far higher than the shares who say they’ve posted or shared on social media or elsewhere online (21%), spoken to local officials or police (19%), or communicated with a journalist (5%).

Most people (72%) who get news about local crime from friends, family and neighbors think it is at least somewhat accurate, although just 10% say it is very accurate. An additional 17% say it is not too or not at all accurate, while 10% aren’t sure. The share who say it is at least somewhat accurate is higher than the share who say the same about news from locally focused apps like Nextdoor, social media or local politicians.

About one-in-five Americans (22%) say the information they get about local crime from friends, family and neighbors exaggerates the amount of crime in their community. Another 7% say their friends and family underplay the amount of crime. Still, 52% say their friends and family get it about right.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, the topline and the survey methodology .

• Friendships
• News Habits & Media

Elisa Shearer is a senior researcher focusing on news and information research at Pew Research Center .

The link between local news coverage and Americans’ perceptions of crime

Americans’ experiences with local crime news, how americans get local political news, americans’ changing relationship with local news, local and regional news coverage about the flint water crisis was minimal in 2014, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center