Making the Implicit Explicit: Rethinking Method and Methodology in the Political Economy of Communication

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

Despite their common interests in media production, a divide separates media industry studies and the political economy of communication (PEC). Media industry studies accuses PEC of economic determinism and ignoring human agency and contradiction in creative practices; PEC argues that media industry studies is insufficiently critical and lacks context (Wasko & Meehan, 2013). This panel addresses another important difference: unlike media industry studies, PEC scholars have done little to articulate or justify their methods. As Meehan, Mosco, and Wasko (1993) explain, “political economy tends to treat its methods and criteria implicitly; practitioners are expected to follow criteria implicit in the paradigm and then to select the method best suited to the problem” (pp. 112-113).

This methods gap is problematic. How can PEC researchers share their approaches with one another or justify their findings to the wider scholarly community without explicitly articulating their methods? Failure to do so invites confusion and suspicion, as evidenced in media industry studies’ characterizations of PEC. As Meehan, Mosco, and Wasko (1993) argue, “The process of finding and analyzing data is and should remain as rigorous for political economists as for other media researchers. Research sources and data must be evaluated; the criteria for that assessment must be made explicit” (p. 113).

This panel seeks to make PEC’s implicit methods explicit, and to critically evaluate them. What research methods do (or should) PEC researchers use? What are the strengths and limitations of those methods? What are their origins? What makes them distinct (if anything) to PEC? And to what extent are those methods compatible with other approaches, including media industry studies?

This panel also aims to begin a wider conversation. Why have method and methodology been blindspots in PEC, and what are the consequences? How can PEC researchers better communicate their methods without succumbing to the methodolatry of other communication sub-disciplines? Can method and methodology be an entry point for rethinking political economy or its relationship to media industry studies?

Wasko provides the panel’s roadmap, addressing debates about PEC and considering the range of methods employed. Corrigan discusses strategies for selecting cases for political-economic comparison. Then, three panelists describe PEC approaches to studying media industries, texts, and consumption: Nieborg explores methods for “following the money” in examining industry structure and financing; Magis offers an interdisciplinary approach to interrogating economic strategies alongside textual representation; and Nixon articulates a method for analyzing audiences and industries’ power over consumption.

Sub Unit

• Media Industry Studies

Chairs

• Thomas Fitzpatrick Corrigan, California State University, San Bernardino

• Brice Nixon, U of Pennsylvania

Individual Presentations

• “Though This be Madness, Yet There is Method in It”*: Thoughts on How We Study the Political Economy of Media/Communications - Janet Wasko, U of Oregon

• Political Economy of Communication’s Historical and Comparative Approach: Five Case Sampling Techniques - Thomas Fitzpatrick Corrigan, California State University, San Bernardino

• Following the Money in the Age of Connective Platforms - David Nieborg, U. of Amsterdam

• Cultural Texts: Blindspot of the Media Industries Analyses: Towards a Methodology of Interdisciplinarity Within the Critical Political Economy of Communication Approach - Christophe Magis, U Paris 8

• Raymond Williams’ Materialist Method: Seeing Production and Analyzing the Conditions of Communicative Practice - Brice Nixon, U of Pennsylvania