The economics theories presented in the Kung chapter read as if they were developed by observing the last 20 years of media history. Of course many of the examples used are media-oriented, but at least to me, having worked in the news media for six years now, the applications of these theories were immediately apparent. Property rights? Only one of the most defining struggles of the digital age. Scale, network and bundling economies combined to make newspapers not only viable but intensely profitable -- both no longer true once those same economies can be achieved in other ways. In short, it's easy to see where these concepts apply.
Which made me wonder, why have I not encountered them before in scholarly research? Obviously that's part of the reason I'm taking this course -- to be exposed to applications of economics in media research. But it's something that has surprised me in the last year that I've been studying communications theory (and academics in general): Much academic work exists in silos, separated -- sometimes by circumstance, but often quite on purpose -- from everything surrounding it.
To me, this is where insights like those in the New York Times article are valuable. Of course we must be more open-minded in our research, both in conceiving our own and in evaluating our peers'. In fact, we might be well served to be even more open minded than the authors -- I agree that a strict devotion to the scientific method limits our field, but discarding it entirely throws the baby out with the bathwater. The scientific method brings important discipline to our work, particularly when trying to build on previous research. Rather than following a particular method or system that journals seem to like, we ought to focus on finding understanding and solving problems, then let our thoughts speak for themselves.
Haha, that sounds really hoity toity. But I think my opinion there grows out of a resistance to the "must do it this way" approach many people take to quantitative research. Isn't research supposed to be about figuring it out, even if that means figuring out not only which questions to ask but how to answer them? And I believe our work in both directions becomes better informed the more we include ideas and methods from other disciplines.
Which made me wonder, why have I not encountered them before in scholarly research? Obviously that's part of the reason I'm taking this course -- to be exposed to applications of economics in media research. But it's something that has surprised me in the last year that I've been studying communications theory (and academics in general): Much academic work exists in silos, separated -- sometimes by circumstance, but often quite on purpose -- from everything surrounding it.
To me, this is where insights like those in the New York Times article are valuable. Of course we must be more open-minded in our research, both in conceiving our own and in evaluating our peers'. In fact, we might be well served to be even more open minded than the authors -- I agree that a strict devotion to the scientific method limits our field, but discarding it entirely throws the baby out with the bathwater. The scientific method brings important discipline to our work, particularly when trying to build on previous research. Rather than following a particular method or system that journals seem to like, we ought to focus on finding understanding and solving problems, then let our thoughts speak for themselves.
Haha, that sounds really hoity toity. But I think my opinion there grows out of a resistance to the "must do it this way" approach many people take to quantitative research. Isn't research supposed to be about figuring it out, even if that means figuring out not only which questions to ask but how to answer them? And I believe our work in both directions becomes better informed the more we include ideas and methods from other disciplines.
No comments:
Post a Comment