迷失在迷宫中？论媒体效应研究中差异和个体水平易感性的哲学问题

IF 4.9 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Communication Research Pub Date : 2024-10-13 DOI:10.1177/00936502241287018

Lennert Coenen

{"title":"迷失在迷宫中？论媒体效应研究中差异和个体水平易感性的哲学问题","authors":"Lennert Coenen","doi":"10.1177/00936502241287018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a philosophical discussion of moderators and person-specific differences (referred to as “hedges”) in research on media effects. It is shown that while, historically, the reliance on hedges has been regarded as a sign of theoretical sophistication (the “hedges-as-progress-perspective”), it has left the field behind in a maze of epistemological problems. The paper therefore urges to reinterpret the role of hedges as a sign of theoretical resilience instead of sophistication (the “hedges-as-protection-perspective”). This shift is shown to have substantive implications for how one describes and evaluates media effects research—not just its history, but also its current state and its ambitions going into the future.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost in a Maze? On the Philosophical Problems With Differential and Individual-Level Susceptibility in Research on Media Effects\",\"authors\":\"Lennert Coenen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00936502241287018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides a philosophical discussion of moderators and person-specific differences (referred to as “hedges”) in research on media effects. It is shown that while, historically, the reliance on hedges has been regarded as a sign of theoretical sophistication (the “hedges-as-progress-perspective”), it has left the field behind in a maze of epistemological problems. The paper therefore urges to reinterpret the role of hedges as a sign of theoretical resilience instead of sophistication (the “hedges-as-protection-perspective”). This shift is shown to have substantive implications for how one describes and evaluates media effects research—not just its history, but also its current state and its ambitions going into the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241287018\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241287018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从哲学角度探讨了媒体效应研究中的调节因素和个体差异（称为 "对冲"）。文章指出，虽然从历史上看，对对冲的依赖被视为理论先进性的标志（"对冲即进步观点"），但它却使该领域陷入了认识论问题的迷宫。因此，本文呼吁将套期保值的作用重新解释为理论复原力而非复杂性的标志（"套期保值即保护观点"）。这一转变对如何描述和评价媒体效应研究--不仅是其历史，还有其现状和未来的雄心--具有实质性影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Lost in a Maze? On the Philosophical Problems With Differential and Individual-Level Susceptibility in Research on Media Effects

This paper provides a philosophical discussion of moderators and person-specific differences (referred to as “hedges”) in research on media effects. It is shown that while, historically, the reliance on hedges has been regarded as a sign of theoretical sophistication (the “hedges-as-progress-perspective”), it has left the field behind in a maze of epistemological problems. The paper therefore urges to reinterpret the role of hedges as a sign of theoretical resilience instead of sophistication (the “hedges-as-protection-perspective”). This shift is shown to have substantive implications for how one describes and evaluates media effects research—not just its history, but also its current state and its ambitions going into the future.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Communication Research COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

17.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.