While reading the four studies presented, it was clear that all four had specific strengths and weaknesses. However, it was also clear that there was a noticeable gap in quality between the four studies. The first study by Ferris et al. (2007) examined the content of reality dating shows and their influence on viewer perceptions. The primary strength of this study was the argument for its purpose. By utilizing Social Cognitive Theory and Cultivation Theory, Ferris et al. (2007) strengthen their argument. The theoretical basis for this study is prevalent, and while the content analysis segment of the study is less reliant on theory, the resulting effects survey shows that the theoretical basis for the study was a strong one by finding consistent
…show more content…
While it was clearly explained where the sample came from, there were some sources that were counterintuitive. Primarily in channels targeted toward children (Disney, Nickelodeon), I would have liked to know what shows came from these channels. Further, by choosing to examine effects rather than just content, the authors open themselves up to criticism that the scope of their sample is too narrow to capture other potential effects. The second study, done by Humphreys et al. (2013) sought to examine Twitter in a historical context. The biggest weakness with this study was simply the lack of a convincing argument for why the study needed to be done. The authors make such claims as “The diary and Twitter provide a platform for people who might traditionally be excluded from public discourse to have a voice…” (p. 415). However, these grandiose claims are never supported in the study, and it is baffling that such an intriguing claim would be unable to strengthen the persuasive argument for this study. The study is also quite dated. Taking place in 2008, Twitter and the ways to use it have changed drastically in the few years since the data was collected, thus the utility of this study is largely in …show more content…
Again, this study was particularly strong in the completeness of its key terms and variables. Each of the potential frames was analyzed, and the coding seemed mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Further, each theoretical concept was operationalized clearly, and the corresponding coding rules were logical. Despite these strengths, the overall concept of framing was never once defined. While it was easy in retrospect to come to a conclusion on what the authors meant by framing, the article would have been strengthened by a clear conceptual definition. Further, the writing in the article was generally unclear and sometimes hard to follow. The final study, conducted by Matthes (2009) was a content analysis of framing studies in communication journals, setting out to get a general sense of the practices of researchers while studying framing effects. One issue that I took with this study was the lack of clear conceptual definitions for what a framing study was. Further, the general concepts and definitions of framing that the author was looking for in his analysis were not
While it was clearly explained where the sample came from, there were some sources that were counterintuitive. Primarily in channels targeted toward children (Disney, Nickelodeon), I would have liked to know what shows came from these channels. Further, by choosing to examine effects rather than just content, the authors open themselves up to criticism that the scope of their sample is too narrow to capture other potential effects. The second study, done by Humphreys et al. (2013) sought to examine Twitter in a historical context. The biggest weakness with this study was simply the lack of a convincing argument for why the study needed to be done. The authors make such claims as “The diary and Twitter provide a platform for people who might traditionally be excluded from public discourse to have a voice…” (p. 415). However, these grandiose claims are never supported in the study, and it is baffling that such an intriguing claim would be unable to strengthen the persuasive argument for this study. The study is also quite dated. Taking place in 2008, Twitter and the ways to use it have changed drastically in the few years since the data was collected, thus the utility of this study is largely in …show more content…
Again, this study was particularly strong in the completeness of its key terms and variables. Each of the potential frames was analyzed, and the coding seemed mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Further, each theoretical concept was operationalized clearly, and the corresponding coding rules were logical. Despite these strengths, the overall concept of framing was never once defined. While it was easy in retrospect to come to a conclusion on what the authors meant by framing, the article would have been strengthened by a clear conceptual definition. Further, the writing in the article was generally unclear and sometimes hard to follow. The final study, conducted by Matthes (2009) was a content analysis of framing studies in communication journals, setting out to get a general sense of the practices of researchers while studying framing effects. One issue that I took with this study was the lack of clear conceptual definitions for what a framing study was. Further, the general concepts and definitions of framing that the author was looking for in his analysis were not