Research Approach. The first group (Cluster 1; for its detailed composition, see Fig. 4.4), the largest author group in this study, includes 32 authors. This group consists of two subgroups (Clusters 1-a and Cluster 1-b in Fig. 4.2), and each of them has 17 and 12 authors, respectively. Scholars in the first subgroup (Cluster 1-a) approach research questions mainly in a quantitative manner; for instance, McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” In or- der to investigate the relationship between media and audience in the 1968 presi- dential campaign, McCombs and Shaw randomly selected registered voters from a community and asked them to specify the key issues in the campaign. During the same time period, the mass media in the community were collected and content analyzed. The high correlation between the important issues covered by the mass media and the key issues identified by the voters indicates a high possibility of the existence of media’s agenda-setting function.
In the second subgroup (Cluster 1-b) in the first cluster, some of the scholars use qualitative methods (e.g., Nimmo & Combs, 1983), and some of them use quantita- tive methods (e.g., Hofstetter, 1979; Pfau, 1992). Nimmo and Combs (1983) applied the principles of fantasy theme analysis to demonstrate how “rhetorical visions of politics may come into being through all types of media fare . . . ” (Johnston, 1990a, p. 345). Hofstetter (1979) studied the nature of bias in news reporting of the 1972 presidential campaign. In his study, a national sample of the voters was interviewed, and the data collected from these voters were used for several statistical analyses to examine the voters’ perceptions of bias in media in relation to the type of media, type of issue, and voters’ party affiliation. Pfau (1992) designed an experimental study to examine the effectiveness of using inoculation messages to resist the per- suasiveness of comparatives in political ads. In terms of research approach, the
Cluster Combined Stage Cluster First Appears
Stage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Coefficient Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Next Stage
1 4 46 1.488E-03 0 0 10
2 3 35 2.932E-03 0 0 13
3 16 37 3.637E-03 0 0 20
4 29 31 5.256E-03 0 0 7
5 1 22 5.606E-03 0 0 20
6 5 38 5.649E-03 0 0 40
7 9 29 6.141E-03 0 4 18
8 8 14 8.469E-03 0 0 23
9 6 11 1.047E-02 0 0 17
10 4 44 1.166E-02 1 0 19
11 36 47 1.200E-02 0 0 28
12 39 40 1.333E-02 0 0 26
13 3 32 1.389E-02 2 0 27
14 10 19 1.439E-02 0 0 33
15 43 49 1.640E-02 0 0 22
16 7 13 2.460E-02 0 0 25
17 6 42 2.594E-02 9 0 19
18 9 41 2.838E-02 7 0 22
19 4 6 3.591E-02 10 17 32
20 1 16 3.673E-02 5 3 29
21 21 48 4.400E-02 0 0 39
22 9 43 4.556E-02 18 15 27
23 8 45 4.761E-02 8 0 33
24 17 30 5.550E-02 0 0 37
25 7 34 5.579E-02 16 0 28
26 23 39 6.180E-02 0 12 34
27 3 9 7.636E-02 13 22 35
28 7 36 7.745E-02 25 11 36
29 1 15 7.878E-02 20 0 31
30 12 20 9.346E-02 0 0 39
31 1 27 0.111 29 0 41
32 4 24 0.113 19 0 35
33 8 10 0.115 23 14 37
34 23 26 0.153 26 0 36
35 3 4 0.178 27 32 43
36 7 23 0.221 28 34 41
37 8 17 0.228 33 24 38
38 8 28 0.325 37 0 42
39 12 21 0.357 30 21 47
40 5 50 0.456 6 0 48
41 1 7 0.467 31 36 46
42 8 18 0.618 38 0 45
43 3 25 0.638 35 0 46
44 33 51 0.837 0 0 48
45 2 8 1.252 0 42 47
46 1 3 1.523 41 43 49
47 2 12 2.244 45 39 50
48 5 33 2.790 40 44 49
49 1 5 4.809 46 48 50
50 1 2 7.445 49 47 0
88
unique composition (i.e., mixture of both qualitative and quantitative approaches) of this subgroup (Cluster 1-b) indicates a special phenomenon in the development of intellectual structure of political communication study (see details under Dis- cussion).
The second group (Cluster 2) includes five scholars. These five scholars apply qualitative methods to their studies, such as Murray’s (1975) “Wallace and the Media: The 1972 Florida Primary.” George C. Wallace’s overwhelming victory in the 1972 Florida primary caught much attention and aroused much controversy.
Murray focused on this unique event and conducted a case study of Wallace’s successful use of media in his campaign.
There are 14 scholars in the third group (Cluster 3), which is divided into two subgroups (Clusters 3-a and 3-b in Fig. 4.2), with 4 and 10 in each, respectively. Their research approaches are primarily qualitative in nature—for example, Gronbeck’s (1992) “Negative Narrative in 1988 Presidential Campaign Ads.” In his article, Gron- beck applies “narrative performance theory” to examine “narrative or storytelling ads” sponsored by Bush and Dukakis. He categorizes these ads into two types:
adversarial narratives and sequel narratives. His analysis shows that in the first type of negative political ads, sponsors use “double narrative structure” to attack opponents’ “personal qualities” and their “epideictic praise”; in the second type of ads, “the negative narrative in their sequels abandoned the pretense of assessing candidates’ records and situated topics in a political rather than social-institutional context” (p. 339).
Research Subject Areas. The second interesting aspect to look at is the re- search subject areas that the scholars in different groups explore. In the first sub- group (Cluster 1-a) in Group 1 (Cluster 1), scholars concentrate on two major sub- ject areas: political attitude and behavior and media coverage of political campaigns and events. Focusing on the public’s use of media and the effects of such a use on the public’s political behaviors, scholars in this group have made their contribu- tions to political communication study in developing several theoretical models, such as media agenda-setting (e.g., McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Weaver, 1984), uses and gratifications (e.g., Blumler & McQuail, 1969; McLeod & Becker, 1981), and uses and dependency (Rubin & Windhal, 1986). In addition to building theory, scholars in this group also explore other aspects of the above two categories—for example, mediation of effects by mass media uses (e.g., Chaffee & Tims, 1982; Jensen, 1987a, 1987b), political socialization (e.g., Atkin & Gantz, 1978), and media coverage of political events (e.g., O’Keefe, 1982; Shoemaker, 1984).
Several subject areas have been explored by scholars in the second subgroup (Cluster 1-b) in Group 1 (Cluster 1): political rhetoric (e.g., Bennett, 1977; Bennett
& Edelman, 1985), media coverage (e.g., Graber, 1989; Hofstetter, 1976; Kepplinger, 1982; Nimmo & Combs, 1983; Patterson & McClure, 1976), and political advertising (e.g., Garramone, 1984, 1985; Jamieson, 1984, 1986; Kaid, 1981b, 1991, 1994; Pfau, 1992).
Scholars in Group 2 (Cluster 2) study a variety of subject matters; for example, Zarefsky’s (1983) study on presidential speeches, Perry’s study of international news (e.g., Perry, 1987, 1990), and Beasley’s research on women and politics (e.g., Beasley, 1984; Beasley & Belgrade, 1986). According to the subject categories de- veloped for this current study, Zarefsky’s is in the area of “political rhetoric,” and both Perry’s and Beasley’s are in the area of “others.”
s2 44 b2 6 c1 11 r2 42 j2 24 a3 3 o1 35 m3 32 s1 43 w1 49 l2 29 m2 31 b5 9 r1 41 j3 25 g2 16 p2 37 a1 1 h4 22 g1 15 k2 27 p1 36 s5 47 b3 7 e1 13 n1 34 p4 39 p5 40 j1 23 k1 26 b1 5 p3 38 w2 50 m4 33 z1 51 h3 21 t1 48 d1 12 h2 20 g3 17 m1 30 b6 10 h1 19 b4 8 e2 14 s3 45 11 28 g4 18 a2 2
FIG. 4.2. Clusters Groups of 51 selected authors.
90
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
Cluster 1-a Cluster 1-b
a4/Atwood g2/Graber b1/Beasley
b2/Becker h4/Hofstetter m4/Murray
j2/Jeffres p1/Paletz p3/Perry
m3/McLeod e1/Entman z1/Zarefsky
l2/Lemert p5/Powell w2/Whitney
r1/Reese p2/Patterson
s4/Stevenson g1/Garramone
c1/Chaffee s5/Swanson
a3/Atkin n1/Nimmo
s1/Shaw j1/Jamieson
m2/McCombs a1/Adams
j3/Jensen k2/Kepplinger
s2/Shoemaker b3/Bennett
r2/Rubin p4/Pfau
o1/O’Keefe k1/Kaid
w1/Weaver b5/Blumler
Cluster 3
Cluster 3-a Cluster 3-b
h3/Hellweg g3/Gregg
h2/Hart h1/Hahn
t1/Trent s3/Simons
d1/Denton a2/Andrews
m1/Medhurst b4/Blankenship l1/Larson b6/Bormann e2/Erickson g4/Gronbeck FIG. 4.2 (Continued)
Scholars in the first subgroup (Cluster 3-a) in Group 3 (Cluster 3) focus their study on “political rhetoric” (e.g., Hart, 1984a) and “political debates” (e.g., Hell- weg & Phillips, 1981). Scholars in the second subgroup (Cluster 3-b) in Group 3 (Cluster 3) concentrate on “political rhetoric.” In other words, they apply a vari- ety of rhetoric analysis methods (e.g., Burke’s “dramatistic” analysis, Bormann’s
“fantasy-theme” analysis, and Fisher’s “narrative” analysis) to study the content of particular speakers or speeches and the politician’s use of rhetorical strategies and political languages. For instance, Hahn (1983) and Medhurst (1987) (as cited in Johnston, 1990a) focused on presidential speeches and analyzed how the themes, metaphors, and messages in the speeches “served to define for the speaker [the Presidents] . . . [and] the ’reality’ of the situation” (Johnston, 1990a, p. 343). Some scholars in this group studied how “the theme or metaphor was used to construct a vision and united an audience in their belief in that vision” (p. 344). For example, Erickson and his colleagues (1982) (as cited in Johnston, 1990a) showed how in- cumbent presidents use the “Rose Garden” strategy in the campaigns (Johnston, 1990a). In addition, other subjects of political rhetoric have also been explored by the scholars in this group, such as the rhetoric of media (Blankenship, Fine, &
Davis, 1983; Bormann, 1982; Gronbeck, 1984, as cited in Johnston, 1990a).
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
w1 s5
s4 s2
s1 r2
r1 p5
p4
p1 p2
o1 n1
m2 m3 l2 k2 k1
j3
j2 j1
g2 h4
g1 e1
c1 b5 b3
b2 a4 a3 a1
FIG. 4.4. Detailed composition of Cluster 1.
92
Scholars’ Academic Origins. Of the 17 scholars in the first subgroup (Cluster 1-a) in Group 1 (Cluster 1), the majority were from the same academic areas—
journalism and mass communication—except 2 from psychology and 2 unknown (Table 4.2). Scholars in the second subgroup (Cluster 1-b) in Group 1 (Cluster 1) are mainly from two areas: political science and speech communication. In Group 2 (Cluster 2), scholars are from the fields of speech communication, journalism, and mass communication. For those in Group 3 (Cluster 3), all but one (Hahn) received their academic training in the field of speech communication/theater;
Hahn received his in political science. Most of these 51 authors graduated from schools located in the middle, Midwestern, and eastern regions of the country:
9 from Wisconsin, 4 each from Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, and 3 each from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and New York.
An analysis of the statistical results indicates the existence of three main author groups in the field of political communication research. Each of these three groups has its unique attributes with respect to the authors’ primary research approach, their major research subject areas, and their academic origins. These attributes are reflections of the basic characteristics of the intellectual structure of political communication research. Our knowledge of these attributes can establish a basis for us to understand the structure itself.