QUANTITATIVE METHODS OF
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
HC1
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
• Deals with methods with which you can quantify
• Quantify: putting things into numbers
• Assumption is that you can put all things in numbers
▪ How often something occurs (e.g. misinformation on Facebook)
▪ How things are related
- Correlation: more misinformation leads to less public trust
- Percentage: 80% chance that a fear appeal will make public smoke less
▪ What is more effective?
- Means and standard deviations: Do social robots at home lead to less
loneliness?
• Four distinct methods in the course
1. Literature review
2. Experiments
3. Survey
4. Quantitative content analysis
NOW
• Literature review as a communication science method
▪ What is it?
▪ Why do we need it?
▪ What types of literature review?
• Learning goals of this week
▪ Understand the differences in 3 important literature searches
▪ Able to interpret findings from these 3 literature searches
WHY DO WE NEED IT?
• Generate overview of current knowledge regarding a communication science topic for
▪ Knowledge: what is known about a topic at this moment?
▪ Discussion: how to proceed with future research on the topic?
▪ Policy: e.g. how to deal with misinformation? Guidelines for patients? Etc
• Relevance for you?
▪ You should know that the method exists
▪ You should know what you can do with it.
▪ Very likely you will encounter a literature review during your time at UAntwerp
1
,EXAMPLE
How much behavior change (in %) occurs after seeing a mass-mediated campaign?
168.362 participants
Effects of campaign exposure on
• Alcohol: r = .09
• Smoking: r = .05
• Sexual health: r = .04
.09*.09 = 0.008% of behavior change for alcohol can be explained by campaign exposure
05*.05 = 0.003% of behavior change for smoking can be explained by campaign exposure
.04*.04 = 0.002% of behavior change for sexual health can be explained by campaign exposure
Today: how do we get to such a conclusion?
TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Narrative review (trust least)
2. Systematic review (trust more)
3. Meta-analysis (trust most)
NARRATIVE REVIEWS
Scan the article on Blackboard
Try and find information on
▪ How and where did these authors search?
- Databases? Search terms? UNCLEAR…!
2
, ▪ What are the results of this narrative review?
- Very little quantitative information, We dont know how the search was done, we
cant put any number on the effect
Abacus…! (=telraam)
Narrative reviews=
• A non-systematic approach to literature reviews regarding
▪ Search strategies, and/or
▪ The selection process (which criteria were used to include | exclude a study)
➔ Different researchers will conclude different things despite reviewing the same topic
• Results
▪ Unclear | abacus at most
• Downsides of narrative reviews?
▪ Sensitive to the biases of the researcher
▪ Little to no transparency about the review process
➔ Not replicable by other researchers
3
, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH REGARDING
• The search process
▪ Databases use specific terms
▪ For instance so-called MESH headings
▪ Is fitbit a term that people use? That is used in data bases? opzoeken
▪ The system doesnt know the term, so its non systematic bc its a term that databases
dont use
▪ Unknown term: no systematic search
• Reporting
▪ IMRAD | PRISMA structure
▪ Report systematicaly, not only searching but also reporting
4
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
HC1
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
• Deals with methods with which you can quantify
• Quantify: putting things into numbers
• Assumption is that you can put all things in numbers
▪ How often something occurs (e.g. misinformation on Facebook)
▪ How things are related
- Correlation: more misinformation leads to less public trust
- Percentage: 80% chance that a fear appeal will make public smoke less
▪ What is more effective?
- Means and standard deviations: Do social robots at home lead to less
loneliness?
• Four distinct methods in the course
1. Literature review
2. Experiments
3. Survey
4. Quantitative content analysis
NOW
• Literature review as a communication science method
▪ What is it?
▪ Why do we need it?
▪ What types of literature review?
• Learning goals of this week
▪ Understand the differences in 3 important literature searches
▪ Able to interpret findings from these 3 literature searches
WHY DO WE NEED IT?
• Generate overview of current knowledge regarding a communication science topic for
▪ Knowledge: what is known about a topic at this moment?
▪ Discussion: how to proceed with future research on the topic?
▪ Policy: e.g. how to deal with misinformation? Guidelines for patients? Etc
• Relevance for you?
▪ You should know that the method exists
▪ You should know what you can do with it.
▪ Very likely you will encounter a literature review during your time at UAntwerp
1
,EXAMPLE
How much behavior change (in %) occurs after seeing a mass-mediated campaign?
168.362 participants
Effects of campaign exposure on
• Alcohol: r = .09
• Smoking: r = .05
• Sexual health: r = .04
.09*.09 = 0.008% of behavior change for alcohol can be explained by campaign exposure
05*.05 = 0.003% of behavior change for smoking can be explained by campaign exposure
.04*.04 = 0.002% of behavior change for sexual health can be explained by campaign exposure
Today: how do we get to such a conclusion?
TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Narrative review (trust least)
2. Systematic review (trust more)
3. Meta-analysis (trust most)
NARRATIVE REVIEWS
Scan the article on Blackboard
Try and find information on
▪ How and where did these authors search?
- Databases? Search terms? UNCLEAR…!
2
, ▪ What are the results of this narrative review?
- Very little quantitative information, We dont know how the search was done, we
cant put any number on the effect
Abacus…! (=telraam)
Narrative reviews=
• A non-systematic approach to literature reviews regarding
▪ Search strategies, and/or
▪ The selection process (which criteria were used to include | exclude a study)
➔ Different researchers will conclude different things despite reviewing the same topic
• Results
▪ Unclear | abacus at most
• Downsides of narrative reviews?
▪ Sensitive to the biases of the researcher
▪ Little to no transparency about the review process
➔ Not replicable by other researchers
3
, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH REGARDING
• The search process
▪ Databases use specific terms
▪ For instance so-called MESH headings
▪ Is fitbit a term that people use? That is used in data bases? opzoeken
▪ The system doesnt know the term, so its non systematic bc its a term that databases
dont use
▪ Unknown term: no systematic search
• Reporting
▪ IMRAD | PRISMA structure
▪ Report systematicaly, not only searching but also reporting
4
