J.

Turner 1

Jack Turner
COMM 635
Prof. Hopson
March 2, 2010

COMM 635 MID TERM

2. Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods.

Taylor and Trujillo describe qualitative research as broad, difficult to define conclusively,

and continually emerging (2001, p. 161-162). For example, conversation analysis in qualitative

research about organizational communication has evolved from ethnomethodology (Garfinkel,

1972). Taylor and Trujillo concentrate on qualitative research methods, which help to clarify

how qualitative researchers ask research questions and how they answer them. Qualitative

methods include cultural studies of organizations, ethnographic studies, feminist viewpoints, and

critical theory. Qualitative methods usually involve more of a subjective, personal relationship

between the researcher and the population being researched.

Putnam& Fairhurst (2001, p. 79) offer a critical theory of organizational discourse, where

organizational discourse suppresses marginalized voices through hegemony, hidden and/or subtle

control, and ideology. They discuss the deconstruction and disassembling of organizational texts

by examining them for privilege and concealment of words and antinomies. By defining

falsehoods and contradictions in the texts, critical research helps communication scholars

understand how these strategies promote and sustain power for the elite groups that control the

organizational discourse (Derrida, 1982).

Forbes (2007) uses personal interviews and interpretive thematic analysis to present an African-

American feminist theory viewpoint of African-American women in management positions.

Forbes’ use of qualitative methods gives voice to the African-American women she interviews.
 J. Turner 2

Forbes privileges female African-Americans’ lived experience as primary basis for

understanding their communication strategies and point of view in organizations

While qualitative methods can expose power asymmetries in language and organizational

discourse, it also may create a myopic view of organizational processes that are not necessarily

universal to the organization. Qualitative researchers must be careful about getting too close to

the participants in their research, and continue to observe macro-level issues in the organization.

Taylor and Trujillo (2001) note that combining qualitative methods with quantitative methods

can benefit research by producing rich, but controlled, data that reflects more of the total

communication patterns in an organization.

Katherine Miller (2001) says quantitative research methods are rooted in the logical

positivist philosophy of science (Hempel, 1900). Pre- World War Two scholars believed that

total objectivity could be achieved through the scientific method. Quantitative research methods

reflect natural science methods and usually involve objective, impersonal relationships between

the researcher and the population being researched. All theory must be translatable to observable

events or experiences, a characteristic called operationalism. Miller (2001) says that over time,

the constriction of logical positivism became apparent to scholars, so academics defined

operationalism and generalizability as applying more homogenously to other similar studies

instead of applying universally.

Generalizability is now subject to limitations bounded by rules of external validity and

reliability. Quantitative methods are highly concerned with measurement, so that variables under

study can be compared for significant relationships and correlations. External validity refers to

how well the methods of a research study compare to other studies of similar or same

characteristics and content. Reliability refers to how well the measuring instrument (often a
 J. Turner 3

questionnaire or survey) and statistical procedures actually measure the variables under

investigation. (Miller, 2001)

Deetz notes how Sutton and Staw (1995) find certain shortcomings in quantitative

research. Sutton and Staw (1995) have demonstrated that a lack of theory and theory testing is

often found in quantitative research that uses “references, data, variables, diagrams, and

hypotheses” to hide the absence of a theoretical basis in the work (Deetz, 2001, p. 20). I found

another drawback in a health communication experiment I performed that exposed participants to

a graphic fear appeal poster promoting HIV/AIDS awareness. One participant later commented

that the poster photos “really scared” her. The quantitative, Likert scale questionnaire that I used

for an instrument did not fully measure individual emotional responses in this way. Further, a

pre-test using qualitative methods may have identified more effective language and visual

images and strengthened the validity and reliability of the poster experiment.

3. Context.

Putnam and Fairhurst define context from a linguistic analysis perspective. In this view,

the key characteristics of context include organizational events, history, and parameters (like

place and level of formality) that shape the meaning and understanding of texts. These factors

create a “set of structural discourse patterns inscribed in organizations (Putnam & Fairhurst,

2001, p. 80). Putnam and Fairhurst also note the term intertextuality, a point where

organizational discourse, texts, and institutional context intersect to create meanings unique to an

organizations culture and communication patterns.

Context comprises characteristics surrounding and associated with organizational

communication and gives a basis for perceived appropriateness, acceptable speech behavior and

textual communication (context of media, entertainment, information exchange, and so on).

 J. Turner 4

Putnam and Fairhurst (2001) describe “pragmatics” as a study of language that is particularly

interested in contextual factors. Meaning is central to pragmatics, but context, agency, and the

relationships of actors are seen as important factors in deriving meaning from messages sent and

received. Action is motivated by working out the dialectic tension between “what is said and

what is meant (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001, p. 89)” with consideration of context and relationship.

In the following table, I demonstrate the importance and affect of context on meaning

and perception. One seven-word statement about women taking male –dominated jobs generates

twenty contextual factors involving gender, power, history, time, socio-economic status, and so

on. Considering the viewpoint described by Putnam and Fairhurst (2001), context has a

significant effect on shaping meaning, and controlling and/or being controlled by politics,

gender, organizational culture, and so on. I could not find anything about the relationship of

power to context, but it seems reasonable to assume that whoever holds power over

organizational discourse can at least manipulate context in the way it is perceived by less

powerful organization members. (See Table 1, next page)

 J. Turner 5

Deconstructing A Statement For Contextual Factors

“Women1 are2 taking3 historically4 male5-dominated6 jobs.7”

Word Context

Women1, male5 Gender/Roles/Behavior

are2 Time (present)

taking3 Power/Control/Agency

historically4 Change from Past to Present

dominated6 Power/Control/Hegemony

jobs.7 Socio-Economic/Expertise

Additional Contextual Factors

Associated Fact Refers To

Who made the statement? Voice/Status/Power/Gender

Who heard it? Status/Space/Gaze/Face/Gender

When and where was it made? Time/History/Place/space

How was it made? Voice/Tone/Emotion

Table 1. Turner, J. (2010)

 J. Turner 6

C. Addressing sexual assault and/or harassment with a mixed methods/triangulation study

(Albrecht & Ropp, 1982: Faules, 1982; Flick, 1992. Cited by Taylor & Trujillo, 2001,

p. 166.)

Clearly demonstrating specific differences in the way males and females describe and

respond to words, language, and behaviors associated with sexual assault and/or harassment may

create a unique and powerful teaching/training tool for the Sexual Assault Services Office. A

mixed methods approach, using qualitative research in the first stage and quantitative methods

for the second, could provide rich data controlled for validity and reliability. Differences

between female and male students’ attitudes and towards key words, language, behavior, and

themes regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault could be predicted and results measured

to verify or nullify a hypothesis.

I believe the approach I am suggested centers on critical communication theory and

feminist theory. This approach considers male viewpoints to be dominant in the organizational

discourse at George Mason University as a basis for researching sexual harassment and sexual

assault issues. The quantitative methods used would be a basic research question-hypothesis-data

collection-data measurement process.

A suggested hypothesis would be simply that female students will experience and

perceive key words, language, and behaviors derived from interviews differently than male

students. Further, female students will experience more extreme emotional states compared to

male students in regards to words , language, and behaviors that signify or are associated with

sexual harassment and sexual assault. As qualitative methods include emergent themes, the list

of terms and situations associated with sexual harassment and/or assault could change before

quantitative methods are employed.

 J. Turner 7

The first stage of this research would be interviews with randomly selected female

students, a nod to the quantitative methods. These interviews would include a series of questions

about words, language, and behaviors that female students associate with sexual harassment and

sexual assault from their own life experience and from discourse with other female students.

Open-ended questions (“Is there anything you would like to add?”, and so on) would

accommodate different language and behavioral experiences and cultural points of view. Male

students would be asked the same questions, also accommodating for emergent themes or

questions.

The second stage would involve using quantitative methods to measure for significant

similarities/dissimilarities between male and female beliefs and attitudes (there are scales and

questionnaires for this that I haven’t had time to research). In particular, the male students could

be given the list of words, language, and behaviors defined by female students as indicative of

sexual harassment and sexual assault. Male students could be asked to identify which definitions

of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and associated words, language, and behavior agree

with their own definitions. The hypothesis would predict significant differences in perceptions

and beliefs between female and male students.

If the hypothesis for this study is verified by data collected and measured, it could serve

as a training tool for both male and female students. A verified hypothesis would suggest that

male and female students need to find a more equitable definition of sexual harassment and

sexual assault. If this could be achieved by changing the dominant discourse over time, it would

demonstrate the strength of communication research in dealing with sexual assault issues. The

next page shows an example of interview questions for the suggested study.
 J. Turner 8

Questions for Female and Male Students Related to Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault

1. What happens that is called sexual assault or harassment?

2. Where does it happen most often? Describe places.

Does it happen in public areas on campus? Does it happen in class, in hallways to

classrooms, at sports events or other public events? Private areas like dorm rooms or in a

residence? During the day/night?

3. How often would you say consumption of alcohol is associated with sexual

assault/harassment? Drugs?

4. Have you witnessed sex harassment of someone else? Have you experienced sexual

harassment? Sexual assault?

5. Who does it happen to, who does it?

6. Any behavior or communication prior to sexual assault or harassment that you can name /

define/describe?

7. What words ,language, nonverbal behavior do you associate with sexual assault or sexual

harassment. Specific examples?

8. Would you describe the words, language , and behavior as extreme/intense, weak/mild, not

disturbing, disturbing, annoying, funny, charming, frightening, suspicious, aggressive/passive,

dangerous?

9. Do you know anybody that has been sexually assaulted and/or harassed?

J. Turner, 2010
 J. Turner 9

References

Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive Organizational

Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cited by Llutgen-Sandvik, P.& Sypher,

B.D.(2009).

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In The New Handbook of Organizational

Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, F.M. Jablin & L.L.

Putman (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,19-22.

Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cited by

Putnam, L.,L. & Fairhurst, G.T. (2001).

Forbes, D.B. (2007). African-American women in authority, an oxymoron? Exploring

resistance in the organizational experiences of African-American women

managers. In International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. XXX.

B.J. Allen, L.A Flores, M.P. Orbe (Eds.), 83-115.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cited

by Taylor and Trujillo (2001).

Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cited

by Miller, K. (2001).

Llutgen-Sandvik, P.& Sypher, B.D.(2009). Introduction. In Destructive Organizational

Communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing.

P. Llutgen-Sandvik & B.D. Sypher (Eds.). New York: Routledge.

Miller, K. (2001). Quantitative research methods. In The New Handbook of Organizational

Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, F.M. Jablin & L.L.

Putman (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 137-160.

 J. Turner 10

Putnam, L.,L. & Fairhurst, G.T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and

Concerns. In The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in

Theory, Research, and Methods, F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putman (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, 78-136.

Sutton, R. & Staw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-

384.

Taylor & Trujillo (2001). Qualitative research methods. In The New Handbook of

Organizational

Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, F.M. Jablin & L.L.

Putman (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 161-194.

Waldron, (2009). Emotional tyranny at work: Suppressing the moral emotions. In Destructive

Organizational Communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of

organizing, P. Llutgen-Sandvik & B.D. Sypher (Eds.). New York: Routledge, 9-26.