There should be published not only positive examples or great findings, but, from time to time, also negative examples. Otherwise everything would seem just smoothly working in science and education. Moreover, there would be no peer pressure on bad or unprofessional actors in science. Having this in mind, this review belongs to such, in a sense, an unwelcome, but necessary category of outputs. Yet it brings a valuable lesson.
This is a review of an e-brochure that claims to be a „scientific monograph“. Indeed, formally, from the point of local statistical-legal obligations, the size just meets the minimum limits. The file (there is actually no hard-copy available) has 59 pages (with „Introduction“ starting on page 4). It was written by a professor of media studies, so-called „guarantor“ of studies at a Faculty level.1 This is the extremely limited size for the category „AB Scientific Monographs published in domestic publishing houses“ (FM, 2022) in social sciences. Naturally, such a concise brochure should be very specifically focused and well-written. Also, the bibliography, or resources used, should prioritise either the most recent findings, or the key finding(s). It appears that the author had inclinations towards the later path. However, the majority of sources can be identified as being published around the turn of the century or even earlier: 1956, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1996 (3x), 1998 (2x), 1999, 2000, 2001(2x), 2002(2x), 2003 (3x), 2004, 2005 (2x), 2007, 2009 (4x), 2011. The most recent ones include self-citations by Hajduk: 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2019. Thus, we have here an e-booklet that relies on very old sources. Theoretically, but very unlikely, this could work – but not in the case that deals with communication research. The last decade, in particular, witnessed an eruption of research on social media. This issue is mentioned only in a few sentences in this book. Therefore, it is also striking to find a chapter called „Contemporary Research Theory“. I come to this chapter later on.
The most fundamental question is – what is the purpose of this publication? It has been published in English, but there are already available scores of books in English about communication and media research. Let us explore if we find the purpose or the message of this book.
The book is divided into: „An Introduction, Communication Research, Research Designs, Contemporary Research Theory, Data Collection Methods, Research Strategy, Research of a Media Regulation, Conclusions and Bibliography.“ At first impression, research strategy should precede both Research Designs and Data Collections Methods. It is also questionable why there is a specific micro-chapter devoted to specific Research of Media Regulation.
In „Introduction“, the author claims (with mistakes in grammar) that „This scienitfical monograph takes an innovative, multi-research-design approach to understanding and conducting communication research.“ (p.4). This innovation should be understood as finding and supporting interrelations or connections between quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The author defined his „innovation“ further in a sense that quantitative and qualitative methods „cannot be entirely separated as they share many commonalities„ (p.4). Well, all this is nothing new – it is well-known knowledge. For example, just in local conditions, Hanzel (2009) has already published well-written paper exactly about this „innovative“ approach. However, professor Hajduk did not notice his argument – there is no referrence to this study in his work. Similarly, Schȕtz (2003) has raised perhaps a controversial argument that social sciences methodologies may be more suitable for research on general principles for understanding human knowledge than methodologies from natural sciences. This puzzling idea is not mentioned (be that positive or negative feedback) in the PDF.
In the chapter „Communication Research“ the author discusses the purpose of scientific research, as well as the meaning and variation between „media“ and „mass media“. Then he moves to „media theory“, and specifically to the 70 years old „normative theory“. All this is done in three pages…. It is unclear here how is normative theory related to communication research. Of course, it is related, but this is not explained by the author. Neither it is clear why at least an enumeration of the most known media theories is not available here. Ideally, of course, would be to explore how a particular media theory impacts research strategy.
The next chapter is „Research Designs“. The author has identified research designs as „historical-comparative, unobtrusive, experimental, qualitative, quantitative, and content analysis research“ (p. 9). Well, these are, strictly speaking, research methods. Research design is usually understood more broadly, as the technique, methods and essential details of a project. Research methods (indeed, sometimes called a design) are then broadly divided into quantitative and qualitative. Furthermore, we can discuss within these two primary groups e.g. experimental research, exploratory research, descriptive, etc. For that purpose we can use as research tools surveys, case studies, interviews, etc.
Of course, this is open to discussion and interpretation and there is only limited consensus. In fact, the author himself writes that „The research design dictates the next phases: the data collection methods and tools ..“ (p.9).
Anyway, after discussing briefly only historical-comparative and experimental research methods (moreover, for unknown reasons, examples are taken from Canada), the author makes a sudden rupture and moves to discuss „the social critical perspective“ and to Hallin and Mancini theory (p.11). This leads him to media policies and communication policies (pp.11-15). Well, all in all, this is the rather bizarre flow of ideas within „Research Designs“.
Then comes „Contemporary Research Theory“ (p.15). Instead of providing a critical review of contemporary research theories (yes, there are many theories, not just one, see e.g. Balnaves, Hemelryk Donald, Shoesmith, 2021), the author starts a discussion – or rather paraphrases another author – on differences between quantitative and qualitative research. Moreover, after a few sentences on this topic, the author suddenly moves to „Hierarchy of mechanisms of regulation and accountability at national level“ (p.16) within the chapter „Contemporary Research Theory“. This unacknowledged subchapter (pp.16-24) includes also discussion on freedom of the press, press concentration, transparency, press councils, licencing conditions, etc.
It really does not make much sense to review this „scientific monograph“ in detail. It is sufficient to mention that the e-brochure has also incorrect textual graphical layout – there are many words merged together. Not only that, there are many grammar mistakes such as „…allow aresearcher..“ (p.4) or „…an investi-gator…“ (p.6). It is also a bit bizzare to find out that this publication, although officially defined as „print“ (FM, 2022), is not available even in the library of the university that allegedly published it as a hard copy (Knižnica PEU, 2023).
In conclusion, this „scientific monograph“ is nothing more than something similar to, if not identical with, poor quality bachelor´s or master´s thesis. Yet there are many bachelor´s or master´s theses that reach higher quality, are more systematically written, and bring at least some new knowledge – than is the case of this „scientific monograph.“ Fundamentally, this chaotically written e-booklet, based on outdated sources, does not deliver what it promised – multi-research-design approach to understand and conduct communication research. In fact, its alleged „major innovation“ is nothing new – there has been identified another local author that pointed at this key „innovative“ issue more than a decade ago. Surprisingly, in the Conclusions, the author starts discussing „The last stage of conducting communication research is writing the report and presenting thebqualitative findings and quantitative results“ (p.52). Then, in the next concluding paragraph, changes his original focus (promised innovative, multi-research-design approach to understanding and conducting communication research), to media ethics „The monograph identifies the assumptions of the pre-digital approach to ethics, and describes the “fatal blow” that digital media delivered to this traditional framework. The monograph argues for a radical media ethics and outlines some features of the emerging ethics. It concludes with an agenda for digital journalism ethics.“(p.54). To show the absurdity of content of this e-book, the last sentence in Conclusion states that „Cultural studies are one of the most progressive areas of media studies and, from their inception to the present day, they have been working to curb media research.“(p.57).
As mentioned, the printed version of this e-text is not available. Formally, there should be available a 100 hard copies. E-version is actually banned from being disseminated „without prior approval by the author.“ Thus, the scientific or pedagogical purpose of this quasi-scientific e-text remains mystery.
Nonetheless, there are lessons to be taken from this review. The first key lesson is that this is not how to write an effective text. The second lesson is that one should not automatically assume that a professor’s publications are always scientific.The third lesson is that reviewers are not always helpful. The fourth lesson points out that there may not be effective quality control in university publishing activities—in fact, it seems that anything can be published. The fifth lesson highlights the unreliability of local statistics regarding scientific outputs from professors or universities. The sixth lesson indicates that some „publications“ may not be publicly accessible. The seventh lesson is that something can be labeled „scientific monograph“, while, in fact, it may be neither scientific nor really monograph. It may be just a chaotic text, with significantly high level of random collection of sentences, sections or chapters. It may start with a specific goal and end with different finding(s) or questions.
Sources:
Hanzel, Igor (2009). Kvalitatívne, alebo kvantitatívne metódy v sociálnych vedách? Filozofia, 64 (7), 646 ¬ 657.
Mark Balnaves, Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, Brian Shoesmith (2021). Media Theories and Approaches: A Global Perspective. Palgrave
Knižnica PEU (2023, 14.1.). E-mail from kniznica@paneurouni.com
FM (2022). EPČ výstup pre inštitúciu – Fakulta masmédií. Prehľad publikačnej činnosti Fakulta masmédií za rok 2021 stav záznamu: zapísané, potvrdené, verifikované OHO, verifikované OHP
Schȕtz, Alfred (2003). Tvorba pojmov a teórií v sociálnych vedách. Filozofia, 58 (3), 347 ¬ 359.
Andrej Školkay, The School of Communication and Media, Bratislava, Slovakia
Reviewed e-booklet:Ľudovít Hajduk, Communication and Media Research. 2021. Published by Paneurópska vysoká škola, n.o., Bratislava, Slovakia. ISBN 978 – 80 – 89453 – 82 – 5. Internal and external reviewers of the book: Assoc. Prof. PhDr. Janka Kyseľová PhD. and Assoc. Prof. PhDr. Stanislav Benčič, PhD.