Assertion (A): After the failure of quantitative research methods to investigate the social problems, the communication scholars are now turning to qualitative methods such as ‘participant observation’.
Reason (R): The methods are not responsible for failure; it is the shallow knowledge of the scholars that is responsible for the dismal performance of communication research.
- Both (A) and (R) are true.
- Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
- (A) is true, but (R) is false.
- (A) is false, but (R) is true.
Correct Ans: (A)
Explanation:
Over the years, qualitative research in communication has gained traction. This shift happened as many scholars found that quantitative methods failed to fully capture complex social problems. These methods rely heavily on numbers and statistical models. Yet, human communication often involves emotion, context, and cultural nuances that numbers alone can’t explain.
As a result, many communication scholars have embraced qualitative tools like participant observation. This method allows researchers to immerse themselves in the environment they study. They interact directly with people and observe behavior firsthand. This leads to deeper understanding and richer data.
Now, let’s consider the reason. It suggests that the failure wasn’t due to the methods themselves but rather the scholars’ limited knowledge. This view also holds weight. A method, by itself, isn’t flawed. But when researchers use it without depth or clarity, the results suffer. Many early researchers adopted quantitative methods without fully understanding them. That led to weak conclusions and poor insight.
Therefore, both the assertion and the reason are valid. Scholars did shift to qualitative methods, and shallow understanding played a role in the failure of earlier research. However, this isn’t a case of one explanation canceling the other. Together, they show a larger pattern of evolving research choices in communication studies.
Correct Answer: (A) – Both (A) and (R) are true.