The constant comparative analysis is involved in approach.
(A) the agenda – setting
(B) personal effects
(C) positivist
(D) grounded theory
Correct Ans: (D)
Explanation:
In media research, constant comparative analysis forms the heart of the grounded theory approach. This technique involves comparing each piece of data with others to identify patterns, categories, and relationships. Researchers use it continuously throughout the data collection and analysis process, which makes the findings flexible and grounded in real-world observations.
Grounded theory doesn’t begin with a hypothesis. Instead, researchers collect data—through interviews, focus groups, or content analysis—and then develop theories directly from that data. As they analyze a new data point, they constantly compare it to earlier findings. This method helps refine categories and ensures that each idea is supported by repeated evidence.
In mass communication studies, grounded theory is incredibly useful. For example, when analyzing how different audiences interpret political advertisements, a researcher might interview several participants. As each interview ends, they compare it with previous ones to see if similar patterns or themes appear. Over time, the theory grows stronger and more detailed.
Now, consider why the other options are incorrect:
(A) Agenda-setting focuses on how media prioritizes issues, but it relies on quantitative methods, not constant comparison.
(B) Personal effects theories look at media’s influence on individuals but do not follow the grounded theory’s analytical method.
(C) Positivist approaches prefer objective measurements, structured hypotheses, and statistical testing, which contrasts with grounded theory’s inductive style.
Therefore, (D) Grounded Theory is the correct answer. It uniquely employs constant comparative analysis to ensure the theory emerges from the data itself, not from pre-existing assumptions.
To sum it up, grounded theory allows communication researchers to build meaningful, adaptable theories by constantly testing each new observation against what they already know. This makes it a dynamic, responsive approach well-suited for understanding evolving media landscapes.
