Nagehan Uzuner, Ph.D.

This paper is written to reconsider the concept of signification. I aim to be in the clear of the terms; language, materialism, semiotics and structuralism which have an important place in communication. Furthermore, I discuss the concepts by putting forward my own opinions in order to clarify the concepts. In particular, I contribute to the mythology of Roland Barthes, which I think is a good example of the social sciences and their multilayered relations with people, in the context of marketing and communication. Although I do not open up a deep debate, this paper re-examines the concepts and highlights the important sides of the issues.

This paper is written in order to describe and reflect the concept of identity and representation. Further I would like to contribute the synergy and balance of the notions of identity and representation and try to conceptualize them by my own understanding on the behalf of where they fit in the culture and power. Thereafter I try to enhance to embody the concepts by adding my own personal opinions and criticize the notions by some given examples. Even if there is not an in-depth philosophical discussion on this paper, the concepts are tried to be criticizing by tackling.

This paper is written in order to describe the concept of dialogicality. Further I try to enrich to embody the concept by adding my own personal opinions and experiences on various examples. I would like to contribute to dialogicality and conceptualize it which is progressing in a synchronous flow with life and within life in terms of its starting point and the path it follows. Even though it will not open up philosophical debates in depth, this paper gives us an opportunity to stop and think about “I” which refers self; and “you” which refers opposite of the self in our daily lives.

Decision making processes are explained just as Petty & Cacioppo’s “Elaboration Likelihood Model” (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In addition to this model narrative communication tools’ impacts on cancer awareness, messages on beliefs, attitudes and call to action behavior are expressed. This paper aimed to describe ELM and narrative communication as tools for health behavior change. However additional instinctions concerning motivations why real cancer survivors can be effectively convincing derived from persuasive content in narrative messages. Evidence of the proposals are viewed. These proposals would be developed for the further researches.

Kyle Rudick states that higher education shows the reflections of racism and reproduction of a racialized domination that characterizes throughout American society. (Rudick 2016) In recent years students of color as a part of an international movement as #BlackLivesMatter have started to challenge all the faculties, moreover touched to the communication students to have a recognition that racism manifests at all universities. Rudick carried out particular interviews with 14 self-identified students of color  who are identified themselves “person of color” in Midwestern University and he used narrative analysis to present three participants’ specific responses which are giving us the clues of rationalized domination manifests within and beyond the classes. (Rudick, 2016)
Even if we know that racism is an old ethnic discrimination in United States, the article is contemporary. It is not just one of the biggest problem of United States. All around the world in all countries racism falls on our lives and the news day by day. Rudick’s research (Rudick, 2016) reminds me cult movies such as “La haine (Kassovitz, 1995) and American history X (Kaye,1998)”. Both movies had the same messages as “hate brings hate” and “the world is ours”. (Kassovitz, 1995)”

Various communication messages spring to life in landscape designs, such as the materialization of spirit and consciousness in the human body. The many different notion and knowledge are implicit in visual communication constructions in architecture. Kevin Raaphorst, Ingrid Duchhart, Wim van der Knaap, Gerda Roeleveld and Adri van den Brink (2017) explained how these concepts of visual and critical social theory can be used on landscape architectural representations and proposed to study these representations by using visual methodologies before proceeding further. Visual discourse analysis, iconographical content analysis which goes beyond the image and interprets identification of the content of the images, and social semiotic analysis are the meaning-making stages of the representations. 

Landscape planning and design processes are participatory and transdisciplinary activities, in which experts and laypeople collaborate and play an active role in designing landscape projects (Thering &Chanse, 2011). During these processes visual representations are an important means of communicating analytic findings, abstract ideas, and design principles, and to inform and persuade participants (van den Brink & Bruns, 2012; Mertens, Robinson, & Kirkland, 2010). The representations can convey the messages between the participants and landscape design. This issue is not just discussed to be framed landscape design communication in landscape architecture. Moreover it interprets people’s needs of communication with all different kinds of purposes.

The articles of Peter Demerath (2006), Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie & Nancy L. Leech (2005) and David L. Morgan (2014) explore the relationship between pragmatism, methodology and politics of research in the scope of different point of their views. While Demerath (2006) and Onwuegbuzie & Leech (2005) handle their articles to enucleate the description of notions of the combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods, Morgan (2014) puts flesh on the bones of something by his own contemporary definitions on pragmatism as a paradigm in social research.

Demerath (2006) tries to shed light on the notion of context in his article and he discusses how qualitative researchers could apply limited conceptions of what forms actually “scientific”, states qualitative research in education is on progress and suggests some modes to influence the projects of qualitative researchers. Demerath (2006) aims to draw a line in his article to make researchers work smoothly with the modes which can effect the knowledge, praxis and the reasons that are most devoted by researchers.

As a British-American Educational Psychologist and a Professor of Educational Measurement and Research; Antony J. Onwuegbuzie and a Professor of Research and Evaluation Methods; Nancy L. Leech (2005) lay emphasis on becoming a pragmatic researcher by combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in their article. Their study lays stress on the debate between methodologies.“On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies” entitled paper justifies as all graduate students learn to imply and be pleased with all quantitative and qualitative research methods. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2006) conclude their article; choosing just one methodology and not stepping out of line is a huge threat to improvement of the social sciences and premediate using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies can be fortifier for pragmatic researchers. They encourage researchers to be more cognizant of all kinds of research methodologies which can be used in the same research area.       

David L. Morgan who is a Professor in Department of Sociology at Portland State University (2014), is interested in pragmatism in social research. His warm study published with “Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research” entitle. Morgan (2014) handles the term pragmatism as a paradigm to explain its entity within the proposal of all mixed-methods research which is put emphasis on praxis of pragmatism instead of having philosophical expectations from pragmatism. His study speculates this vacancy by John Dewey’s concept of inquiry in the social science. His main aim is to understand social research and political concerns which connect pragmatism and social justice. 

My reflection paper humbly seeks to reflect to all these articles which I read them heatedly with a huge interest of an aim to understand these researchers way of handling these significant subjects as pragmatism, methodology and politics of research. I would pay attention so far as one can to value attributed to methodology, context, and research itself and I would share my determinations about these articles to describe the relationship between each other involvedly.

The meaning of the methodology in social sciences is constantly changing. Outrightly as a scholar in social sciences I am the one who desires to contribute her own implications on these articles. So I would like to revise them on the behalf of how these researchers use their knowledge, explanations, experiences, and, the chosen ways of their shared implications in these articles.

I believe that there is no keen distinction in social sciences. On the contrary all fields of social sciences are nourished from each other. Social sciences are pleased to receive support from other disciplines to make one’s point. With all up-to-date information, researchers in social sciences should stay aslope to pragmatism which lets researches to experience new worldviews by the collaboration with different kinds of research methodologies. 

With the help of the epistemological discussions of the aforementioned studies, I would like to elaborate the relationship between the terms.

These articles by Espiritu (2011) and Shade et all (2015) explore the relationship between media and audience with different questions and research approaches. While Espiritu (2011) handles her article within the scope of critical theory, Shade et all (2015) try to shed light on the debate about their research within the scope of positivist theory. Even the researchers’ educational backgrounds as PhD degrees in Communication, bachelors in English Literature and research interests are the common points as media and the like indeed they tackle their researches from different viewpoints by their own ways.

As an Asian associate professor of communication who teaches communication study and research, development communication, and media studies, Belinda Flores Espiritu (2011) uses a qualitative methodology in her; “Transnational audience reception as a theater of struggle: young Filipino women’s reception of Korean television dramas” entitled study. Her study analyzes “theater of struggle” in young Filipino women’s reception of Korean television dramas considering that American cultural imperialism that got a foothold in this society. The researcher uses a textual analysis by way of specific Korean television programs and focus group analysis with young Filipino college students.     

Shade et all (2015), American researchers who are interested in media studies freshly published an article that entitled; “The Uses and Gratifications of Media Migration: Investigating the Activities, Motivations, and Predictors of Migration Behaviors Originating in Entertainment Television”. This study seeks to plumb audiences and their media migration behaviors by using “uses and gratifications” audience-based survey method. The main aim of their study is to understand “why and how audiences use media; how and why audiences stop watching television and transfer themselves to use another media” by a quantitative methodology.

I read these articles excitedly and with a huge interest of understanding how researchers handle the subjects and choose the methodologies to reach significant results. I would share my determinations about these articles to describe the relationship between knowledge, researcher, epistemology and methodology.

What the methodology means is constantly changing. So I took stock of these articles by seeing how researchers use knowledge and, choose scientific methodologies to produce implications. Herein after effects of Lasswell’s; Theory of Political Propaganda in 1927, we experienced Orson Welles’s “War of the Worlds” entitled radio program’s effects on American society in twentieth century. Radio demonstrated its power which was the most important mass media in 30s as internet’s presence in today’s contemporary development of communication world. As Martin Jay (1996) mentioned that during the Frankfurt School period, the media was moving away from its own focus and started questioning the system itself. Media was so dominant in the past and currently is dominant in the present. It acted always and is still acting on its own behalf.

I believe that communication will draw fire in the near future as doing so in its fresh past. Trying to understand the terms in audience researches first we might seek how the terms are changed or modified by the changes of the conventional world to the digital world in media.

Communication’s angle of repose in all sciences is excogitated as it’s floating in interdisciplinarity. The term interdisciplinarity is unresolvable easily. It is for sure that the world will change dramatically by innovative technologies in the near future and in this most modern era and we will put down, the communication era will be beyond our current understanding. However, with the help of the epistemological discussions, I would like to elaborate what kind of differences I see in the approaches of these two papers to audience in consideration of the relationship between the terms.
 


Keywords: knowledge, researcher, epistemology, methodology, interdisciplinarity, science, field, communication.