2000年年會論文 -台灣傳播研究典範之分析--以1989-1999為例
篇名
台灣傳播研究典範之分析--以1989-1999為例
A paradigmatic analysis of Taiwan communication research – from 1989 - 1999
作者
于心如、湯允一
中文摘要
台灣的傳播研究隨著傳播系所的增加,社會、政治、經濟的發展於過去半個世紀中有著長足的發展。如今,台灣傳播的相關學系已增至36個學系,18個研究所,以及兩個博士班。隨著傳播相關系所的增設,研究傳播學的人口也急速的增加,而傳播學的研究也相對的快速成長。

本研究採取Potter等人描繪過去美國傳播學研究所遵循的典範(Paradigm)分類方法來描繪近年來台灣傳播學研究之現況。本研究針對近年來台灣傳播學術期刊以及研討會所發表之研究進行分析。收集之論文依照AEJMC與ICA之分組標準(研究領域)、發表之時間與地點、作者之人數、作者任教機構、質/量化、抽樣方法、資料來源、研究方法、研究層次、研究之焦點、使用之理論、以及典範之類型進行登陸。再者,以典範為中心與一些相關變數進行變數分析。這些變數包含了年份、研究焦點、質量化、資料來源、及作者人數等。

研究結果發現,過去十年發表於台灣傳播學術期刊、論文研討會與博士論文之發表有逐年增加的傾向,而發表的研究領域也以大眾傳播(大眾媒體與社會)、傳播政策、傳播科技等為主要研究方向(按AEJMC/ICA之分類)。至於研究所使用理論大部分只有研究問題;而研究之層次以鉅觀為主,研究焦點則以訊息之內容與來源為主。研究方法多採取單一方法,其中又以歷史文獻法為最多。樣本類型以無樣本佔超過四成;而資料來源以分析已有之質化資料佔近三成。而質化的研究仍遠超過量化。而由作者人數以一人佔絕大多數;而第一作者所工作的學校則以政大為最多。典範類型中,社會科學佔了過四成(41.5%)、其次為詮釋(38.1%)、及批判(19.7%),其中以質化為出發的詮釋及批判佔了過半數(57.8%)。

最後,本研究以交叉分析進一步探討典範與一些相關變數是否具有數量及比例上的特殊性。這些變數包含了年份、研究焦點、質量化、及資料來源等。研究結果也發現1997年的著作數量增加以社會科學為主。而交叉分析研究焦點與典範兩變數時發現社會科學典範以訊息來源的研究為焦點佔最多,而以法規與政策的研究為焦點佔最少;在詮釋典範中的各個研究焦點則分布平均,但閱\聽人分析與媒體效果則偏低;批判典範則以訊息的研究焦點佔多數。而在交叉分析質量化與典範的結果顯示,在社會科學典範中之質化與量化比例相近;而詮釋典範及批判典範之質化所佔的比例皆過七成。交叉分析資料來源與典範時發現,社會科學典範以直接分析人佔最多;詮釋典範與批判典範則以分析已有之質化資料佔最多。最後,交叉分析作者人數與典範的結果顯示三種典範都以單一著作者佔多數;而批判典範則無四個以上的作者。
英文摘要
The communication research in Taiwan has increased dramatically as a result of the increasing number of communication programs. As today, there are 36 communication related undergraduate departments, 18 graduate programs and two doctoral programs. The increasing number of people in communication research has contributed to the growth of communication research.

This study adopts Potter, Cooper, & Dupagne’s (1993) three-paradigm aspect to describe communication research development in Taiwan during the past ten years (1989-1999). This study analyzed 176 papers that were published in mass communication related journals with anonymous review system, national conference, books, dissertation, and National Science Council’s publication. These papers then were render for AEJMC and ICA’s domain categories; publication year; publication outlets; first author’s teaching institution; number of author; type of data; sampling method; source of data; research method; scope of research; research focus; theory; and paradigm analysis. Further cross-tab between paradigm and publication year; research focus; type of data; source of data; and number of author were rendered as well.

The results show that there is a steady increase in the number of publication for communication research in Taiwan. Other things are following Among various publication outlets, journals are the main publication outlets. As to the AEJMC & ICA domain categories; the mass communication (and society), communication policy, and communication technology are the three major categories. Most of the research has only research hypothesis without adopting a pre-existing theory perspective. Macro occupies a major portion in the research scope. Message and source are the two major focuses in communication research. The leading research method shows to be literature review. Over 40 percent did not involve sampling. Qualitative data out weights quantitative data. Over 75 percent of the research is done by one first-for these papers author. National Cheng-Chi University is the school with the largest number of author. Finally, among the three paradigms, over 40 percent of research belongs to social science paradigm.

Finally, cross tabs between paradigms and some variables show there is a the dramatic publication increase in 1997,and most the increse belongs to social science paradigm; source is the highest focus of research in social science paradigm; regulation and policy is the least focus of research in social science paradigm; audience analysis is the least study focus in interpretative paradigm; message is the major study focus in critical paradigm; the qualitative and quantitative data are about the same in social science paradigm; qualitative data occupy more than 70 percent in both interpretative and critical paradigm; direct contact of people is the highest source of data in social science; interpretative and critical paradigm tend to obtain source of data through analysis of existing qualitative data; and one author seems to dominate all three paradigms.
中文關鍵詞
發表日期
2000.06.26
授權狀況
已授權