Critical Research Paradigm

Karl Marx famously said “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the purpose is to change it.” (Vermeer, BCSC 200 slide deck, 2020). In order to change the world, we must first understand it and challenge beliefs, often long-held and influencing modern perspectives, institutions, and cultures. Researchers who undertake such definition of historical, sociological, and philosophical evaluation seek understanding through examination of who holds power and who is oppressed, attempting to understand how the underpinnings of perspectives, institutional power structures, resources, and policy can affect society … [and] try to reveal how our use of language and social practices can perpetuate injustices to members of society (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 222). A critical research paradigm seeks understanding within a utilitarian or qualitative context that assesses and enables advocacy for change (Merrigan et al., 2012, pp. 37-39). Although the interpretive and critical paradigms were built on the discovery paradigm, all three are very different, with unique histories, philosophies, methods of research, and functions. 

Moore (2016), defines “critical theory broadly as a lens through which to critique and work toward changing unjust operations of power” and critical empirical research as “critical theory used to critique and promote change in the observable world” (p. 2). Critical theory in communications arises from several diverse traditions and “often attends to institutional power, ideological power, discursive power, and/or acknowledges the self as constructed, fragmented, contradictory and in flux (Alvesson & Deetz, 2006; Lannamann, 1991; Moore, 2016; Tracy & Trethewey, 2005, p. 2). Indeed, critical communications research and theory are highly interconnected, (Merrigan et al. p. 222), and the critical paradigm proposes an activist lens through which to view inadequacies. “Critical theorists assert that research can neither be neutral nor apolitical, and theory should be developed and employed to unearth, critique, and propose radical solutions to social inequalities” (Moore, 2016, p.7). “Criticality in social theory and research denotes the kind of research that not only seeks to satisfy some given [existing] needs, but also to create and develop those needs, to enlarge progressively the population of its users, and to raise civic consciousness (Splichal, 2008; Splichal and Mance, 2018, p. 400). 

As technological advances fundamentally changed communication, a number of schools of thought arose examining how people use communication as a social construct, how those constructs create fundamental socio-cultural institutions, and how those in turn influence society, including the premise that social reality reflects the interests of the powerful, perpetuates social inequality, and may be used to resist social inequality (Merrigan et al.., 2016, pp. 43-44). Looking back at how critical theory and critical communications research evolved, we must consider critical political economy, which is concerned primarily with how power is constituted and used, revealing “the elements of social institutions that produce unequal access to resources (Vermeer, BCSC 200 slide deck, 2020). Founders of the Frankfurt school, for example, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, focused largely on how mass culture “allows capitalist interests to penetrate deeper into our lives, but ultimately serves capitalist interests, a self-defeating “organ of soft domination (Mills & Barlow; Vermeer, BCSC 200 slide deck, 2020). 

Other critical theories pivotal to the development of critical communication theory include those of feminism. Feminist theories have their roots in the late eighteenth century with the rise of women’s suffrage and observations of women’s unequal social participation. Second-wave feminism arose in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, while third-wave feminism arose in the mid-1990’s amid demands for recognition and individualism. Feminist standpoint theory “assumes knowledge is socially produced in the interest of power” (Vermeer, BCSC 200 slide deck, 2020). 

There are numerous critical theories, however, that contributed to modern perspectives on critical communications research. Critical studies scholars work primarily from two schools of thought, structuralist and poststructuralist theory (Merrigan et al.. Pp 222-223). While structuralists contend human behaviour and thought is constrained, guided, or determined by structural aspects of human society, and that understanding them can unlock keys to their significance in human behaviours, poststructuralists maintain such structures are “ephemeral” with humans constructing webs of meaning through their language and arguments (Merrigan et al., 2012, pp. 223-224). Conversely, structuralist criticism identifies the “social arrangements most responsible for unequal power distributions” with a view to reforming economic, political, and cultural means of power distribution” (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 225). Structural theorists examine such power distribution through critical Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytical [Freudian], universal pragmatic discourse [Habermas], and carnival [Bakhtin] theories. (Merrigan et al.. pp. 224-225). Critical poststructural approaches include the poststructural [Foucault], poststructural feminism [Butler], postmodern [Lyotard, Foucault], postcolonial [Said, Bhabha, Anzaldua], cultural [Gramsci, Hall, Williams], and semiotic [Barthes, Metz]. (Merrigan et al. p. 229). Structuralist theories, such as those of Gramsci, see hegemony in cultural production as a tool that maintains domination by securing the spontaneous consent of the subordinated (Dremel et. al, 2014, p. 155), while poststructural theories see social power as discursive. Critical research viewed through the lenses developed by these theories, such as feminism, provides context, historical evaluation, and particular standpoints which enable contemporary scholars’ understanding of foundational communications, power, and oppression. “We can even argue that gender is a key to how societies work, so questioning sex and gender means we are questioning some of Western society’s most fundamental ideas” (Vermeer, BCSC 200 slide deck, 2020). 

“Of the many influences on how we view men and women, media are the most pervasive and one of the most powerful,” and may fall into three themes: underrepresentation of women, sustained stereotypes that reflect socially endorsed views of gender, and emphasis on traditional roles that normalize violence against women (Wood, 1994, p 31). An example of how those influences impact women’s daily lives, and how research can affect change, is examined by Shari Munch’s study of gender-based diagnosis of women’s medical complaints, “… a tendency for physicians and other health care professionals to mislabel women’s somatic complaints as non-serious and/or psychosomatic …” (Munch, 2004, p. 105). She attributes revelations into such bias to feminist literature and research. “Analysis of the literature reveals feminist perspectives played a critical role in uncovering and problematizing gender bias in women’s healthcare (Munch, 2004, p. 101). Feminist contributions enhanced our understanding of the ways in which knowledge about women and female medical diagnoses were constructed by society in general, and medical professionals in particular, and conveyed important implications for women’s health.” 

Critical research is largely qualitative in nature. Researchers may make descriptive clams that evaluate hegemony and ideology, evaluative claims to establish standards and render judgements, or reformist claims, which not only evaluate, but also identify negative social consequences as a means to instigate change (Merrigan et al., 2012, pp. 55-56). The methods deployed by critical researchers have deep philosophical roots, in empiricism, first “advanced by the ancient Greek writings of Plato and Aristotle, which combined with that of rationalism to form the three emphases of clarity and precision; systemic inquiry; and repetition for verification (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 40; Mertens, 1998, pp 6-10; Smith 1988, pp 307-309). Methods of research typically utilized in the critical paradigm include historical research, policy analysis, critical discourse analysis, critical ethnography, Marxist criticism, feminist criticism, postmodern and poststructural criticism, and postcolonial criticism. Philosophical traditions informing the critical paradigm, however, do not define methods of research, and several methods common to different paradigms may be integrated (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 41) 

In her exploration of the role of activist research within intercultural communication, Rachel Droogsma (2007) uses a critical lens to examine the methods employed by critical researchers engaging in intercultural communication research. “Since critical scholars ‘make a conscious effort to fuse theory and action [Littlejohn, 2002], it seems vital that critical scholars examine the lack of cohesion between the critical paradigm and the methods they employ, particularly in communication and culture research” (p. 8). She contends a political, activist agenda must become part of the critical researcher’s rhetorical toolkit to “avoid maintaining the oppression of culturally marginalized groups and persons in their research” (p.18). Researchers who adopt a postpositivist view may use a falsification methodology, “which prompts us to believe our claims are false unless we can prove they are true; naturalism, which prompts us to study ‘natural’ settings for social interaction and culture; and realism, which prompts us to distinguish between objective reality and our perceptions of reality” (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 40; Pravitt, 2-4; Bostrom, 2004). 

Regardless of the research question being explored within the critical paradigm, “no research can ever be value free” (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 56) and critical scholars may argue they have an ethical obligation to improve social conditions through their research efforts. “When you work within the critical paradigm, you must decide not only whether your argument is logical but also whether it makes a positive contribution to society. Effectiveness becomes an ethical value judgement rather than a precise measure of a rational claim” (Merrigan et al., 2012, pp. 56-57; Foss, 2004; p. 243). Specific types of claims within the critical paradigm include: “Descriptive claims that represent ideology and hegemonic relations; Evaluative claims; Reformist claims” (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 58). Dremel et al. (2014) consider Foucauldian methods as a theory of action introduced by Norman Fairclough, which sees discourse as social practice, and they utilize evaluative and reformist claims in this research. “Seeing discourse as social practice enables us to combine the perspective of structure and action, because practice is at the same time determined by its position in the structured network of practices and a lived performance, a domain of social action and interaction that both reproduces structures and has the potential to transform them” (p. 155). 

Not all claims are utilized in a single study, and scholars may choose to utilize only the evaluative or the reformist claims. “That said, whenever one type of claim is made explicitly, generally the other type of claim is made implicitly through the scholar’s analysis and conclusions” (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 57). As in Dremel et al. (2014), critical research may describe the claim, but within a context of hegemony and/or ideology, evaluate the standards and render judgements based on how well or poorly met the communication phenomenon being researched meets such standards, and then ascertain negative implications of impact to social systems with a view to reform, or, instigate change (Merrigan et al., 2012, p. 56). “This paper offered an attempt to deconstruct the discursive construction of some myths that conceal the cultural politics helping shape our societal and cultural imaginary” (163). Using qualitative methods, ideological and political communication economy critique, the paper analysed and revealed the coupling of popular culture and women that contributed to gendered distinctions in social spaces. “The analysis is the contribution to the critiques of the theories of modernization in social theory, bringing perspectives that takes account of the female experience, the private sphere, and the logic of consumption in the formation of what we call modernity” (Dremel et al. 2014, p. 164). 

Clearly integrating claims, methods, and philosophical underpinnings in a research question is integral to formulating an effective thesis, but critical scholars have to decide if a research question is logical and if it enables positive contributions to society (Merrigan et al., 2012, pp. 56-57). For example, Moore (2017), states, “Because the field of critical theory is so expansive and diverse, and because I desire to advocate for theoretical precision in future research, in this study I argue for the adoption of critical postmodern — and specifically post structural — theory into critical interpersonal communication research.” Moore further details questions she will attempt to answer with her research, and contends her project will guide and enable scholars of interpersonal communications to contribute to the “dialogical-dialectal coherence of critical theory that has become so influential in the communication field” Moore’s research, which explores the need for interpersonal communication to be included as a as a subdiscipline of critical theory and critical research, demonstrates how a critical perspective can evaluate and inform, but also how the critical paradigm enables judgement of ideologies and facilitates change. “It is paramount that this research be positioned as interpersonal communication research so that it will help shape and enhance the future of the subdiscipline …” (p. 14). “One of the greatest contributions of critical theory to communication studies has been advocacy for a more socially just world …” Moore concludes that critical empirical research within the field of interpersonal communication “necessarily lends itself to a social justice oriented scholarly agenda by critiquing and transforming inequitable operations of power” and recommends integrating critical theory into scholarly training of critical communication theory (p. 16). 

In another example of the critical paradigm, Munch (2004) questions how feminist literature and knowledge during 1970-1995 uncovered and problematized gender bias in women’s health care. “Numerous medical conditions have historically been and continue to be targets of gender-based stereotypes about women’s nature and women’s bodies” (p. 101). Qualitatively, through secondary research of literature, Munch examines the perpetuation of gender bias through language and metaphor in medical texts, and how the institution of medicine used such bias for social control, as well as policy development that occurred with second wave feminism in the 1970’s. “Advances in the feminist movement since the early 1970’s have led to transformations of knowledge in both clinical practice and scholarship on gender and health” (p. 102). She proposes her research indicates “implications for contemporary women’s health care research are evident” and recommendations include follow up research innovation in medical education that emphasizes patient physician relationships, as well as re-examination of stereotypical attitudes about women, research to understand to what degree female physicians are “socialized by the patriarchal nature of medical training,” and “micro-level analyses addressing the social agency of women.” 

Dremel et al. (2014) examine approaches to discourse as means to change within the context of “Gender discourse in the mapping and reception of the life and work of Marija Juric Zagorka, the first Croatian woman journalist, proto-feminist, and the writer of popular fiction” (p. 155). Using discourse analysis to examine language use and the meanings communicated in pop culture, the study analyses how social reality is constructed and made real through discourses and social interaction (p. 156), specifically through a Foucauldian lens of “the relationship between power and resistance” (p. 157) and using the example of journalist and novelist Marija Juric Zagorka. In a section entitled “The problematic status of popular culture or on the politics of exclusion” (p. 159), the researchers use empirical research to examine “the investment of the order of discourse into social change (Dremel et al., 2014, p. 159; Fairclough, 1995). They conclude results show possible subversive intervention into discursive practices, and indicate the need for “detailed empirical research on discursive effects in a series of domains as a method of research on the political investment of the order of discourse into social change” 

(p. 164). 

Through a critical paradigmatic lens, scholars cast a light on the underpinnings of communication, though which many of society’s fundamental ideologies and philosophies are founded and function, using it to view and understand the subtleties of power, and of subjugation. Critical research, while viewed through diverse theoretical frames, uses such theory to inform historical and contemporary understandings of communication as a social construct with the power to oppress, and considers the oppressions with a view toward creating avenues for change. In difference to descriptive claims, critical claims are subjective and qualitative, may encompass the descriptive and/or the evaluative, but may also consider claims of reform. This is a paradigm that suits me very well, and I would like very much to consider further studies in critical, and in evaluative, communication research. Everything in our world is related to communication in some way, and many of the means of oppression are subtle, while others are more overt, but they all impact our culture and our society. How they do so is fascinating to me, but I also inherently seek to create a better world. Someone once asked me, in response to an editorial opinion I’d written, if I expected to change the world. My reply was, if something I wrote changed the perspective of one person, then I had changed the world. I’m not hoping to change the world through my research, but I do want to better understand how our communication had formed the world we live in today, and how we can use communication to make it a better place.

References 

Anita Dremel, & Renato Matić. (2014). Discourse and/as Social Practice – the Analysis of the Problem of Resistance and Hegemony. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22). https://library.macewan.ca/full-record/edsdoj/edsdoj.5e325899fcbc48daa32535b7ae7928e9 

Droogsma, R. (2007). Infusing the Critical Research Paradigm with Activism: The Case for Activist Research in Intercultural Communication. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. https://library.macewan.ca/full-record/ufh/35506647 

Merrigan, G., & Huston, C. L. (2020). Communication research methods (Fourth edition.). Oxford University Press. https://library.macewan.ca/full-record/cat00565a/8672046 

Moore, J. (2017). Where Is the Critical Empirical Interpersonal Communication Research? A Roadmap for Future Inquiry into Discourse and Power. Communication Theory, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12107 

Munch, S. (2004). Gender-Biased Diagnosing of Women’s Medical Complaints: Contributions of Feminist Thought, 1970-1995. Women & Health, 40(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v40n01_06 

Splichal, S., & Mance, B. (2018). Paradigm(s) Lost? Islands of Critical Media Research in Communication Journals. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx018