Suchergebnisse

While disaggregation has gained prominence in policy research, it is sometimes flawed by invalid & unreliable policy measures, & by improper inferences derived from policy data. Examples of research of several types are compared, including studies which disaggregate within a level of analysis, between levels of analysis, or within a level of analysis with interlevel inferences. Reviewed are both the usefulness of disaggregation & the errors which it may generate. 1 Table. Modified HA.

Technological, economic and social trends are changing the context of communication policy. Determining the precise beginning of communication policy-making and the attendant idea of researching it systematically is difficult. It is often said to have begun with the emergence of telegraphy, telephony and wireless communication and not with the traditional mass media. Convergence, liberalization, commercialization, new media (e.g. the Internet and mobile communication), audience fragmentation and globalization are only a few of the more notable terms that describe this change. The question of how communication policy copes with these changes is not only of interest to academics but also of the highest societal relevance. Scholars are well aware of current and imminent changes; options for reforming communication policies and regulation are the subject of lively debates in the field. Communication policy research evolved from the outset as a multi-disciplinary field and domain of various academic disciplines from sociology and political science to law and economics, resulting in the coverage of a myriad of multi-faceted topics. The choice of subjects in communication policy research is affected by sociocultural, political, economic and technological forces that determine the overall framework for communication policy and regulation as well as by the many regulatory objectives in communication. Trends in communication policy research comprises the very latest developments in the theories, methods, and practical applications of the dynamic field of communication policy research. It aims to revive and foster such a discussion by offering an overview of and insights into current and future areas of inquiry in this contested policy field. The introductory chapter by Natascha Just and Manuel Puppis (Universität Zürich) looks into the history of

The article explores the intersections between the different perspectives of institutional & policy research & discusses the characteristic purposes & conditions of theory-oriented policy research, where the usefulness of statistical analyses is generally constrained by the complexity & contingency of causal influences. Although comparative case studies are better able to deal with these conditions, their capacity to empirically identify the causal effect of differing institutional conditions on policy outcomes depends on a restrictive case selection that would need to hold constant the influence of two other sets of contingent factors-the policy challenges actually faced & the preferences & perceptions of the actors involved. When this is not possible, empirical policy research may usefully resort to a set of institutionalist working hypotheses that are derived from the narrowly specified theoretical assumptions of rational-choice institutionalism. Although these hypotheses will often be wrong, they are useful in guiding the empirical search for factors that are able to explain policy outcomes that deviate from predictions of the rationalist model. 90 References. Adapted from the source document.