Trend in Communication Policy Research

By Intellect Books Ltd

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 communication policy research and its contribution to policy-making. Topical and of high societal and political relevance, this authoritative and up-to-date volume with contributions from leading international experts will prove an invaluable reference for students and scholars seeking to understand future trends in communication policy research.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Intellect Books Ltd
• Release date: Jul 23, 2012
• ISBN: 9781841506883

Book preview

European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA)

This series consists of books arising from the intellectual work of ECREA members. Books address themes relevant to the ECREA’s interests; make a major contribution to the theory, research, practice and/or policy literature; are European in scope; and represent a diversity of perspectives. Book proposals are refereed.

Series Editors

Nico Carpentier

François Heinderyckx

Series Advisory Board

Denis McQuail

Robert Picard

Jan Servaes

The aims of the ECREA are

a) To provide a forum where researchers and others involved in communication and information research can meet and exchange information and documentation about their work. Its disciplinary focus will include media, (tele)communications and informatics research, including relevant approaches of human and social sciences;

b) To encourage the development of research and systematic study, especially on subjects and areas where such work is not well developed;

c) To stimulate academic and intellectual interest in media and communication research, and to promote communication and cooperation between members of the Association;

d) To co-ordinate the circulation of information on communications research in Europe, with a view to establishing a database of ongoing research;

e) To encourage, support and, where possible, publish the work of young researchers in Europe;

f) To take into account the desirability of different languages and cultures in Europe;

g) To develop links with relevant national and international communication organizations and with professional communication researchers working for commercial organizations and regulatory institutions, both public and private;

h) To promote the interests of communication research within and among the Member States of the Council of Europe and the European Union;

i) To collect and disseminate information concerning the professional position of communication researchers in the European region; and

j) To develop, improve and promote communication and media education.

First published in the UK in 2012 by

Intellect, The Mill, Parnall Road, Fishponds, Bristol, BS16 3JG, UK

First published in the USA in 2012 by

Intellect, The University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Copyright © 2012 Intellect Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the

British Library.

Cover designer: Persephone Coelho

Copy-editor: MPS Technologies

Production manager: Tim Mitchell

Typesetting: Planman Technologies

ISBN 978-1-84150-674-6

ECREA Series ISSN: 1753-0342

eISBN 978-1-84150-688-3

Printed and bound by Hobbs, UK

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Natascha Just & Manuel Puppis

Chapter 2: Communication Policy Research: Looking Back, Moving Forward

Natascha Just & Manuel Puppis

Part I: New Theories

Chapter 3: Prospects and Pitfalls of Douglass North’s New Institutional Economics Approach for Global Media Policy Research

Jan Loisen

Chapter 4: ‘It’s the Idea, Stupid!’ How Ideas Challenge Broadcasting Liberalization

Matthias Künzler

Chapter 5: The Accountability and Legitimacy of Regulatory Agencies in the Communication Sector

Manuel Puppis & Martino Maggetti

Chapter 6: Change and Divergence in Regulatory Regimes: A Comparative Study of Product Placement Regulation

Avshalom Ginosar

Chapter 7: Technologies as Institutions: Rethinking the Role of Technology in Media Governance Constellations

Christian Katzenbach

Chapter 8: Veto Players and the Regulation of Media Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Media Policy Research?

Ulrike Klinger

Part II: New Methods

Chapter 9: A Political Scientist’s Contribution to the Comparative Study of Media Systems in Europe: A Response to Hallin and Mancini

Peter Humphreys

Chapter 10: What We Talk about When We Talk about Document Analysis

Kari Karppinen & Hallvard Moe

Chapter 11: Qualitative Network Analysis: An Approach to Communication Policy Studies

Maria Löblich & Senta Pfaff-Rüdiger

Chapter 12: Towards a Media Policy Process Analysis Model and Its Methodological Implications

Hilde Van den Bulck

Part III: New Subjects

Convergence

Chapter 13: Battle of the Paradigms: Defining the Object and Objectives of Media/Communication Policy

Karol Jakubowicz

Chapter 14: Content Control and Digital Television: Policy, Technology and Industry

Andrew T. Kenyon, Julian Thomas & Jason Bosland

Chapter 15: Regulating and Monitoring Online Activities of Public Service Broadcasters: The Case of Switzerland

Natascha Just, Michael Latzer & Florian Saurwein

State Aid

Chapter 16: Conditional Access for Public Service Broadcasting to New Media Platforms: EU State-Aid Policy vis-à-vis Public Service Broadcasting – the Dutch Case

Jo Bardoel & Marit Vochteloo

Chapter 17: Film Support in the EU: The Uteca Case and the Future Challenges for the ‘Main Characters’

Lucia Bellucci

Chapter 18: New Approaches to the Development of Telecommunications Infrastructures in Europe? The Evolution of European Union Policy for Next-Generation Networks

Seamus Simpson

Participation, Power & the Role of Gender

Chapter 19: Public Service Television in European Union Countries: Old Issues, New Challenges in the ‘East’ and the ‘West’

Peter Bajomi-Lazar, Vaclav Stetka & Miklós Sükösd

Chapter 20: Civil Society and Media Governance: A Participatory Approach

Pietro Rossi & Werner A. Meier

Chapter 21: Stepping Out of the Comfort Zone: Unfolding Gender Conscious Research for Communication and Cultural Policy Theory

Katharine Sarikakis

Notes on Contributors

Introduction

Natascha Just & Manuel Puppis

Trends in Communication Policy Research

Technological, economic and social trends are changing the context of communication policy. 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.

In this volume, we are not just interested in what the above-mentioned changes mean for communication policy but foremost and more importantly in what the challenges and implications are for communication policy research. As the insights of communication policy research are fundamental to understanding and shaping media landscapes and thus for safeguarding the existence of the media necessary for democratic societies, a thorough analysis of how we undertake this research is needed. Although communication policy research traditionally proves to be a self-critical as well as self-conscious (and not always self-confident) area of research, it has been a while since new directions for communication policy research in Europe were discussed.

Trends in Communication Policy Research 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. This unique volume is a compilation of articles that were mostly presented at the 2009 workshop of the European Communication Research and Education Association’s (ECREA) Communication Law and Policy Section in Zurich (Switzerland). The original call for papers solicited work that deals with questions of how to approach new communication policy issues theoretically and methodologically, of understanding what insights can be gained from the application of theories and methods of cognate areas and of identifying what policy challenges are emerging.

However, some chapters were added, as conference proceedings – no matter how thoroughly planned conceptually – always risk not doing justice to the overall field, and omissions are almost inevitable. The volume for the most part offers perspectives from European scholars on communication policy research. However, neither is it a book about European communication policies, nor is its use confined to this geographical context alone. Particularly those contributions dealing with questions of what theories and methods may be appropriate for furthering communication policy research are of wider significance. Whereas several contributions highlight the trend to apply various strands of new institutionalism to communication policy, demonstrating the potentials and limitations of such approaches, other theoretical perspectives are reflected as well. Despite technological convergence, most articles focus on traditional mass media. Nevertheless, this volume also emphasizes the trend of increasing research into the Internet, communication infrastructures and telecommunications regulation.

Thus, with the help of scholars from a variety of countries who contributed with their specific expertise, Trends in Communication Policy Research succeeds in offering thorough analyses of a wide range of communication policy subjects and addresses various methodological and theoretical challenges that face this field of research.

Overview of the Book

The introductory chapter by Natascha Just and Manuel Puppis (Universität Zürich) looks into the history of communication policy research and its contribution to policy-making. It shows that our research field is often highly self-conscious and not too self-confident, bemoaning the state of research as well as the perceived lack of influence and recognition. The authors argue, however, that communication policy research is instead a meaningful and mature sub-division, which is capable of making itself heard. Nevertheless, in order to cope with changing society and changing communication policy and to gain new insights into policy and regulation, scholars also need to apply theories that have previously not been considered. Furthermore, research methods need to be more thoroughly discussed and scrutinized so as to increase awareness of their benefits and challenges. And finally, it is pertinent to keep an open mind regarding new research subjects.

Consequently, it is necessary to discuss new or rarely employed theoretical and methodological ways of analysing communication policy issues and to identify changes in communication policy that require scholarly attention. Trends in Communication Policy Research is thus divided into three parts: new theories, new methods and new subjects.

New Theories

Scholars in communication policy research apply a wide variety of different theoretical approaches to their subjects. Articles in this part of the book apply theories that have previously been considered only marginally in communication policy research to different subjects. Specifically, institutions (different forms of new institutionalism), interests (actorcentred approaches) as well as ideas are used in order to gain new insights into policy and regulation.

Jan Loisen (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) builds upon Douglass North’s new institutionalism in order to analyse the audio-visual dossier of the World Trade Organization. He argues that this framework makes it possible to map the complexity of the issue and to analyse institutional change. The analysis indicates that the audio-visual dossier is on a pathdependent course to liberalization. However, there is scope to include non-economic concerns.

Matthias Künzler (Universität Zürich) is interested in liberalization as well. Looking at the introduction of private broadcasting in three small European states, Künzler uses an ideas-based approach to explain differences in regulation. Based on Berger and Luckmann’s sociology of knowledge, he develops a theoretical model that can be empirically tested in order to show how ideas are able to shape media policy decisions.

Regulatory agencies have become key actors in communication policy-making. Manuel Puppis (Universität Zürich) and Martino Maggetti (Universität Zürich and Université de Lausanne) focus on their contested accountability and legitimacy. By drawing on policy diffusion theory and new institutionalism in organization studies, they argue that both the participation in regulatory networks and the political communication of regulators may enhance their accountability and legitimacy.

Avshalom Ginosar (Emek Yezreel Academic College and University of Haifa) looks into regulatory regimes of product-placement regulation in the European Union, Canada and Israel. New institutionalism is employed in order to understand the similarities and differences between these regimes. The theory reveals the path dependency of the policy discourse and of the stakeholders’ positions and thus of the outcome of the political process.

Using a different institutional theory, Christian Katzenbach (Freie Universität Berlin) attempts to link approaches and insights from science and technology studies with a governance perspective. He argues that conceiving of technology as an institution is necessary in order to take the politics of information and communication technologies into account as well as to overcome a determinist view on technology.

With veto-player theory, Ulrike Klinger (Universität Zürich) applies a theoretical concept of political science to media ownership regulation. She argues that veto-player theory connects well with actor-centred approaches and can open the ‘black box’ of political decision-making. As an example, she compares reforms of ownership regulation in very different political systems – Mexico and Italy.

New Methods

The articles in the second part of the book on the one hand analyse often used but rarely discussed methods of communication policy research like comparative methods and document analysis. On the other hand, the potential of new approaches focusing on networks and coalitions is dealt with. By focusing on methods, these articles establish a basis for scrutinizing and advancing communication policy research in this area.

Peter Humphreys (University of Manchester) discusses the existing comparative communication policy research. After dealing with the development of approaches to comparing media systems, he specifically focuses on Hallin and Mancini’s seminal typology. His argument is that insights from historical institutionalism are needed to explain national divergences.

Focusing on a widely used method of communication policy research, Kari Karppinen (Helsingin Yliopisto) and Hallvard Moe (Universitetet i Bergen) talk about document analysis. The authors argue that it is necessary to explicate the process from data gathering to actual analysis in order to increase the impact of communication policy research both in academic and policy debates.

The use of qualitative network analysis as a research method for communication policy research is discussed by Maria Löblich and Senta Pfaff-Rüdiger (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München). This approach offers an opportunity to empirically investigate how interactions produce network structures and how actors are shaped by their networks. The merits and pitfalls of applying interviews and network cards are discussed using the example of the protection of minors in Germany.

Similarly, Hilde Van den Bulck (Universiteit Antwerpen) is also interested in the main policy-making stakeholders. The starting point of her article is the fact that researchers often face blind spots in their understanding of the political process, hence missing out on key documents and actors. She develops a process model for the analysis of media policy and discusses its methodological implications.

New Subjects

New policy challenges arising from media change are manifold and widespread in communication policy research. The theoretical and empirical articles in this section analyse specific new and emerging policy challenges and give an overview of current communication policy research and future fields of inquiry where research is still being developed or scholarly attention is called for.

The collection in this part of the book includes various overlapping issues that share a common topic or problem, yet they approach and analyse it from various angles and points of view. These articles have several links with articles not only in this part, but also in other parts of the book. The issue of convergence, for example, is explicitly or implicitly acknowledged as a major driving force of many current and future changes in communication policy and thus in communication policy research. The analysis by Just, Latzer and Saurwein is closely linked with New Methods, as it presents a novel research approach that methodologically furthers online research in the fields of data collection, online content and link analyses. The article by Sarikakis connects with New Theories, as it calls for a wider theoretical recognition of human and gender aspects in communication policy-making and provides guidelines for a human-centred policy approach.

The articles are arranged according to the three sub-sections, Convergence, State Aid and Participation, Power & the Role of Gender.

Convergence is the motor of change in communication policy and consequently sets the framework for much current research. Karol Jakubowicz (Warsaw, Poland) analyses how technological change impacts the conceptual framework of media and communication policy by analysing changes in the object (‘the media’) and objectives of communication policy as well as shifts in communication policy paradigms.

With convergence and digitization, new topics are emerging and others are becoming more prominent. Andrew T. Kenyon (University of Melbourne), Julian Thomas (Swinburne University of Technology) and Jason Bosland (University of Melbourne) analyse policy challenges resulting from digital content management and show how there are shifting conceptions of public interest and regulation in relation to audio-visual content.

The online activities of public service broadcasters are disputed throughout Europe and the Internet is evoking various challenges for the monitoring and control of such activities. Natascha Just, Michael Latzer and Florian Saurwein (Universität Zürich) discuss regulatory responses to and regulatory implications of online activities of public service broadcasters, based on the first large-scale study assessing the compliance of the Swiss PSB’s online service with regulations.

With the increasing disputes surrounding PSB’s online activities, European state-aid policy and the role of the European Commission have become more important in communication policy-making.

Jo Bardoel (Universiteit van Amsterdam and Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen) and Marit Vochteloo (Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences) examine the struggle over how to balance cultural and economic interests in European public service broadcasting policy. They review European state-aid policy, its effect on Dutch broadcasting regulation and infer from their analysis how the current direction of PSB policy may depoliticize the definition of the role and remit of PSBs while in turn politicizing their actual editorial strategy.

European state-aid policy and the controversies over the cultural and economic nature of communication goods play a determining role in the field of cinematographic work as well. Lucia Bellucci (Università degli Studi di Milano) identifies these controversies as a source of conflict within and between the European Commission and EU member states and discusses attendant challenges that may determine the future of developments in this policy area.

State-aid policy to broadband and next-generation networks is another thus-far under-addressed, yet emerging, research area. Seamus Simpson (University of Salford) reasons that the neo-liberal character of EU telecommunications policy is being continued in this area and consequently jeopardizes and restrains the extent of state intervention for social policy reasons, despite official rhetoric to the contrary.

Finally, the sub-section on Participation, Power & the Role of Gender brings together three articles that focus on various contexts of changes in media and media governance, the role of civil society and the claim for a wider theoretical attention of gender in policy research.

Although the place of PSB as one of the key pillars of national media systems has been secured in western Europe for many decades, such a historical legacy is absent in post-communist east and central European countries. Peter Bajomi-Lazar (University of Oxford), Vaclav Stetka (University of Oxford) and Miklós Sükösd (University of Hong Kong) analyse these PSB systems comparatively with regard to trends in audience share, changes in funding schemes, supervision and political influence. They conclude by asserting that public service media need broad public support in order to guarantee its autonomy and independence.

Pietro Rossi and Werner Meier (Universität Zürich) outline how the involvement of civil society is paramount in governance processes. Based on results of case studies of advertising regulation, they argue how a participatory media governance approach, with its emphasis on conferring decision-making power on the public, may result in a reinvigoration of the democratic legitimacy of the mass media.

Finally, Katharine Sarikakis (Universität Wien) argues for the need for a gender-conscious agenda in communication policy analysis in order to adequately contribute theoretically and practically to understanding the complex power relations of social and political worlds. Such a perspective would seek to integrate a gender perspective, among other things, in the evaluation and analysis of policy objectives and of the effects of policy implementation.

Words of Thanks

It would not have been possible to organize the 2009 workshop of the ECREA’s Communication Law and Policy Section in Zurich without the substantial financial support of the Association of Non-Professorial Academic Staff at the University of Zurich (VAUZ), the University of Zurich’s Hochschulstiftung and the University of Zurich’s Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research (IPMZ), whose generous support we gratefully acknowledge.

We would also like to thank ECREA for selecting this volume to be published in the ECREA Book Series and for subsidizing its publication. Moreover, the Zürcher Universitätsverein (ZUNIV) and the IPMZ generously co-financed the proof reading of the manuscript. Last but not least, our thanks go to David Westacott (Vienna) for copy-editing and to Florian Schmitz (Zurich) for supporting us in the production of this volume.

Chapter 2

Communication Policy Research: Looking Back, Moving Forward

Natascha Just & Manuel Puppis

Old paint on a canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines: a tree will show through a woman’s dress, a child makes way for a dog, a large boat is no longer on an open sea. That is called pentimento because the painter ‘repented,’ changed his mind. Perhaps it would be as well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again. (Hellman 1973: 3)

Introduction

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. This makes it almost impossible to sort out, identify and categorize all of the scholarship in this area. As Rowland (1984: 423) noted:

[…] [there is] no central, uniformly recognized body of literature and instruction [that] qualifies as communication policy studies, and there is no singularly comprehensive forum for its discussion. […] while the topic is treated […] as if it were a recognizable whole, it is in fact a widely disparate body of work about whose dimensions there is relatively little agreement.

Despite its ‘exceptional and deeply rooted difficulties’ (McQuail 1994: 39), the study of communication policy ‘is a meaningful area of research and theory in communication studies’ (Reinard and Ortiz 2005: 594). It is generally argued, however, that the peculiarities of communication policy pose unique challenges to communication policy analysis, ‘a particularly daunting set of questions’ (Bauer et al. 2005: 1) and ‘an analytical burden more complex than analysis in other policy areas’ (Napoli 1999: 568). Communication policy decisions can directly affect political and social beliefs and values that are central to the democratic process and often involve both economic and social value objectives (Napoli 1999: 566, 570). Decisions have far-reaching effects on society and affect the creation, processing, dissemination and use of information – in other words the processes that create shared meaning among members of a society (Bauer et al. 2005: 1; Krieger 1971: 306). Quite ironically, however, communication policy issues are low profile, and do not receive the same attention as nuclear power plants, inflation or balancing the budget (Havick 1983: 15). In addition, under the pretence of press freedom, it is often argued that communication policy is unwarranted. As a consequence, the very idea of policy for communication as well as of researching such policies has been regarded with suspicion (McQuail 1994: 39; Rowland 1984: 427).

This article does not intend to offer a cohesive review of all scholarship let alone to account for the whole history of communication policy research. The outcome of such an endeavour would always be ‘incomprehensive and incomplete’ (Sarikakis 2008: 294).¹ Instead, in attempting to understand the state of communication policy research, it recalls some narratives that have had a lasting influence on it and continue to shape its current status. This is characterized by self-analysis of epistemological matters, applied theories and methods, and similarly by a history of debate and fundamental criticism about its actual contributions to theory development and practice. This is mirrored in the questions of the general role of communication research in communication policymaking with its endless discussions over administrative versus critical research as well as in communication scholars’ liking for self-castigation with regard to their assumed failure to actively inform and contribute to policy processes or to realize social objectives effectively. In essence, it is argued here, however, that communication scholars should move from self-consciousness to self-confidence about their work and that there are sufficient grounds to do so.

In what follows, this article first discusses the origins and legacies of communication policy research and, second, the role of research in communication policy-making. After this look back, the final section discusses options of moving communication policy research forward.

Origins, Legacies, Controversies

An important and founding impetus for communication policy research came from Harold D. Lasswell, who also figures prominently as a founding father of communication science and policy science (Rogers 1994). He argued that future advances in communication study depended upon the development of a policy focus and upon being a third voice supplying ‘a competing appraisal of the images spread by self-serving sources’ (Lasswell 1972: 307).

It is not enough for communication specialists to acquire skill in surveying, content analysis, or other technical operations. A genuine profession can be said to complement skill with enlightenment. In the case of communication, this implies a common map of the trends, conditions, and projections of the entire process. It also implies the capacity to invent and evaluate policies for the accomplishment of postulated goals. (Lasswell 1972: 306)

In his writings on the policy sciences, which Lasswell began in the 1950s, he identified various key requirements for the policy sciences: that they be multi-disciplinary (multi-method approach), have a problem-oriented, contextual outlook and be explicitly normative (Lasswell 1951, 1970). Furthermore, he stipulated the need for a democratic, distinctly human policy science by emphasizing ‘the policy sciences of democracy […] directed toward providing the knowledge needed to improve the practice of democracy’ (Lasswell 1951: 15).

The extent and impact of Lasswell’s legacy and the appraisals of his commitment to democracy, morals and policy are disputed, however (e.g., Brunner 2008; Farr et al. 2006; 2008). Lasswell is characterized as ‘a contradictory figure, at once positivist and value-laden, elitist and democratic, heroic and implausible’ (Farr et al. 2006: 579). His work and contribution is seen by critics such as Rowland (1984) as the epitome of positivism, of formal policy science neglecting wider democratic concerns and social responsibilities. Critical scholars argue that the question ‘why’ should be added to Lasswell’s five-question formula (who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?), which broadly frames the subject matter of communication studies, and also for an emphasis on the context in which communication occurs (Olson 1989: 73). Supporters of his work, on the other hand, stress that others misconstrue Lasswell’s conception of policy sciences, with its emphasis on contextual orientation, and thereby obscure precisely those dimensions of his work that counter the positivist logic (Torgerson 1985). Although the controversies of legacy are not resolvable here, these historical narratives set the terms of discussion regarding the status of communication policy research and also regarding the relationship of mainstream communication science and policy research. The debates on administrative and critical research have become prime examples of this ongoing conflict (see later).

The Development of Communication Policy-Making and Policy Research

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. Van Cuilenburg and McQuail (2003: 182), for example, identify three consecutives phases of communication policy-making and argue that ‘it would be anachronistic to speak of communications policies before the series of electronic inventions beginning with the electric telegraph in the mid-19th century’. This is also when the idea of a systematic study of policy-making started. Braman (2003c) traces this idea back to the birth of the bureaucratic welfare state in the late nineteenth century, with the telegraph and postal service serving as prime examples. This first phase (from the mid-19th century until the start of World War II) was marked by ad hoc measures aimed at facilitating and regulating innovations with the intent of protecting the national interest and fostering the development of communication systems. However, during this phase the lines for the future regulation of other media were laid down as well. Of particular importance here is the development of the distinction between policy regimes on the basis of technologies and distribution networks during the later years of this phase (van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003: 186f). This resulted in what Pool (1983: 2) termed a ‘trifurcated communications system’ with the three domains of communication (print, broadcasting and common carriage) subject to different regulatory regimes. This characteristic would later unsettle communication policy research, especially with regard to the definition and demarcation of its research object, because of its mostly narrow focus on mass media with a concurrent neglect of telecommunications.

Policy-related research in general flowered noticeably in the period following World War II (Braman 2003c: 38; McQuail 1994: 40). One reason for this, as Rowland (1984: 424) states, is that the experience of the war contributed to an interest in applying science in the service of transforming society. Nonetheless, to the extent that the history of communication policy is characterized as ‘a story of inertia and incrementalism’ (Bar and Sandvig 2008: 532), this similarly holds true for communication policy research.

As a consequence, the beginning of an institutionalized and more systematic communication policy research is often dated later than its idea, namely around the 1970s, at a time when both communication science and the policy sciences took off (Harms 1977; 1980) and national communication policy-making widely emerged (Schiller 1975).

Ten years ago few communications practitioners thought in terms of any overall communication policy, and few communications researchers would have recognized policy research as an established category. All that has changed. Communication policy has emerged as a field of research. (Pool 1974: 31)

A factor that also influenced this late development was that relatively stable market structures with monopoly regulation and national protectionism generally led to there being little interest in political analysis of broadcasting and telecommunications.²

The political decision for liberalization was then an important step in the surge of communication policy research. Yet, the greatest impetus for the acceleration and development of communication policy research is most frequently attributed to technological change. It is seen as the key driver for the rise of and for changes in communication policy-making and hence research into it (e.g., Krieger 1971; Pool 1974; Rowland 1984; Reinard and Ortiz 2005). As Rowland (1984: 426) states, an overwhelming amount of communication policy literature has been dominated by problems of technological change. As a result, ‘most of the discussions of public policy for the mass media during the past fifteen years have been driven by questions about the role and promises of the new technologies’ (Rowland 1984: 426). These statements are very similar to the bulk of more recent discussions of convergence of media, telecommunications and information technologies, which yet again have spurred increased communication policy research. The scholarly interest in communication policy issues has since become the domain of various academic disciplines from law to sociology, economics and communication science (Latzer 2009). Technological change alone is not enough, however, for changes in policies and research. Instead, technology should be viewed as an enabler of such change. Latzer (2009: 415) views these processes as co-evolutionary, which means that the direction and speed of change is ‘shaped by the reciprocal interplay of technological innovations, corporate strategies, political–legal reforms as well as changes of media reception patterns.’ Such a view also transcends the dichotomy between technological and social determinism.

Nonetheless, technology has had a strong fixing influence on many of the parameters that define communication policy research: the above-mentioned technology-oriented sub-division into media and telecommunications and into mass/individual communication, which are in turn also reflected in the respective regulatory structures and the research agendas (Latzer 2009). With convergence then ‘the search for a new communications policy paradigm’ began (van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003: 181), and communication scholars (particularly in Europe) started to get a grip on their field of research, especially by trying to incorporate telecommunications, which had long been ignored in favour of mass-media research with an emphasis on public communication. Mueller (1995: 465) in fact argues that ‘telecommunications has been interpreted as outside the purview of [the] field’ and that in order to achieve policy relevance it is essential ‘to jettison mass communication as a label for the field or program of research.’ Similarly, van Cuilenburg and Slaa (1993: 173) conclude that by ignoring such issues, communication science will damage the political and policy relevance of its work and run the risk of not being able to play an adequate role in public debates. This dispute then also resonates in the discussions of how to define communication policy research, which is dealt with in the next section.

Defining Communication Policy Research

Lasswell (1970: 3), who not only discussed key requirements but also brought forward a definition of policy sciences as knowledge of the policy process and knowledge in the process, emphasizes that communication policy research encompasses two tasks: on the one hand, it is research about communication policy; on the other hand it also informs communication policy-makers (Harms 1980: 5).³ The former concerns the subject(s) of communication policy research; the latter touches upon the role of communication policy research in communication policy-making and will be dealt with in the next section.

But what exactly does research about communication policy entail? By and large, there is a lack of concrete definitions of communication policy research or its subjects. The definitions run from generic to more specific to enumerations of research topics. For example, Rowland (1984: 423) describes communication policy research as the ‘investigation of those issues centering around the way in which – and why – societies and governments make choices they do regarding the purposes, ownership, control, support and guidance of their media institutions and services.’ In a similar vein, Kunkel and Farinola (2001: 413) state that research into communication policy traditionally means studying the policy-making process as well as examining the patterns and trends in communication policy over the years. Van Cuilenburg and McQuail (2003: 183f) identify precise elements of interest to communication policy research:

[…] the goals or objectives to be pursued; the values and criteria by which goals are defined or recognized; the various content and communication services to which policy applies; the different distribution services (mainly print publishing, cable, satellite and broadcast dissemination and telecommunications); and finally the appropriate policy measures and means of implementation (mainly embodied in law, regulation, self-regulation or market practices).

Other approaches to circumscribing the field of communication policy research focus on the analytical distinctions commonly applied in political science, namely the distinctions between polity, politics and policy (e.g., Puppis et al. 2010: 276f). This allows for the analysis of the institutional setting, the process and actors of communication policy as well as of the content of actual decisions. Yet others categorize communication policy research by way of different disciplinary perspectives. Vowe (2003), for example, distinguishes between a historical school of thought that analyses communication policy chronologically with an emphasis on reconstructing developments; a law perspective with a focus on communication freedom; a social science approach centring on democratic and social functions, and an economic approach concerned with issues of state intervention in communication markets.

The Role of Research in Communication Policy-Making

As already outlined, Lasswell’s (1970: 3) definition of policy sciences as knowledge of the policy process as well as knowledge in this process suggests that communication policy research also involves making information available to decision-makers. It aims at providing ‘policymakers with pragmatic, action-oriented recommendations’ (Majchrzak 1984: 12).

This view of communication policy research directly ties in with the fierce debates on the role that communication research should play in communication policy-making. Lasswell (1972: 303ff) was quite specific about the potential influence of communication research at the various stages of the policy-making process. An important question that comes to mind here is whether communication scholars care enough to contribute to policy-making effectively (Docherty et al. 1993: 231) and what kind of conditions influence or restrain their attitude towards involvement. It is argued here that restraints are in part home-made, ‘institutionalized’ by the endless debates over administrative versus critical research and communication scholars’ love of self-castigation. As the conditions for involvement have recently been enhanced because of convergence and attendant changes in governance patterns, scholars should strive for increased participation, paying particular attention, however, to the context in which such involvement occurs.

The Endless Struggle over Administrative Versus Critical Research

The distinction between the critical and administrative, originally introduced by Paul Lazarsfeld (1941) in the early 1940s, has been a focal point and a curse in the debate over the role of communication research in general and of communication policy research in particular. In its strictest sense, administrative research is understood as research ‘carried through in the service of some kind of administrative agency’ (Lazarsfeld 1941: 8) or ‘carried along on the strength of industrial or government grants’ (Rowland 1986: 170). It is quite often associated with positivist, behavioural analytical methods that promise great mathematical precision and objectivity or is defined as applied (market) research devoid of any wider theoretical considerations of pressing social and economic issues (Martin 1976: 19). This is also why ‘research, in its applied, administrative, policy-related variety, became identified with the would-be manipulators of a capitalist or bureaucratic order […]’ (McQuail 1994: 41). Or as Rowland (1986: 170) puts it:

There is little analysis that is deeply social, political or cultural, and most of the discussions of domestic and international policy problems are presented from perspectives that, whether conscious or not, are ultimately protective of the fundamental structures and global status of the American corporate welfare state […].

What distinguishes critical research from administrative research then is that the former ‘develops a theory of the prevailing social trends of our times […] and […] seems to imply ideas of basic human values according to which all actual or desired effects should be appraised’ (Lazarsfeld 1941: 9).

The distinction between administrative and critical research can be traced back to a time when different research traditions met in the US, i.e., when European social theory as articulated by the Frankfurt School encountered US communication scholarship, with US research showing more of a tendency towards assessing media systems within the given policy parameters and European research emphasizing the importance of critique (Corner et al. 1997: 4; Rowland 1986: 165). By now, researchers identifying themselves with either tradition or both can be found on both sides of the pond. Yet, the struggle over deliberate disengagement and engagement is still continuously voiced (Docherty et al. 1993: 231).

In essence, administrative research is criticized for yielding to the temptation of simply solving short-term problems and maintaining the status quo rather than investigating more basic questions of existing political and economic power relations (Martin 1976: 19; Melody and Mansell 1983: 104; Rowland 1986: 178). The contribution of critical research lies in scrutinizing the taken-for-grantedness of societal structures and of communication policy. It can reveal that the way things are is not an objective necessity and that communication policy can be imagined and constructed otherwise (Streeter 1990: 61). Yet, critical research too often contents itself with documenting weaknesses and failures in existing institutions (as well as in administrative research) instead of analysing institutional structures and presenting solutions (Melody and Mansell 1983: 110).

This struggle over administrative versus critical research has been revisited many times. Often it is presented as an unresolved dispute about the nature of research as either favouring the positivist nature of quantitative analysis and evidence-based decision-making by simultaneously eschewing normative and value judgements or acknowledging explicitly that communication policy research is value-laden, occurs within specific social and political contexts and involves subjective judgement (Just 2009). However, it is of utmost importance to recognize that the distinction is not one between empirical and non-empirical research. Lazarsfeld himself assumed empirical work to be part of both traditions (Braman 2003b: 12). The debate is not about rejecting empirical research but about asking what ‘empirical social research could and should do within a theoretical framework’ (Hardt 1976: 94f). Moreover, both traditions can perform applied policy research (Katz 1979: 83) and hence do research about policy and also inform the policy process. ‘The fundamental distinctions lie not in the realm of abstract theory and methodology. […] The real basis for the dichotomy between critical and administrative traditions lies in the allegiance of researchers to the status quo versus change […]’ (Melody and Mansell 1983: 109f).

Administrative and critical researchers thus differ in the selection of relevant realworld problems. This context of discovery, as Max Weber (1968) called it, simply cannot be objective and value-free. As a consequence, even though Lazarsfeld believed that both traditions could be integrated (Braman 2003d: 422; Melody and Mansell 1983: 105), such attempts seem to be doomed from the very beginning (Docherty et al. 1993: 232). But again, both traditions can produce knowledge of the policy process as well as inform the policy process.

Communication Policy Scholars’ Love of Self-Castigation

For many years, however, scholars self-critically complained that communication studies had failed to inform communication policy-making significantly and that other disciplines ‘have filled the policy research gaps left vacant by communications research’ (Napoli and Gillis 2006: 671). Communication scholars regularly complain about the inability of the field to define itself, its lack of recognition from the outside world and, most importantly, a lack of influence (Kunkel and Farinola 2001: 411f). Noam (1993: 199f, 1999: 424), for instance, criticizes the fact that communication science has played only a marginal role in communication policy and has thus lacked a real-world role. Mueller (1995: 457) agrees, stating that communication scholarship has failed to have a noticeable impact upon policy responses to the changing communication environment. ‘The closer we get to ideas which have directly shaped public policy, the more communication scholarship recedes from the picture’ (Mueller 1995: 459). Economics and law seem to make themselves heard more efficiently (Bauer et al. 2005: 22; Mueller 1995: 459f; Noam 1999: 424).

Several reasons have been advanced for this failure to play a more prominent role in policy-making. Firstly, it has been argued that communication scholarship and public policy had long been operating out of sync. ‘Not until recently has research served mutual needs. Media researchers have gained legitimacy and, indeed, importance, and regulators have gained a sympathetic support group armed with the facts’ (Reeves and Baughman 1983: 40). Secondly, communication science has developed rather slowly as an academic discipline (Reeves and Baughman 1983: 40). Thirdly, policy-makers’ predominant professional background in law and economics leads them to pay less attention to the main issues raised by communication research. As a consequence, communication scholars have ‘faced a steeper hill to climb in terms of receiving consideration from policy-makers’ (Napoli and Gillis 2006: 672). And finally, everyone has his or her own experience of the media, thus feeling confident enough to comment critically on our field of research (Reeves and Baughman 1983: 40f). Moreover, communication researchers are themselves often criticized for their unwillingness to become engaged in the communication policy-making process (Napoli and Gillis 2006: 686). To make a contribution to communication policy, this obviously needs to change.

It seems that the time has come to repaint this bleak picture of a lack of recognition. Arguably, the opportunities for communication scholars to contribute to communication policy-making have improved significantly. The demand for research in communication policy-making is greater than ever. ‘This is due to the changing nature of the questions being asked by policymakers […] and a growing recognition within the policymaking community of the limitations of economic analysis in answering important communications policy questions’ (Napoli and Gillis 2006: 672; see also Ang 2008; Verhulst and Price 2008). Further, with convergence the regulatory regime for the communication sector as it had been taught and practised for several decades is crumbling and a new pattern of governance is emerging. Some characteristics of this transformation also affect the relationship between communication research and policy-making.

With convergence, not only is the economization of the convergent sector increasing, but the importance of the often overlooked interaction of social and economic implications in the mediamatics sector is also growing. Because of increasingly application- and effect-dependent regulation in the new governance model, communications research may gain momentum and growing relevance in the shaping of policy making […]. (Latzer 2009: 423)

Regardless of whether communication policy research did indeed fail in playing a role in communication policy-making in the past or whether the self-consciousness of the field mutated into some kind of self-castigation, at least today communication policy research is anything but absent from the policy process. ‘It is our position that communication policy research is a vital element of the field that is contributing significant knowledge to help inform and influence public policy, despite persistent concern to the contrary’ (Kunkel and Farinola 2001: 412).⁴ The problem, Kunkel and Farinola (2001: 426) claim, is not that our research fails to reach the policy arena but that the field receives no credit. It is difficult to make a conclusive assessment of this claim, however, as there are no detailed studies of participation.

Be that as it may, there is good reason to share a more confident view. Although this does not mean that scholars should overestimate their influence, moving from self-consciousness to self-confidence seems appropriate, as continuous complaining seems counter-productive, hindering more than contributing to any advance. Generally, it seems that there is good reason for communication scholars to be able to join the chorus of disciplines that inform communication policy-making.

After all, communication policy research has a lot to offer. It can help in interpreting situations and selecting a course of action, in deciding how to address a policy problem and in designing specific policy measures (Bauer et al. 2005: 5). There are consequences for society when the knowledge represented by researchers is not used. Thus, there are good reasons for informing the policy process. First of all, communication policy research contributes to an improvement in decision-making. Policy needs and the effects of policies in place can only be made visible by research (Braman 2003a: 6). Without research, policy decisions are not as informed as they should and could be. Scholars can raise the knowledge level of policy debates and guide them in the direction of the most relevant issues (Melody 1990: 33, 37; Pool 1974: 40). Moreover, due to its greater independence from vested interests,⁵ academic research is both less subject to pressures to deliver preordained outcomes (Frieden 2008: 424) and in a unique position to focus on issues that go beyond the normal short-term horizons of policy-makers (Melody 1990: 33).

Certainly, convenient ideas will attract more interest than threatening ones. Good research is not necessarily the one that helps regulators do a better job (Reeves and Baughman 1983: 41) and policy-makers are less interested in analyses that are too far outside the range of what they deem politically feasible (Haight 1983: 230f). Yet, ideas matter. They need to be expressed in the policy process and can be used ‘to illuminate, legitimate, and do battle’ (Noam 1993: 200). By informing the policy process, communication policy researchers expand the range of possibilities contemplated by policy-makers and may assist them in understanding the choices available (Bauer et al. 2005: 2; Braman 2003a: 6;