This article was downloaded by: [188.64.177.143]On: 14 July 2014, At: 13:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Journal of CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajc20

New media and politicalcommunication in Asia: a criticalassessment of research on media andpolitics, 1988–2008Ven-hwei Lo a & Ran Wei ba School of Journalism and Communication , The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong , Shatin, Hong Kongb School of Journalism and Mass Communications , University ofSouth Carolina , Columbia, USAPublished online: 10 May 2010.

To cite this article: Ven-hwei Lo & Ran Wei (2010) New media and political communicationin Asia: a critical assessment of research on media and politics, 1988–2008, Asian Journal ofCommunication, 20:2, 264-275, DOI: 10.1080/01292981003693435

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292981003693435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

New media and political communication in Asia: a critical assessment ofresearch on media and politics, 1988�2008

Ven-hwei Loa* and Ran Weib

aSchool of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,Hong Kong; bSchool of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of South Carolina,

Columbia, USA

(Received 8 December 2009; final version received 28 January 2010)

This study focuses on reviewing research on the interplay between new media andpolitical communication in Asian societies. To assess the state of the discipline ofpolitical communication and how the research advances knowledge of the roleand impact of media in politics, this study content-analyzed articles concerningmedia use in political arenas in Asian societies that were published in 10 leadingcommunication journals between 1988 and 2008. Results reveal that the socialscience paradigm was the leading paradigm of inquiry, accounting for themajority of research in these journals. The analysis also indicates that mostarticles were theory-driven and survey was the most frequently used method.American or US-based authors dominated new media and political communica-tion research in Asia. Implications of these trends are discussed with the goal toshed some light on new directions for future research.

Keywords: new media; political communication; Asian communication research;research paradigm

Goals of study

New media are political institutions, what Dutton (2007) calls the ‘fifth estate’, in

modern societies (Cook, 1998). Decades of research has documented the influence of

media on different aspects of political life in society, include Asian societies (Willnat

& Aw, 2009). The ‘mediatization’ of politics is increasing (Schudson, 2002) amidst

the explosive growth of digital new media, which create cybersphere, blogsphere,

networked societies, and mobile tribes. Asia boasts the largest population of mobile

phone users of more than 1.1 billion; the Internet has reached 50% of the population

in many Asian countries. In the new media environment, fundamental changes are

taking place in political communication in Asia.

Although communication has become an established academic discipline in Asia,

systematic review of the status of Asian communication research, including political

communication in Asia, is rare. Focusing on reviewing research on the interplay

between new media and political communication in Asian societies, this study

assesses new media and political communication research in Asia over the past two

decades to provide an empirical analysis of the trends and issues concerning

Asian political communication research. Results will shed light on theoretical

*Corresponding author. E-mail: loven@cuhk.edu.hk

ISSN 0129-2986 print/ISSN 1742-0911 online

# 2010 AMIC/SCI-NTU

DOI: 10.1080/01292981003693435

http://www.informaworld.com

Asian Journal of Communication

Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2010, 264�275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

developments concerning media and politics in Asia and conceptual articulation of

media’s role in politics in Asia that suggests both the common patterns and the

unique features of Asian communication. The results will also help spot directions

for future research in Asian political communication.

Paradigms, research traditions and methodology

Research paradigms

One way to explore trends in communication research concerning media and politics

is to examine the paradigms. According to Kuhn (1970), a paradigm ‘stands for the

entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on shared by the

members of a community’ (p. 175). Thus, a paradigm provides scholars with a

conceptual framework for seeing and making sense of the subject of study. To be

specific, Potter, Cooper, and Dupagne (1993) proposed that paradigms ‘govern the

way questions are asked, the methods that are used, the criteria for what is accepted

as data, and the standards for evaluating the validity of knowledge claims’ (p. 317).

Scholars vary widely in their views about the dominant paradigms governing

communication research (Fink & Gantz, 1996; Potter, Cooper, & Dupagne, 1993).

Anderson (1987) contended that the field of communication has two paradigms:

quantitative and qualitative. Rosengren (1989), on the other hand, argued that

communication studies do not have any paradigm. He viewed the field of

communication research as in a pre-paradigmatic or proto-science stage, which is

characterized by differing schools and research traditions. Craig (1989) suggested

that there have been three paradigms: empiricism, hermeneutics, and critical theory.

Empiricism seeks to ‘explain, predict, and control observable phenomena by

discovering necessary, general relationships among them’ (Craig, 1989, p. 106).

Hermeneutics tries to ‘understand meaningful human actions in the manner of

interpreting texts, by locating them within intelligible frames’, while critical theory

looks at ‘emancipatory social change through critical reflection on social practices’

(Craig, 1989, p. 106).In their analysis of research articles published in eight US-based communication

journals from 1965 to 1989, Potter et al. (1993) empirically demonstrated the

existence of three paradigms in mass communication research: social science, critical

theory, and interpretive. Their study found that the social science paradigm

accounted for more than 60% of the studies, while the interpretive paradigm

accounted for 34% and the critical paradigm about 6%, respectively. Consistently,

Fink and Gantz (1996) also showed that mass communication scholars appeared to

conform relatively strongly to the assumptions associated with the social science,

interpretive, and critical traditions.

This study attempts to analyze paradigms of new media and political commu-

nication research in Asia in the last two decades. We expect that Asian commu-

nication research would follow closely the US research traditions because a large

number of Asian communication studies relied on US conceptual or methodological

framework (Tran, 2007). In addition, many communication researchers in Asia have

pursued advanced studies in the United States. It is not a surprise that American

mainstream theories and methods have heavily influenced their teaching and

research (Lo, 2006). Specifically:

Asian Journal of Communication 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

RQ1: What is the most prevalent paradigm in articles concerning new media andpolitical communication in Asia that were published between 1998 and 2008 inmajor communication journals?

Theory-building

Theory-building is the ultimate goal of all scientific disciplines (Donohew &

Palmgreen, 1981). Thus, theoretical development is of central importance to any

field of research (Kamhawi & Weaver, 2003). According to Kerlinger (1973), a theory

is ‘a set of interrelated constructs, definitions, and propositions that presents a

systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the

purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena’ (p. 9).

Despite the large amount of communication research conducted in Asia over the

past few decades, past research was criticized for not vigorously developing and

testing theories concerning the processes and effects of mass communication in the

political arenas (see Lo, 2006; Sin, Ho, & So, 2000). More recently, theoretically-

informed research increased. Tran (2007) found that about 42% of published Asian

media studies were theory-oriented. No study, to date, has explored the extent to

which Asian political communication research attempts to build theories concerning

the role and impact of news media in politics. A second research question is raised:

RQ2: Are theories applied in articles concerning new media and political communica-tion in Asia published between 1998 and 2008 in major communication journals?If so, what are the most frequently used theories?

Research focus

Furthermore, this study also analyzes the focus of published research concerning

new media and political communication research in Asia, which indicates the trends

and patterns as well as the interests of researchers. Several content analyses have

investigated the focus of published research in Asia. In a content analysis of 45

political communication studies published in three Korean communication journals,

Kim and Kwon (2009) found that the most popular topics were election campaigns

and voting patterns (33.3%), followed by the relationship between media and

government (13.3%), information processing (11.1%), political talks on television

(11.1%), media reporting of political issues (11.1%), the Internet and new media

(8.9%), and public opinion (6.7%).

Wang and Tseng (1993) content-analyzed 212 research projects conducted in

Taiwan between 1961 and 1992. They found that mass communication (23.6%) was

the most appealing topic followed by audience analysis (19.8%), media practices

(9.9%), communication and development (9.0%), and political communication (7.5).

However, no previous study has systematically examined the topics of research

articles on new media and political communication in Asia. To fill the void, this

study raises the following research question:

RQ3: What are the most popular research topics in articles concerning new media andpolitical communication in Asia that were published between 1998 and 2008 inmajor communication journals? What are the least popular topics?

266 V. Lo and R. Wei

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

In addition, we explored the question whether new media, including the Internet, are

focus of research concerning media in politics. The research question asks:

RQ4: What are the most studied new media in articles concerning new media andpolitical communication in Asia that were published between 1998 and 2008 inmajor communication journals?

Research methodology

In terms of methodological choice, previous studies indicate that survey and content

analysis are the most widely used methods for examining Asian communication

research (Kim & Kwon, 2009; Tran, 2007; Wang & Tseng, 1993). The same pattern

was found in political communication (Graber & Smith, 2005). In a recent review of

journal articles on Asian media studies, Tran (2007) found that the pattern persists:

survey methodology (20.6%) and content analysis (20.3%) were the two most

frequently used methods, followed by historical research (8.4%), policy research

(7.9%), textual analysis (6.6%), experiments (6.5%), and secondary analysis (5.6%).

Legal research, in-depth interviews, and participant observations, which constitute

qualitative research methodology, were used rarely.

Although no previous study on research methods used in articles published in

major communication journals concerning new media and political communication

has been conducted in Asia, we expect that the majority of articles on new media and

political communication in major communication journals would follow the

established pattern in methodological choice. To ascertain the ranking of research

method used in the literature, we raised the following research question:

RQ5: What are the most frequently used data gathering methods in articles concerningnew media and political communication in Asia that were published between 1998and 2008 in major communication journals?

Authorship

Finally, this study explores the representation of scholars in Asian political

communication research through authorship. Past studies have examined the

national representation of authors in Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social

Science Citation Index (SSCI) journal articles (Inonu, 2003; Lauf, 2005; Luwel,

Moed, Nederhof, De Samblanx, Verbrugghen, & Van Derwurff, 1999). In the field of

communication research, Lauf (2005) found authors from the United States

dominated communication journals. Nearly two out of three articles published in

SSCI communication journals were authored by researchers from the United States.

Similar trend was observed by Ha and Pratt (2000) who examined national

representation in Asian communication research. They reported that three out of

five most productive communication scholars on greater China were from the United

States. Will research concerning new media and political communication in Asia

follow the same pattern?

RQ6: Do American scholars dominate new media and political communication researchin Asia?

Asian Journal of Communication 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

Method

To address the six research questions, a content analysis of 11 major communication

journals were conducted. Journal selection was based on whether a journal is

indexed in SSCI. In addition, a journal must be in continuous publishing through the

20-year time-span from 1988 to 2009. Based on these considerations, the 11 selected

journals were: the Asian Journal of Communication,1 Communication Research,

Human Communication Research, International Journal of Public Opinion Research,

Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Applied Commu-

nication Research, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Journal of

Communication, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and Political

Communication.

All issues published between 1988 and 2008 were examined. Only articles

presenting research concerning new media and politics were included for analysis.

Book reviews, commentaries, and launch pieces to special issues were excluded. Each

article was coded to indicate research paradigms, use of theory, the research method

used, authorship, new medium studied, and year of publication. The following are

the specific coding categories:

Research paradigms. Following Potter et al. (1993), selected articles were coded as

social science, interpretive, or critical theory. An article that uses empirical data touncover patterns in media messages and human political behavior is considered

‘social science’. An article that seeks to understand the meaning of human actions

by interpreting a relatively small set of related events is coded as ‘interpretive’. An

article that attempts to examine a relative small set of texts in order to discover the

underlying ideology and values is coded as ‘critical theory’.

Use of theory. Selected articles were coded as displaying no use of theory, presenting

a specific theory, or proposing a theoretical model without naming a specific theory.

An article that presents a specific theory is coded as theories being used. The theories

are: agenda-setting theory, critical theory, cultivation theory, diffusion of innova-tions, gatekeeper, elaboration likelihood model, knowledge gap, media dependency

theory, media imperialism, rhetoric, social leaning theory, speech act theory, spiral of

silence theory, third-person effect, two-step flow of communication, uses and

gratifications theory, social cognitive theory, information processing theory, value-

expectancy theory, functional analysis and theory, and other theories.

Research focus. The focus of research refers to the main topic of the article. It includes

10 categories: election campaign and voting patterns, the relationship between mediaand government, information processing, media effects, media use, media reporting

of political issues, public opinion research, political talk shows, media regulations and

policy, and others. Additionally, selected articles were classified in terms of the new

medium studied. Categories include the Internet, e-mail, blogs, social media, mobile

phones, SMS, cable TV, satellite TV, digital TV, IPTV, BBS, digital radio, multiple

new media, and others.

Research method used. Selected articles were classified in terms of their principal

research methods. The categories include content analysis, survey, experiment,

historical research, thematic literature review, personal interviews, participant

observation, discourse analysis, secondary data analysis, case study, multiple

methods, and others.

268 V. Lo and R. Wei

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

Authorship. Articles were coded in terms of their authorship. Each author’s affiliated

organization was used to determine the country from which the authors lived and

worked.

Four graduate students in journalism and communication were trained as coders.

A test of intercoder reliability (Holsti, 1969) was performed by using 10 randomly

chosen articles. Intercoder agreements were consistently high: research paradigms

(.93), use of theory (.88), research focus (.78), research methods used (.88), and new

media studied (.90).

Results

A total of 34 articles dealing with new media and political communication were

found in the 11 selected major communication journals during the 1988�2008 period.

Most of them (70.6%) appeared in the 10 years from 1999 to 2008; the rest (29.4%)

were published during the 1988�1998 period. Nearly half of the articles appeared

in the Asian Journal of Communication, followed by Communication Research (see

Table 1 for details).

The first research question explored the most prevailing paradigm of new media

and political communication research in Asia. Among the 34 articles examined, 30

(accounting for 88.2%) were classified as social science. Only 4 articles (11.8%) were

critical or interpretive. In the 20-year period, the number of social science articles far

outnumbered the interpretive/critical articles. These results provide strong evidence

that the social science paradigm was the dominant paradigm of inquiry concerning

new media and political communication research in Asia from 1988 to 2008.

The second research question explored if theories were used in articles concerning

new media and political communication in Asia. As shown in Table 2, a substantial

majority of the articles in major communication journals were guided by a theory.

About 50% of the article applied a theory as the foundation for study. About 20% of

the articles proposed a model as a theoretical framework for study. Only 29.4% of the

articles did not mention or test a theory. Although there were 15 specific theories,

only one, agenda-setting theory, was used in two studies.

The third research question explored the most and least popular research topics

in articles concerning new media and political communication in Asia in major

Table 1. Number of articles published between 1988 and 2008 in SSCI communication

journals.

Total

Journal Frequency Percentage

Asian Journal of Communication 15 44.1%

Communication Research 8 23.5%

Journal of Applied Communication Research 3 8.8%

Human Communication Research 2 5.9%

International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2 5.9%

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2 5.9%

Political Communication 2 5.9%

Total 34 100.1%

Asian Journal of Communication 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

communication journals. As Table 3 shows, the most popular topic was media use

(32.4%). Election studies were the second most popular research topic, constituting

26.5% of the articles, followed by media effect studies (20.6%), and media regulation

and policy (11.8%). Public opinion research was the least appealing topic. Only 5.9%

of the 34 articles addressed this focus.

The fourth research question explored the most studied new media for political

communication research in Asia. As Table 4 shows, the Internet was the most studied

new medium, accounting for 67.7% of the total 34 articles. Cable television was the

second most studied medium, constituting 14.7% of the articles, followed by social

media (5.9%). There was at least one article each devoted to the mobile phone,

satellite television, BBS, and IPTV. It is apparent that Internet was the new media of

choice. However, most articles treated new media use as a variable (35%). About 30%

examined new media and politics from a broad framework. In addition, new media

was relevant only as a research method (such as Internet survey, which accounts for

27.5%) or content analysis of e-contents (7.5%).

The fifth research question dealt with the most frequently used methods in

articles published in major communication journals during the past two decades. As

shown in Table 5, survey was the dominant method, accounting for 38.2% of the

articles published during the 20-year period. Case study was used by 14.7% of the

articles published, followed by content analysis and secondary data analysis with

11.8% each, experiment with 5.9%, and discourse analysis with 2.9%. Only 8.8% of

the articles used multiple methods.

The sixth research question explored whether American or US-based scholars

were more likely to publish articles concerning new media and political commu-

nication research in Asia. Of the 34 articles, 12 (35.3%) were single-authored, 14

Table 2. Use of theory in published articles.

Total

Use of theory Frequency Percentage

Theory used 17 50.0%

Model used 7 20.6%

Neither 10 29.4%

Total 34 100%

Table 3. Research focus of published articles.

Total

Research topic Frequency Percentage

Media use 11 32.6%

Election campaign and voting patterns 9 26.5%

Media effects 7 20.6%

Media regulation and policy 4 11.8%

Public opinion research 2 5.9%

Others 1 2.9%

Total 34 100%

270 V. Lo and R. Wei

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

(41.2) had two authors, and eight (23.5%) had three or more authors. Table 6 shows

that authors from the United States were most visible. Among the authors of the 34

articles, more than half (51.6%) were contributed either exclusively by American or

the US-based authors or jointly with American scholars. About 13% of the articles

were contributed by scholars from Taiwan, followed by scholars from South Korea

(6.5%), Singapore (4.8%), Hong Kong (1.6%), and Thailand (1.6%).

Conclusions

This study seeks to assess new media and political communication research in

Asia over the past two decades to identify trends and issues concerning Asian

political communication research. Our study clearly indicates that the number of

articles that take the social science paradigm accounted for the majority of the

research in major communication journals published between 1988 and 2008.

These findings are consistent with the trends found in earlier mass communication

research (Lo, 2006; Potter et al., 1993). Thus, they confirm the dominance of the

social science paradigm in Asian new media and political communication

research.

Table 5. Research methods used in published articles.

Total

Research methods Frequency Percentage

Survey 13 38.2%

Case study 5 14.7%

Content analysis 4 11.8%

Secondary data analysis 4 11.8%

Multiple methods review 3 8.8%

Experiment 2 5.9%

Discourse analysis 1 2.9%

Others 2 5.9%

Total 34 100%

Table 4. Type of new media studied.

Total

New media Frequency Percentage

Internet 23 67.7%

Cable television 5 14.7%

Social media 2 5.9%

Mobile phones 1 2.9%

Satellite television 1 2.9%

BBS 1 2.9%

IPTV 1 2.9%

Others 1 2.9%

Total 34 98.8%

Asian Journal of Communication 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

Another major finding of this study is the use of theory in Asian new media and

political communication. We found that most of the articles in major communication

journals concerning new media and political communication during the 20-year

period were theory-based. These findings are in sharp contrast with earlier reviews of

Asian media and communication studies that found the majority of the research was

not concerned with testing, revising, or developing theories (Lo, 2006; Sin, Ho, & So,

2000). The present study indicates that use of theory was common in new media and

political communication research in Asia. It seems that scholars in the field of

political communication are more interested in developing and testing theories to

explain the processes and effects of political communication in the new media

environment.On other hand, the theories are western. For example, agenda-setting theory was

applied in an Asian society. These studies are valuable in shedding some light on

whether theories developed in the West hold true in Asian countries. They help

validate the tested theory if the political processes and effects involving new media

are transcultural. But to build theory with a distinctive Asian perspective, more

original research, including comparative research, is called for.

Having said that, we did find a couple of articles published in Political

Communication that challenged the blind application of western assumptions about

the power of new media in Asian political practices. The authors (Kluver, 2004;

Taubman, 1998) argue that new media exist in the specific social�political context of

Asian countries. Their role in political communication should be examined

accordingly. Taubman (1998) raised the issue of the Internet regulation, democracy,

and information pluralism. Though the Internet grew rapidly in Western democratic

countries, he suggested that the Internet can be corrosive to non-democratic

countries that find it difficult to control the medium. He used China as a case to

illustrate how the ruling party embraced the Internet, but with a goal to exercise

political control, which constrained the full use of the technology. The recent dispute

between Google and the Chinese government validates his observations. Kluver

(2004) further argued that the political culture of Asian countries mediates the effect

of enabling information technology on political mobilization and participation. His

case study of the 2001 general election in Singapore documents the influence of

Singapore’s political culture, including regulation, on contexting and limiting the

potential of new media in campaigns.

Table 6. Ranking of published articles by institutions.

First author Second author Third author Total

Institutions Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

US 18 52.9% 10 50.0% 4 50.0% 32 51.6%

Taiwan 5 14.7% 2 6.3% 1 12.5% 8 12.9%

Singapore 3 8.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 4.8%

South Korea 2 5.9% 2 6.3% 0 0.0% 4 6.5%

Hong Kong 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.6%

Thailand 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.6%

Unknown 3 8.8% 6 18.8% 3 9.4% 12 19.4%

Total 34 100% 20 100% 8 100% 62 100%

272 V. Lo and R. Wei

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

Furthermore, we found that the methodology in Asian political communication

research is narrow. The most often used method was survey. Few studies used

experiments, discourse analysis, in-depth interviews, and participant observation. In

addition, only a very small number of studies used multiple research methods.

Experiment is particularly valuable in testing, refining, and developing theories under

controlled conditions while long interviews and participant observation can help

identify important variables and provide a wealth of useful information for researchers

(Wimmer & Dominick, 1987). These are the methods that future research should

consider using in studying how and why Asians use new media to learn about political

issues, and how the use of new media shapes their political attitudes and behavior.

Finally, our findings reveal that Asian political communication research attracts

the attention of American or the US-based scholars, who published their work in

major influential communication journals. Such scholarship advances our under-

standing of media and politics in Asian countries. On the other hand, the dominance

of American or the US-based authors raises a challenge to scholars who work and

live in Asia to publish more of their research devoted to the role and impact of new

media in politics in mainstream communication journals.

Our study is limited by the analysis of only SSCI journals. Such a choice of sources

for content analysis limits us from drawing a wider range of sources of non-SSCI

journals, other SSCI journals that are relatively new such as New Media and Society,

and thousands of books. Though the general picture presented in this analysis is valid

for mainstream cutting-edge research in selective journals, we do not claim the picture

reflects the most comprehensive status of research in the field of political commu-

nication in Asia. This is a caveat that we would like to acknowledge. It is possible that

the results would differ if we included research published in other communication

journals, conference papers, books, and monographs.

Considering the rapid pace in the social changes among Asian countries and the

further penetration of digital new media in these countries, we expect that the

growing trend of studies on new media and political communication in Asia will

continue with a greater number of new journal articles, books, and monographs

every year. Therefore, future studies should include non-SSCI journals, research

reports, monographs, books, and conference papers to seek a comprehensive gauge

of this evolving field of political communication in Asia.

Note

1. The Asian Journal of Communication, which was launched in 1990, was included foranalysis because it is the most influential English-language communication journal in Asia.

Notes on contributors

Ven-hwei Lo (PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia) is Professor in the School of Journalismand Communication at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests includenews media performance, political communication and the effects of mass media.

Ran Wei (PhD, Indiana University) is Professor in School of Journalism and MassCommunications at the University of South Carolina, USA. His research interests includecommunication technologies, media effects and international advertising.

Asian Journal of Communication 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

References

Anderson, J.A. (1987). Communication research: Issues and methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Cook, T. (1998). Governing with news: The news media as political institutions. Chicago, IL:

University Of Chicago Press.Craig, R.T. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.J.

O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.) Rethinking communication: Vol. 1 Paradigm issues (pp. 97�120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Donohew, L., & Palmgreen, P. (1981). Conceptualization and theory building. In G.H.Stempel & B.H. Westley (Eds.), Research methods in mass communication (pp. 29�47).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dutton, W. (2007). Through the network of networks � the fifth estate. New York: University ofOxford Press.

Fink, E., & Gantz, W. (1996). A content analysis of three mass communication researchtraditions: Social science, interpretive studies, and critical analysis. Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly, 73(1), 114�134.

Graber, D.A., & Smith, J.M. (2005). Political communication faces the 21st century. Journal ofCommunication, 55(3), 479�507.

Ha, L., & Pratt, C. (2000). Chinese and non-Chinese scholars’ contributions to communica-tion research on Greater China, 1978�98. Asian Journal of Communication, 10(1), 95�114.

Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Inonu, E. (2003). The influence of cultural factors on scientific production. Scientometrics,56(1), 137�146.

Kamhawi, R., & Weaver, D. (2003). Mass communication research trends from 1980 to 1999.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 7�27.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Kim, S.T., & Kwon, H.N. (2009). Political communication in Korea: Looking back for thefuture. In L. Wilnat & A. Aw (Eds.), Political communication in Asia (pp. 176�190). NewYork: Routledge.

Kluver, R. (2004). Political culture and information technology in the 2001 Singapore generalelection. Political Communication, 21(4), 435�458.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of commu-nication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 139�151.

Lo, V.H. (2006). Communication research in Taiwan. In K.W.Y. Leung, J. Kenny, & P.S.N. Lee(Eds.), Global trends in communication education and research (pp. 177�187). Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

Luwel, M. Moed, H. Nederhof, A. De Samblanx, V. Verbrugghen, K. & Van Derwurff, L.(1999). Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities: Anexploratory study in the fields of law and linguistics at Flemish universities. Brussels, Belgium:Vlamse Interuniversitaire Raad.

Potter, W.J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. (1993). The three paradigms of mass media researchin mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 3(4), 317�335.

Rosengren, K.E. (1989). Paradigms lost and regained. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.J.O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Vol. 1 Paradigm issues(pp. 21�39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schudson, M. (2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of PoliticalScience, 5, 249�269.

Sin, L.Y., Ho, S., & So, S.L. (2000). An assessment of theoretical and methodologicaldevelopment in advertising research on mainland China: A twenty-year review. Journal ofCurrent Issues in Research in Advertising, 22(2), 53�69.

Taubman, G. (1998). A not-so world wide web: The Internet, China, and the challenges tonondemocratic rule. Political Communication, 15(2), 255�272.

Tran, H. (2007, August 9-12). Asia in mass communication research: A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed journals (1990�2005). Paper presented at annual convention of Association for

274 V. Lo and R. Wei

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4

Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, International Communicationdivision, Washington, DC.

Wang, G., & Tseng, K. (1993, June). Taiwan communication research: Review and prospects.Paper presented at the Chinese Communication Research and Education Conference,Taipei.

Willnat, L., & Aw, A. (2009). Political communication in Asia. New York: Routledge.Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.D. (1987). Mass media research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Asian Journal of Communication 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

64.1

77.1

43]

at 1

3:14

14

July

201

4