Thanks,
@Sreerupa Sanyal for sharing your interest study!
Accidental exposures may have been the very roots of so many mal-informed or misinformed individuals and they do not fact-check anymore. From accidental exposures, some of these individuals may have been hooked to certain sources of information only. I think you can start building up a theory on this starting with the basic models and expand these models.
Some reflective questions popped up as I think about the process of media exposure. One is browsing the web for study purposes and then an attractive, catchy, byline pops-up. The individual could not resist and take the bait. For example, I wanted to look up some theories in Communication and I saw this right in front of me:
As Biden addressed the world, an unknown man in uniform stood watch over his son Beau's grave (msn.com). I could not resist it and read it. Then, I am pulled to check on Twitter to see how people were reacting to it.
This video which was shared with me some years ago tends to explain it well:
Some of the Communication Theories I can see operant in the scenario I pointed out could be the Frame of Reference Theory (my interests, my background, my mindset influence my actions), Cognitive Dissonance Theory (if I doubt or is not comfortable with the information, I may reject or find some information to counter it).
You have noted in reply to my private message that you have started to create Mental Models (illustrations) of the ideas you have in mind which is excellent. For my own study which used a Reflective Methodological Approach, I used the mental models I drew from reflections as my Data. You are right! These mental models are very helpful!
You asked: When you read a paper, what method of understanding, like what do you do to understand and retain the information? I am a digital writer. I don't use the pen and paper anymore. So, I have a folder on my PC and a backup drive dedicated to my study. I saved PDF copies of the articles I found very important in that folder so I revisit them. As to taking down notes, I do it right in my Draft and reword the information if I can, and make direct quotations (noting the page numbers of the passage). Some texts are written by authors who are difficult for us to grasp. That's where my time is mostly eaten up. I have to read over and over what the author or authors meant. So, quoting them directly allows me to re-read the original versus my own interpretation of the text. Cross-referencing helps. I would search the web for the same topic to see if there are articles written about the subject or topic in plain language. From Google Scholar to Research Gate and to just plain Google Site, sometimes we can get lucky. Finding other sources that have more understandable explanations or manner of writing helps a lot.
Sometimes, there are very interesting topics we find while doing research that we find so interesting and seem so relevant yet we could not find a place in our Draft. I create different file notes for that type of material. Sometimes, they may also find a good place in the interpretation part of our study.
So, spending time re-reading, archiving the materials (some utilize digital organizers for this purpose but I tried and was not comfortable with it), taking down notes, re-writing, and cross-referencing are just my reading comprehension strategies. Do you find yourself doing the same things?
Best,
Myrene
------------------------------
Myrene Magabo
Doctoral Student of Communication
University of the Philippines Open University
Laguna
Philippines
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2021 10:49
From: Sreerupa Sanyal
Subject: Strategies and Methodologies in Theory Development and Model Building
Hi Lara,
Thank you for your interest in this concept. I myself did not know about this till last year. So accidental exposure is the tendency of people to get exposed to news or other information as a byproduct of their current activity. For e.g. if you are on social media (say Facebook) and you see one of your friends sharing a story about something that is currently happening which you weren't aware of, you stop to look at it and perhaps read the news article that is being shared.
Now because of social media platforms, accidental news exposure has become widespread. However, researchers studying this concept have yet to agree on one single theory of communication that possibly gives rise to it. Probably there isn't one theory that explains it. That is why I am going to read the book you suggested.
It's really interesting but not much has been done with it. It is what I am studying currently. One of the theories that possibly gives rise to it is the two step flow of information... but I need to study it more.
------------------------------
Sreerupa Sanyal
Doctoral Student/Graduate Research Assistant
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
United State of America
ssanyal@ku.edu
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2021 02:44
From: Lara Schreurs
Subject: Strategies and Methodologies in Theory Development and Model Building
Hi Seerupa
Thank you for your thoughts on this thread! Can you tell me what exactly 'accidental exposure' is? I am not familiar with the concept.
thanks!
Lara
------------------------------
Lara Schreurs
PhD student School for Mass Communication Research
KU Leuven, Belgium
Board Student and Early Career Representative ICA
Co-Chair of ICA's Student and Early Career Advisory Committee (SECAC)
Original Message:
Sent: 01-19-2021 11:35
From: Sreerupa Sanyal
Subject: Strategies and Methodologies in Theory Development and Model Building
Dear Myrene and Lara,
First of all Myrene thank you for beginning this thread. I think one of the key hurdles that students like me face is understanding that theory is indeed the building block for models.
Thank you Lara for recommending the book. I am definitely going to check it out.
I think this conversation is significant for early career scholars as we go into the world of academic research. Currently I am studying accidental exposure and one of the key gap is a consistent theory. Researchers have used parts of multiple communication theories to understand the concept. For a long time, I was failing to understand that we need to utilize the theory to understand a concept, and not the other way around. I am so glad, Myrene you started this conversation and Lara joined.
Let's keep this conversation going.
Regards,
Sreerupa Sanyal.
------------------------------
Sreerupa Sanyal
Doctoral Student/Graduate Research Assistant
University of Kansas
Olathe, Kansas 66062 KS
United States
Original Message:
Sent: 01-17-2021 13:38
From: Myrene Magabo
Subject: Strategies and Methodologies in Theory Development and Model Building
Excellent resource recommendation, Lara! The Synopsis of Pavitt's (2016) "A Survey of Scientific Communication Theory" tells it all:
This detailed survey of present-day scientific communication theory rejects the outmoded «levels» organizational scheme in favor of a system based on the underlying model and fundamental explanatory principle each theory presupposes. In doing so it shows the fundamental similarities among all communication-relevant contexts. Most theories included in the book are causal in nature, derived from one of three underlying models: message production, message reception, or interactive. A few theories take on a functional form, sometimes in dialectic or systemic versions. An introductory chapter describes what is meant by scientific explanation, how that concept is instantiated in scientific communication theory and delineates the three causal models prevalent in these theories. A useful resource for scholars, this book is suitable for graduate and advanced undergraduate courses in communication theory.
This book might indeed be worth reading.
Thank you very much,
Myrene
------------------------------
Myrene Magabo
Doctoral Student of Communication
University of the Philippines Open University
Laguna
Philippines
Original Message:
Sent: 01-17-2021 06:19
From: Lara Schreurs
Subject: Strategies and Methodologies in Theory Development and Model Building
Hi everyone
Hi Myrene
Thanks for creating this interesting thread. I also struggled a lot with the process of writing and publishing a theoretical paper. I was very lucky to have a reviewer who pushed us to think further and achieve a higher level of abstraction in the paper. I am very grateful for that as it is because of these extensive review rounds that our paper became so much better! A good source I can recommend is the following: Pavitt (2016), entitled "A Survey of Scientific Communication Theory".
Best of luck to all of you writing theoretical papers!
------------------------------
Lara Schreurs
PhD student School for Mass Communication Research
KU Leuven, Belgium
Board Student and Early Career Representative ICA
Co-Chair of ICA's Student and Early Career Advisory Committee (SECAC)