Based on computerized and manual content analyses, we examined the theories, methods, topics, and authors’ backgrounds of the empirical articles revolving around politics and media published by Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ) in its 100 years (N = 424). The most common theories are agenda-setting, framing, and selective exposure, and quantitative methods prevail with single-country studies being more prevalent than comparative analyses. A considerable portion of research has focused on political news, particularly during campaigns. Male, U.S.-based authors dominate, but female-authored work has increased in the past decade. Challenges remain to make the research on politics and media in JMCQ more generalizable globally.
BlumlerJ. G. (2015). Core theories of political communication: Foundational and freshly minted. Communication Theory, 25(4), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12077
3.
ChadwickA. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
4.
ColeR. R.BowersT. A. (1973). Research article productivity of U.S. journalism faculties. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 50, 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769907305000205
EsserF.PfetschB. (Eds). (2004). Comparing political communication: Theories, cases, and challenges. Cambridge University Press.
7.
GanterS. A.OrtegaF. (2019). The invisibility of Latin American scholarship in European media and communication studies: Challenges and opportunities of de-Westernization and academic cosmopolitanism. International Journal of Communication, 13, 68–91.
8.
GlückA. (2018). De-Westernization and decolonization in media studies. In PowersM. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.898
GreenbergB. S. G.SchweitzerJ. C. (1989). “Mass communication scholars” revisited and revised. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 64, 473–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908906600233
12.
HallinD. C.ManciniP. (Eds.). (2011). Comparing media systems beyond the Western world. Cambridge University Press.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
15.
JohnsonT. J. (2016). Media and voting: Building upon the foundations of journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 504–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654477
16.
KaidL. L.SandersK. R. (1985). Survey of political communication theory and research. In SandersK. R.KaidL. L.NimmoD (Eds.), Political communication yearbook 1984 (pp. 283–308). Southern Illinois University Press.
17.
KaidL. L.SandersK. R.HirschR. O. (1974). Political campaign communication: A bibliography and guide to the literature. The Scarecrow Press Inc.
18.
KeimW. (2014). Conceptualizing circulation of knowledge in the social sciences. In KeimW.ÇelikE.WöhrerV. (Eds.), Global knowledge production in the social sciences (pp. 107–134). Routledge.
19.
KimJ.-N.ChiuM. M.LeeH.OhY. W.Gil de ZúñigaH.ParkC. H. (2023). Mapping media research paradigms: Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly’s century of scientific evolution. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(4), 736–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231213376.
20.
KlingerU.KreissD.MutsvairoB. (2024). Platforms, power, and politics: An introduction to political communication in the digital age. Polity Press.
21.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.
22.
LippmannW. (1922). Public opinion. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
23.
MutsvairoB.Borges-ReyE.BebawiS.Márquez-RamírezM.MelladoC.MabweazaraH. M.DemeterM.GłowackiM.BadrH.ThussuD. (2021). Ontologies of journalism in the Global South. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(4), 996–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990211048883
24.
NielsenR. K.FletcherR. (2020). Democratic creative destruction? The effect of a changing media landscape on democracy. In PersilyN.TuckerJ. (Eds.), Social media and democracy. The state of the field and prospects for reform (pp. 139–162). Cambridge University Press.
25.
NimmoD. (1977). Political communication theory and research: An overview. In RubenB. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 1 (pp. 441–452). Transaction Books.
26.
NimmoD.SwansonD. L. (1990). The field of political communication: Beyond the voter persuasion paradigm. In SwansonL.NimmoD. (Eds.), New directions in political communication: A source book (pp. 7–45). SAGE.
PeineltN.NguyenD.LiakataM. (2020). tBERT: Topic models and BERT joining forces for semantic similarity detection. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 7047–7055). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.630
29.
RajkóA.HerendyC.GoyanesM.DemeterM. (2023). The Matilda effect in communication research: The effects of gender and geography on usage and citations across 11 countries. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124389
30.
RogersE. M. (1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach. The Free Press.
31.
SchweitzerJ. C. (1988). Research article productivity by mass communication scholars. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 63, 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500233
32.
ShoemakerP. J.TankardJ. W.Jr.LasorsaD. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. SAGE.
33.
SingerJ. B.LewisS. C.Wahl-JorgensenK. (2023). Journalism in the quarterly: A century of change in the industry and the academy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication.
34.
SpitzackC.CarterK. (1987). Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383816
35.
ThusharaM. G.MownikaT.MangamuruR. (2019). A comparative study on different keyword extraction algorithms. In 2019 3rd International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (pp. 969–973). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCMC.2019.8819630
36.
ToffB.NielsenR. K. (2018). “I just Google it”: Folk theories of distributed discovery. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 636–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy009
37.
ValenzuelaS.RojasH. (2019). Taming the digital information tide to promote equality. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1134–1136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0700-9
38.
Van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.De VreeseC.MatthesJ.HopmannD.SalgadoS.HubéN.StępińskaA.PapathanassopoulosS.BerganzaR.LegnanteG.ReinemannC.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
39.
VincentR. (1984). Broadcast research productivity of U.S. communications programs, 1976-1983. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 841–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908406100416
40.
VincentR. (1991). Telecommunications research productivity of U.S. communication programs: 1984-1989. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 840–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909106800425
41.
Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of journalism studies. Routledge.
42.
WilliamsB. A.Delli CarpiniM. X. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and the new information environment. Cambridge University Press.
WöhrerV. (2016). Gender studies as a multi-centred field? Centres and peripheries in academic gender research. Feminist Theory, 17(3), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700116652840
45.
ZapfA.CastellS.MorawietzL.KarchA. (2016). Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data–which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate?BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(93), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0200-9
