Assessment one: Critical Review of “Technology Firms Shape Political Communication: The

Work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google With Campaigns During the 2016 U.S.

Presidential Cycle”

Student #:

COMM2910: Communication Research Methods

Seminar Leader:

Content Word Count: 1869

1
 Kreiss and McGregors 2018 article aims to analyze the extent of which technology firms

have impacted the shaping of political and electoral campaigns in the United States. The study

focuses specifically on the use of Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google platforms, and the

effect they had on the 2016 U.S presidential election. Through a qualitative, inductive approach,

the researchers focused on various interviews and observational field work as their main methods

used. Following their research, Kreiss and McGregor (2018: p. 155) come to the conclusion that

“political communication scholars need to consider social media firms as more active agents in

political processes than previously appreciated in the literature.”

The first strength of Kreiss and McGregor’s study is that they started their research

process by analyzing current literature, which in turn produced the exigence for the study. This is

reflective of Bryman's et al. (2021) traditional inductive approach of research, which clarifies

that research does not start with theory, but rather that theory is a product of observation and the

research itself. In relation to the context of the study, the inclusion of such a robust dive into

current literature served to be extremely valuable to the study as a whole. Not only for its

inductive exigence, but also for the purpose of finding what was missing in the literature and

getting a true reason for carrying out this study. The authors generalize their exigence to the fact

that there is limited scrutiny on the role of technology firms specifically in politics, and that there

is a gap in the literature on this topic that needs to be filled (Kreiss & McGregor, 2018). From

their epistemological perspective, this is an accurate approach considering the aim of the study,

as the qualitative research remains focused on a generalized question, rather than an explicit

hypothesis guiding the research (Bryman et al., 2021).

Moving into the methodology choices for this study, the first practice conducted by the

research team was observational fieldwork. Whilst at the 2016 Democratic National Convention

2
for a different research study, the team took advantage of the location and resources there, and

added in fieldwork observation into their plan of study, which was carried through on the spot. In

reference to its value in this context, conducting observational fieldwork aided the study

dramatically in the sense that it determined the technology firms they wanted to base their

research on. Given that Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook were all present and heavily

involved at the convention, it provided the perfect opportunity to study their impact and reason

for being involved with the electoral process. However, this spontaneous observing does

unfortunately have its downside. A big ethical weakness, for example, is that due to its

spontaneity, the team was most likely not able to get permission from every vendor they

observed. Granted, it is a political event, therefore there are bound to be reporters and journalists

gathering information as well, but even if the team did get approval to use what they saw in the

study, they did not clarify this in the write-up. To the reader, this methodology is ethically

unclear because they simply do not give enough information about their decision making for this

method of research. There is also a lack of understanding what overlap this observational

research may have had with the previous agenda. The research team was already at the venue

conducting an interview for a different study, when they are reported of simply adding their field

observations after the scheduled interview, so the logistical and ethical thought process for how

this is acceptable must be considered.

The next, and most used methodology chosen for this study were qualitative interviews.

The team first laid out a set of interview questions and proceeded to conduct interviews with nine

digital staffers involved with the presidential campaign. In terms of the value of this method of

research for this particular study, interviews were an interesting, but appropriate approach.

Bryman et al. (2021) explains that interviews are an effective method for getting personal

3
information and the interviewees perspective on a topic. In the context of this study, conducting

interviews with staffers working directly at the companies of interest, specifically for the event of

interest, is an effective way to get the qualitative information the researchers were digging for,

and appears to be a seemingly representative sample of the companies included in the study.

There were, however, still some weaknesses to this method, the first being that the authors

simply did not include any in-depth information in the write-up that would allude to the kinds of

questions being asked. This makes it difficult when analyzing the validity of their interviews,

when the reader is not given the specifics of the method. In addition to this, the reader is not only

unable to evaluate the effectiveness of the structure of the interview questions, but are also

unable to determine the continuity of the interview setting and the methods used by the

interviewer for carrying out the study. Without any information regarding whether the interviews

were carried out by more than one researcher, it is impossible to know whether there was any

interviewer variability, which would thus be a cause for concern. This then might raise ethical

concerns to the type of interviews conducted and the reliability of their chosen methods of data

collection, as well the validity of the study as a whole.

The next set of interviewees in the study were representatives in the technology firms of

interest, followed by a group interview with three different representatives for various political

relations during the election. There is once again the same issue, that there is simply not enough

information provided to truly understand the interview process. With the group interview in

particular, it is important to know whether the research was conducted in an informal way, or if it

was guided with pre-structured questions, which is a detail that is lacking in the write up. On the

one hand if this was a more casual interview with open-ended questions, the validity of the

coding would need to be addressed, as data-collecting error can easily occur if researchers are

4
not consistent in their wording or have poor interviewing habits (Bryman et al., 2021). On the

other hand, if the interviewees were asked closed-ended questions, the researchers would need to

consider the way in which answers are being recorded, as there is a possibility for

data-processing error if data is coded incorrectly (Bryman et. al., 2021). In relation to the ethical

manor of these interviews, Kreiss and McGregor (2018, p. 160) state that “all the interviews for

this study were conducted on the record [...], although participants could declare any statement

not for attribution, on background, or off the record at their discretion.” Although this is a good

method for maintaining the ethical principle of privacy, Kreiss and McGregor do not explicitly

state as to whether these options were made clear to the interviewees, and thus may be

susceptible to criticism if their participants were not made aware of their rights.

In the methods section of this study, the authors mention that the last research methods

were a guided tour while at the convention, as well as an on-background interview with the

campaign director at Microsoft. Starting with the guided tour, using this as a research method is

interesting because it is difficult to analyze. We can assume the researchers were asking

questions along the way, but is that enough to classify it as a method for the study? Were they

asking questions along the way like a walking interview? If so, how were they structured and

accounted for? How many people went? Who kept a record of responses? Was the tour even part

of the research plan or was it unplanned and part of the initial observational fieldwork? Without

any more detail, the authors make it impossible to understand what purpose the guided tour had

in the context of the study, and whether or not it provided anything to their data. Moving onto the

on-background interview, Kreiss and McGregor (2018, p. 160) explain that they used this

method as an opportunity to confirm other participants' arguments. From an ethical standpoint, it

is appropriate that this interview was conducted on-background as to maintain a level of privacy

5
for the research participants. One thing to consider with this, however, is that it was not stated

whether or not the “other participants” were made aware of this interaction. Ethically,

researchers need to gain ethical consent from participants to ensure there is an avoidance of harm

to those involved and to adhere to common research privacy principles (Bryman et al., 2021).

Given the lack of information once again, we are unable to know whether the referenced

participants did indeed sign a consent form and were fully informed of the research processes

and that this later interview would take place where they would be mentioned. It is also

interesting why the researchers chose the person they did for this final interview, based on the

context of the study. As explained in the article, the interviewee was the campaign director for

Microsoft. Since this study focused on not only Microsoft election involvement, but also that of

Twitter, Google and Facebook, it is interesting that the researchers would choose to verify all the

other participants' arguments off of someone who would clearly have bias by association.

In sum, Kreiss and McGregors main strengths when it comes to their methodology, are

that they started their research well with their analysis of the current literature, and were also

semi-successful in their efforts of choosing research methods appropriate for their study. In terms

of the method selection itself, each of the methods used had weaknesses due to an overall lack of

information. The most confusing of the methods being the convention tour because there was

seemingly no purpose to how it aided the study. From there, each had their own issues such as

the ethical considerations of the in-background interview, the structural issues with the group

interview, and the overall lack of information on the campaign representatives interviews. In

terms of the study as a whole, the write-up of the methodology used is far too simplified and is

lacking many important considerations of social research, such as the ethical clarity participants

were given during their interviews, as well as the acceptability of spontaneous observational

6
research. There are also numerous ethical considerations that the authors simply did not provide

enough information on. Without more extensive information on the methodology used, it leaves

the reader guessing and blurs the lines of their study in a way that decreases its credibility, and

eliminates the possibility for replicability.

From a critical standpoint, this study would benefit from a reevaluation of the methods

section for the purposes of giving the reader a clearer understanding of the study’s methodology,

and to what extent its social and ethical practices were considered. Being that the study was

conducted from an inductive, epistemological and qualitative viewpoint, extending the

methodology section would provide the information needed to ensure study credibility and

dependability, as well as clarify the internal validity and external reliability of the methods used,

as currently they are illusive from the information provided.

Reference List

Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L. and Bryman, A. 2021. Bryman’s social research methods. Sixth

edition / Tom Clark, Liam Foster, Luke Sloan, Alan Bryman ; editorial advisor, Elena

Vacchelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kreiss, D. and McGregor, S.C. 2018. Technology Firms Shape Political Communication: The

Work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google With Campaigns During the 2016

U.S. Presidential Cycle. Political communication. 35(2), pp.155–177.