Critique
Joe De Simone (2007-09-16)
However, some problems are present in the study. Although the premise of the theory is well explained, the literature review does not answer why performing the study is truly important. What impact will this study have other than answering the question of whether an appropriate apology was made by the United States and NATO? The premise of the article is certainly interesting, but more of an argument should have been made on the importance of the study.
Another problem with the beginning of the paper is the placement of the research questions before the literature review. Although the study’s directive is very straight-forward, ideally research questions and hypotheses should be created as a result of the research, not guide the literature review.
Tian appropriately chose to perform a textual analysis of the key artifacts involved in the 1999 apology-making process. Included in the data set are documented apology statements and apology speeches from U.S. and NATO officials. Through a close analysis of the artifacts, Tian created a timeline of events and applied situations to each of the nine aspects of the categorical apology theory.
However, Tian made each textual application placement decision unilaterally. This is problematic, as the researcher’s findings may not be reliable. Although content and textual analyses can be conducted by one researcher, the results become stronger when multiple researchers independently code information and then compare their conclusions. For example, just because Tian believed the fifth category in the theory was only partially satisfied, another coder could have found the wording of the Defense Department and CIA joint statement to sufficiently show regret. To increase the reliability of his results, Tian could have had two other coders look at the artifacts, creating, hopefully, a high intercoder reliability statistic.
Tian does not directly answer his research questions. Instead, he answers his first question throughout the Analysis and Evaluation section by appropriately and effectively applying his findings to the categorical apology theory. Each criterion was addressed, which resulted in Tian’s answer to the second research question, that the U.S. and NATO apologies were not sincere.
Finally, Tian’s suggestion for future research is adequate. But the exploratory study could yield so many more research opportunities than he indicated. For example, the categorical apology theory could be tested against other historical situations to further validate or refute the new theory. Additionally, the validity of Smith’s theory could be tested, not just have events applied to it. This could be achieved by sampling politicians, journalists, counselors and other experts who are familiar with effective apologies and asking them to what degree they agree with the nine categories of the apology theory.
In all, Tian’s study is interesting and well-written. The largest problem with the study is his methodology. But in general, Tian’s study explores a relatively new media theory and tests its applicability. The study makes a significant contribution to the field of mass communication.
