ABSTRACT
Historical research has its legitimate place in theoretical and empirical research. History not only describes but explains historical causality—such as the fall of the Roman Empire—and occasionally predicts events—such as the occurrence of a revolution. Admittedly, an infinite variety of social, behavioral, political, and communicative phenomena can be studied by the duo of survey and experimental methods; however, no revolution can be staged experimentally, nor can it be detected in a hostile environment by any survey method—try Lebanon in 1987, for example. The inherent limitation of survey and experiment is time—neither can go much beyond the present, or restage the past for examination; therefore, both preclude many social phenomena such as strikes, demonstrations, and epidemics from being studied by surveyor experimental methods. Historical methods transcend not only time but also sociopolitical systems. One of the fondest dreams for many communication researchers is to conduct an empirical study in the Soviet Union. Nothing of that sort has ever been arranged; therefore, we have to resort to other means. Indeed, no surveyor experiment can be a tool to explore the causality of a unique social phenomenon, transcending both time and geopolitical confines. This is a principal reason for our reliance on historical and secondary analyses. The vast number of published historical and secondary analyses attest to their simple virtues because they are:
convenient and inexpensive to implement, if there is a sufficient body of data;
implementable and re-examinable at any time and under most circumstances; and
requiring little manpower in contrast to experimentation or survey.
