ABSTRACT
Research in media management and economics can be characterized as optimization research. Two traditions can be identified, each of which have their own objectives and methods: one school tries to optimize profits on the level of the firm using mainly quantitative methods; the other tries to optimize public welfare using mainly qualitative methods or remains conceptual rather than empirical. This chapter characterizes the two traditions and uses examples to discusses how perspective, method, and results in each case are strongly connected. While the first perspective of firm-level optimization often fails to adequately take the context into account, the second perspective of societal level optimization too often discusses how this should be rather than assessing and measuring potential ways to get there. To some extent, it can be argued that the methods and research traditions in which these perspectives are respectively employed are at least partly determining results. Mutual neglect of results from the other tradition and their conditionality hinders an integrative perspective. The chapter ends with a plea for such a perspective, arguing that a shared methodology could foster mutual understanding and connectivity of ideas, possibly enabling research to find ways to optimize individual and societal utility of the media industry at the same time.
