Examination of the increasing number of articles employing quantitative content analysis in 1971–95 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly showed primary focus on news/editorial content in U.S. media. Nearly half examined newspapers, and half were coauthored. Most used convenience or purposive samples. Few involved a second research method or extra-media data, explicit theoretical grounding, or research questions or hypotheses. Half reported intercoder reliability, and two-fifths used only descriptive statistics. Analysis of trends shows growth in coauthorship and reporting of reliability, and increasing emphasis on more sophisticated statistical analysis. No parallel trend exists, however, in use of explicit hypotheses/research questions or theoretical grounding.

Examination of the increasing number of articles employing quantitative content analysis in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly showed primary focus on newsleditorial content in U S . media. Nearly half examined newspapers, and half were coauthored. Most used convenience or purposive samples. Few involved a second research method or extra-media data, explicit theoretical grounding, or research questions or hypotheses. Half reported intercoder reliability, and two-fifths used only descriptive statistics. Analysis of trends shows growth in coauthorship and reporting of reliability, and increasing emphasis on more sophisticated statistical analysis. N o parallel trend exists, however, in use of explicit hypotheseslresearch questions or theoretical grounding. ~~~Research journals, what Weaver and Wilhoit called "the nerves of a discipline,"' are a barometer of the substantive focus of scholarship and the research methods most important to the discipline. This longitudinal study examines trends in content analysis in Journalism fi Mass Communication Quarterly* (or JMCQ) over the last quarter century . Schweitzer has shown JMCQ's predominance among journals which publish the "vast majority" of mass communication re~earch.~ Why examine the use of a research method such as content analysis? Methodologystudy of research methodshelps a discipline improve. Thus, Lowry critiqued population validity of samples in communication ~tudies.~ Chase and Baran examined statistical power of tests that are used.5 Lacy and Riffe6 described "sins of omission and commission" in manuscripts reviewed for a dozen journals (including failure to report coder reliability in content analyses).More compelling as a rationale for the study is the method's widespread use. Fowler7 showed 84.1% of master's level research methods courses include content analysis, slightly more than the 78% and 73% covering experimental and survey research. Not surprisingly, WilhoitB found 21.9% of 1981-82 theses and dissertations employed content analysis (28.1% employed survey, 8.4% were experiments, and 20% were categorized as historical method). Content analysis is also well-represented in the journals. Wilhoit's9 comparison of 1978-80 Communication Abstracts data with 1944-64 data collected with Danielsonlo showed one-tenth of published mass commu-Rationale Daniel Riffe is professor in the E.W. Scripps School ofJournalism at Ohio University where Alan Freitag is a doctoral student.