Doesn't Neuman mostly produce qualitative research himself?
W. Russell Neuman provided a harsh criticism of Raymond Williams’ Television: Technology and Cultural Form in the September 1977 edition of The American Journal of Sociology. In short, Neuman believes that Williams is uneasy with “social science concepts and the whole notion of gathering data to test ideas,” and gives a wholly inadequate and incomplete review of television’s historical, societal, and technological influence.
At first glance, I was in complete agreement with the critique. Williams’ book does not spend enough time developing any of his main points, and takes on an overly broad and burdensome topic of analysis. In the first part of the book, for instance, he attempts to recount the history of communications and broadcasting to explain the events leading up to the invention of television, but his book is simply not long enough to adequately explain the crucial turning points he mentions, such as the invention of the telegraph.
I also sympathize with Neuman’s feeling that Williams’ attention seems to wander throughout the book. Overall, the work has the tone of a personal journal filled with interesting thoughts and ideas, none of which are fully developed or followed through. His arguments are not adequately articulated.
After some thought, however, I disagree with Neuman’s assessment of Williams’ unfamiliarity with data gathering – or at least Neuman’s ability to judge the author in this regard based on this particular book. Television: Technology and Cultural Form is not a quantitatively oriented work full of number crunching and empirical evidence, nor does it pretend to be so. It is intended to be theoretical and discursive, with reflections on media’s effects on society, both historically and at the present (the 1970s). Data gathering is only half the work – thorough analysis and a limited, distinct focus is what makes for truly successful literary work. Sadly, this book is significantly lacking in both.