The aim of this project is to study the level of paradigm development in the domain of social media studies. Based on the works of Kuhn (1970), Pfeffer (1993), and Thompson and Tuden (1959), the level of paradigm development was defined as the degree of consensus regarding: research topics, methods, and theories used in a given field of study. A sample of social media research articles was studied to analyze the level paradigm development within this domain of study. The sample consisted of a group of social media research articles that were published in the top ten journals of communication studies in the last five years. Content analysis methodology was used to analyze the research articles and clusters analysis was utilized in order to investigate the level of paradigm development in this field of study. The analysis confirmed the lack of consensus in the social sciences (Pfeffer, 1993). The level of agreement regarding research methods, theoretical concepts, and research topics used in social media studies was quite low. The lack of consensus in this new domain of study may be explained by two factors. Social media as an academic field is still in its infancy (Van Osch and Coursaris, 2014), and thus it lacks of a shared body of theoretical knowledge that can be used to analyze the phenomenon of social media (Van Osch and Coursaris, 2014; Chong and Xie, 2011; and Khang, Ki, and Ye, 2012). In conclusion, this project suggests that social media studies should aim to develop a high level of paradigm development, since academic fields with high levels of consensus are better organized, have fewer power conflicts, and get more funding (Beyer and Lodhl, 1976; Pfeffer, 1993).

Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 103-106). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Post World War II victory culture and its fallout-the consensus ideology-led to the creation of a middle class willing to conform to a prescribed set of ideals, safely removed from all danger, and enjoying the material benefits of a growing middle-class income bracket. Walt Disney and Hugh Hefner, two seemingly ideologically opposed businessmen, recognized this economic, political, and cultural shift and sought to capitalize on it financially. A cultural-history study of both companies revels many similarities in each company's design, development, and impact on American culture. To begin with, Disneyland and Playboy appeared in the mid-1950s as Americans were settling into postwar affluence and consumerism. Disney and Hefner each recognized the changes occurring within society and intended to design areas of reprieve. As such, Disneyland and Playboy were designed as areas of refuge where one could escape the stifling conformity of middle-class America and simultaneously forget Cold War fears. Instead, Disneyland and Playboy embraced the consensus and became reflections of society and culture rather than operatives of counter-culture. To understand how each company could fail in its original intent but remain as an emblem of American culture, it is necessary to understand the era, the men behind the visions, and how each company absorbed and reacted to cultural attitudes and strains. Disney and Hefner manipulated their way into the American cultural consciousness through a series of ironies and inconsistencies. Each sought to provide a haven of diversity as an alternative to the consensus conformity rampant within 1950s society. Ultimately, Disneyland and Playboy came to represent the homogeneity Disney and Hefner sought to escape. / Graduation date: 2002