Advertising & Society Quarterly

Video 1.

Introduction.

This roundtable explores the underrepresentation of methodologies and perspectives in advertising research. Assembling leading advertising scholars from across the country, the conversation weaves together reflections on personal academic journeys, methodological approaches, and the need to amplify marginalized voices.

ASQ coeditor Ed Timke (Michigan State University) opens the discussion by emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of advertising research and his own focus on cultural history and diversity, particularly from a disability perspective. This frame sets the stage for participants to share their diverse backgrounds and approaches to scholarship. Jef Richards (Michigan State University) reflects on how his legal training shaped his early research, moving him toward historical inquiry and advertising regulation. In contrast, Harsha Gangadharbatla (University of Colorado Boulder), with a foundation in quantitative methods, critiques the dominance of positivism. He advocates for bridging dominant paradigms with critical approaches to capture underrepresented voices, particularly those on society’s margins.

Deepti Khedekar’s (University of Colorado Boulder) academic trajectory mirrors Harsha’s: initially steeped in psychology’s positivist traditions, her perspective shifted during her PhD in communication, when she embraced critical interpretivism. Similarly, Minjie Li (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) shares how his experience as an international student and his studies in women’s and gender studies led him to focus on social justice issues. Minjie challenges the perceived incompatibility between quantitative methods and critical perspectives, arguing that interdisciplinary traditions in sociology and social psychology can serve as models for bridging these divides.

Eric Haley (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), a self-described “paradigmatic qualitative researcher,” offers a philosophical critique of dominant methodologies. Influenced by phenomenology and sociology, Eric questions the abstraction inherent in quantitative methods, advocating instead for research that centers participants’ lived experiences and narratives. He humorously describes his methodological flexibility as “methodological promiscuity,” reflecting an openness to use whatever tools best fit the research question.

Throughout this segment, the participants converge on several key points. First, they highlight the importance of matching methodology to the research question, rather than defaulting to dominant paradigms. Second, they call for greater integration of critical and qualitative approaches in advertising scholarship to address complex social justice issues and amplify underrepresented perspectives. Finally, they stress the role of interdisciplinary thinking—drawing on philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, and history—to enrich the field of advertising research.

At its core, the start of this roundtable underscores how personal and professional histories shape methodological choices. Whether through Jef’s legal lens, Minjie’s multicultural perspective, or Eric’s philosophical grounding, the scholars demonstrate the power of diverse paradigms to challenge the status quo and open up new pathways for understanding advertising’s role in society. By advocating for methodological inclusivity and critical reflexivity, they invite researchers to embrace the complexity of human experiences and move beyond rigid boundaries.

With a shared commitment to fostering research that is not only rigorous but also socially impactful, the group hopes conversations like this can help scholars see how to bridge divides, amplify marginalized voices, and address real-world problems through innovative and inclusive approaches to advertising research.

Video 2.

Critical Research.

In this video, the group continues to confront the underrepresentation of critical theory and marginalized methodologies in advertising research. The discussion highlights the tensions between dominant quantitative paradigms and the need for more inclusive, critical approaches that challenge entrenched power structures within the field.

Harsha Gangadharbatla opens by questioning advertising’s role as a field deeply embedded in capitalist systems. He argues that, while the discipline often seeks to solve industry problems, it rarely interrogates the system itself. For Harsha, amplifying voices from the margins—such as women creative directors or LGBTQ+ professionals—doesn’t “tear the field down” but strengthens it by making it more inclusive and reflective. Deepti Khedekar adds that critical theory is often misunderstood as purely oppositional when, in reality, its goal is emancipation: to dismantle hierarchies and improve systems for everyone. However, she notes that advertising research still hesitates to adopt critical approaches robustly, leaving power structures largely unexamined.

The scholars identify systemic barriers that inhibit the growth of critical scholarship. Jef Richards and Eric Haley point to the dominance of quantitative methodologies—a legacy of advertising’s pursuit of legitimacy through positivist, hard-science models. These paradigms are reinforced through reviewer biases, institutional pressures for rapid publication, and tenure systems that prioritize short-term, industry-focused research over slower, more reflective projects, like ethnographies or archival studies. Eric adds that jargon-laden language in critical scholarship further isolates it, preventing broader understanding and adoption within the field.

Amid these challenges, Minjie Li stresses the importance of systemic change, starting with graduate education. He advocates for integrating critical theory into curricula, ensuring future scholars are equipped to navigate and legitimize these approaches. Minjie also calls for building a pipeline that supports marginalized scholars to occupy editorial and leadership roles, helping to reshape the discipline from within. His vision emphasizes coexistence—bridging critical and quantitative methodologies to foster richer, interdisciplinary scholarship.

The panel reflects on academia’s own structural limitations, with Edward Timke noting how institutional systems often undervalue alternative forms of information dissemination, such as open and collaborative discussions like this roundtable. Eric echoes the need for academia to slow down and “stop to think,” a luxury increasingly diminished by modern pressures for output and impact metrics.

In this segment, the participants ask the academy to challenge the status quo, foster systemic change, and value diverse paradigms so advertising scholarship can evolve to address not only industry concerns but also broader societal questions. This conversation itself serves as an example of how open dialogue can pave the way for more equitable and reflective research practices.

Video 3.

Advice for Professors.

In the final segment of the roundtable discussion, the panelists reflect on how scholars can advance critical research and underrepresented methodologies in advertising while offering practical advice and inspiration for those seeking to reshape the field.

The discussion begins with advice for emerging researchers curious about critical approaches. Deepti Khedekar highlights the importance of understanding paradigms—the worldviews that shape research questions and methods—and argues that shifting these foundations can transform how scholars address societal issues. She recalls encountering conventional studies that offered recommendations disconnected from real-world challenges, such as expecting parents in low-income households to mediate their children’s media consumption. For Deepti, reframing questions to consider systemic inequalities is essential.

Jef Richards emphasizes the value of legal research in advertising, citing Ivan Preston’s work, especially from the 1970s, as an example of how scholars, even without formal legal training, can contribute meaningfully to policy-focused scholarship.¹ He critiques the field’s over-reliance on theoretical frameworks, arguing that ground-level observations and legal insights are often dismissed despite their real-world relevance. Jef encourages researchers to embrace diverse methodologies, including legal and policy analysis, to address broader ethical and societal implications of advertising.

Eric Haley then challenges academia’s “blind allegiance to theory,” questioning why observations grounded in real-world experiences are often dismissed unless wrapped in theoretical frameworks. He advocates for a shift in thinking: recognizing the value of grounded insights and building theory after patterns emerge, rather than forcing research into existing molds. Edward Timke agrees, suggesting that historical narratives and detailed observations contribute meaningfully to theory, even if they don’t conform to conventional expectations.

Throughout the conversation, the panelists share works that have inspired their critical perspectives. Michael Warner’s The Trouble with Normal stands out for its challenge to institutionalized moralism and dominant societal norms, particularly around sexuality and identity.² Similarly, Sarah Banet-Weiser’s Commodity Activism is praised for bridging capitalism and social justice, demonstrating how advertising can drive societal change rather than merely reflect it.³ Eric’s own early work on advocacy advertising is recognized as a key example of critical scholarship within the field.⁴

As the discussion turns toward the need for systemic change, the panelists emphasize the importance of addressing structural barriers in academia. Minjie Li advocates for reforming graduate curricula to include critical theory, ensuring that future scholars are equipped to navigate and legitimize underrepresented methodologies. Harsha Gangadharbatla urges senior scholars, department chairs, editors, and leaders to use their positions of power to amplify marginalized voices, challenge outdated systems, and create space for innovative scholarship. He acknowledges the difficulty for junior scholars, who must “play the game” to gain influence, but insists that those in leadership must break the cycle of replication and use their power to bring about lasting change.

The conversation closes with Timke’s call to action: fostering a “counter-hegemony” in advertising research by building networks, mentoring new scholars, and reimagining academic priorities. The panelists agree that creating a more inclusive and critical field requires collective effort, persistence, and a willingness to challenge entrenched norms. As they reflect on their own experiences, they reaffirm the transformative potential of critical research—not just to critique, but to offer pathways for progress and change. The roundtable concludes with a sense of optimism that scholars can rethink what constitutes meaningful scholarship and work toward a more reflective, inclusive, and socially engaged future for advertising research.