Almost 60 years ago, Lasswell (1949) asked, ''Why be quantitative?'' and vigorously argued that ''the study of politics can be advanced by the quantitative analysis of political discourse . [b]ecause of the scientific and policy gains that can come of it'' (pp. 40, 52). He suggested that severe ''limitations of qualitative analysis,'' such as imprecision and arbitrariness, could be overcome by quantification. A decade later, Lazarsfeld (1957, p. 41) pleaded for a more balanced view, suggesting that empirical research cannot only provide ''sharper conceptual tools'' that would bring to light ''new implications of all sorts'' (usually championed by representatives of the empirical paradigm; Noelle-Neumann, 1979, p. 144) but also that ''the very act of inspecting this classical material brings to our attention ideas which might otherwise have been over-looked'' in the process of empirical research. He concluded that ''[t]heorizing itself can make progress, and the logic of empirical research can contribute to it.'' Ironically, perhaps, I would offer a similar answer to ''why be critical'': because critical theory and research can provide higher scientific and policy gains than ''conventional research'' to use Halloran's term. The role of critical theory cannot be reduced to that of describing and explaining empirical reality, and it has to question existing conditions in terms of their historical preconditions and future possibilities. It cannot live with what is or was empirically existing, prevalent or ''normal,'' or ''anomalous'' in a given period of time and historical context; it has to permanently broaden the horizons of what is relevant today and possible in the future, identify the seeds of what may stimulate social transformation, and trace its directions. Similar to Gramsci's idea of ''integral journalism,'' critical research (including theory) should be considered ''integral research'' in the sense that it seeks not only to satisfy some given (existing) needs but also to create and develop those needs, to progressively enlarge the population of its users, and to raise civic consciousness. It is inseparably connected to politics (and thus, often both opposed to and by politics) because it is focused on contradictions and conflicts in contemporary societies, which are often rooted in the alienating conditions of individuals and social groups. Such an integral form of critical communication research is emancipatory because it strives to explain how the historical processes of alienation and subordination are repro-duced (in constantly changing patterns); more specifically, how they penetrate communication processes in different spheres of human life (e.g., education, orga-nizational communication, interpersonal communication, journalism, mass com-munication, or computer-mediated communication), and how those processes could be overturned. Because any empirical research unavoidably proceeds from certain normative assumptions (even if not explicit), critical theory also has to guide empirical research—and thus be normative, as Lazarsfeld already suggested. Social criticism in theory and research is not adverse to empirical research, including quantitative research methods. According to Habermas (2006, p. 412), normative theory can build a bridge to political reality and serve as a guide to empirical research projects. The idea of combining normative critical theory and empirical research may seem peculiar. However, Fishkin (2000, pp. 21–22) argues effectively that ''most social science experiments are aimed at creating a counterfactual—the effect of the treat-ment condition. In this effort to fuse normative and empirical research agendas, the trick is to identify a treatment condition that embodies the appropriate normative relevance.'' What we cannot observe, we cannot (help) change; we can only interpret it—to modify the famed Marx's Thesis Eleven. Finally, a central element of a critical theory is its self-reflexivity: It always includes an account of itself and of its own historical preconditions and assumptions. It is not only the processes of communication and their social contexts that should be scrutinized critically but also the practice and politics of communication research itself.