Historical traditions of audience research

1
Historical traditions of audience research

• Module One Course
• Session 5

2
Four influential approaches

• (Effects research)
• -----
• Uses and gratifications research
• Audience ethnography
• Reception research

• What do the media do
• to people?
• What do people do with the media?

3
4 approaches 2 paradigms

• Effects, UG Media ethn., Recept.
• Theory Transmission Sense-making, ritual
• Method Quantitative Qualitative
• Example Greenberg Lull Schrøder et al.

4
Effects research an outline

• Popular with the general public/media strong
  effects!
• Divided response from communication scholars
  dubious methods?
• The power of media the market and politics
• Media impact on children the violence debate

5
Reservations about effects research

• Experimental methods extrapolating from lab
  behavior to real-life behavior.
• Halloran's rejoinder violent behavior is
  socially conditioned.
• Large-scale surveys the effects of campaigns.
• McGuire the effects hierarchy matrix exposure
  comprehension attitudes behavior.

6
(No Transcript)
7
Reservations (cont.)

• Which effects are measurable?
• (up to stage 4)
• Is the progression logic valid?
• Shift of perspective
• Away from the hypodermic model

8
(No Transcript)
9
Shift of perspective

• Lazarsfeld et al. 1944 Katz Lazarsfeld 1955,
  Personal Influence.
• Decision processes of consumers/citizens
• 2-step-flow

10
(No Transcript)
11
Uses and Gratifications Research programmatic
statement

• We must explore
• The social and psychological origins of
• Needs, which generate
• Expectations of
• The mass media or other sources, leading to
• Differential patterns of media exposure,
  resulting in
• Need gratification and
• Other consequences.

12
UG in the dominant quantitative paradigm

• Why is there a struggle for domination
• External political reasons administrative versus
  critical research.
• Internal scientific reasons epistemology, the
  best insights.
• Dominance shows in 'obviousness'.
• UG redefined the theoretical lens, retained the
  quant. methodology.

13
Qualitative paradigm bias against quantification

• Quantification as 'bourgeois empiricism'.
• Critical studies
• prescription of qualitative textual analysis for
  excavating the capitalist ideology of the media
  text (entertainment as "chewing gum for the
  mind", "mind candy").
• ban on fieldwork as such illegitimate to explore
  how people make sense of tv entertainment.

14
Towards methodological pluralism

• Cross-fertilization of quant. and qual. Methods.
• 'triangulation'
• The prerequisite of pluralism insight into how
  different paradigms have been practiced
• Look at 3 case studies Greenberg Hnilo Lull
  Schrøder et al.

15
Critical review of audience research case studies

• Motivation and objectives of the study?
• Theories and methods of the study (empirical
  design)?
• Findings (results)?
• Critical evaluation credibility, relevance,
  strengths, weaknesses?

16
The Corporate Advertising study as a prototypical
reception study

• Sources
• 1. "Cynicism and ambiguity" (article 1997).
• 2. Chapter 7 in Researching Audiences (2003).

17
1. Purpose

• In general
• To contribute to the description and
  understanding of a socially relevant issue. OR
• the improvement of the communicative efficiency
  of an organization.

• Case study
• the political company's positioning efforts, the
  political consumer, power shifts between capital
  and democratic politics.
• (designing a (better) campaign)

18
2. Holistic objective

• Including the whole Sender - Text Recipient
  circuit
• From inception to reception
• Before Compartmentalization of the stages of a
  linear process

• An in-depth under-standing of the given social
  issue requires studying all relevant agents and
  texts The interplay of company motives, message
  content and form, recipients' experience and
  attitudes.

19
3. The bottom-up principle

• Capture the reci-pients' categories of
  understanding!

• Use varied stimulus-texts, not only ethical
  ads, also consumer ads and hybrid types.

20
4. The interview as a 'speech event'

• Aiming for for interpersonal symmetry.
• Minimizing yhe Observer's Paradox (Labov).

• Avoidance of test atmosphere, conducting two
  interviews the first one reducing anxiety, only
  the second one is analysed for the sake of
  'authenticity'.

21
5. The generalization imperative

• Aim to produce 'maps', finding patterns in the
  informant data
• (Halkier ideal types, variables, narratives)

• The Venn-diagram as a visual metaphorical
  display of the ana-lytical findings Graspable
  complexity - must be supple-mented with 'thick
  description' in prose.

22
6. Reflect on possible causes for the findings

• From media experience back to society gender,
  class, education, ethnicity, age, etc.
• Demographics or life-style segmentation.
• 'Speculation' - informed by theory !

• Differences in class structure between UK and
  DK sharp versus soft oppositions, 'dichotomous
  consciousness'

23
7. Consequences of the study

• Intended and unintended consequences

• (Back to Point 1)
• Consequences for
• understanding democracy and political activism.
• the communicative navigation of companies, for
  future strategic communication about corporate
  ethics

24
Looking back Course midway evaluation

• What works well about the course?
• What could be improved?
• Usefulness of the course literature?
• Usefulness of each session's overview lecture?
• Relevance of class exercises?
• Helpfulness of the course for becoming
  'reflective practitioners'?