♦ Diverse Questions on Audiences, C

♦ Diverse Questions on Audiences, Culture, Politics, and Identity: A Brief Review of Conflicting Theories and Approaches
The origins of contemporary mass media studies are often located in 1930s Germany, where academics within the Frankfurt school responded to Germany’s descent into fascism by developing theories about mass public responses to propaganda. Since then, the field has undergone many transmutations. The Frankfurt school’s hypodermic model (of direct effects) was challenged by a two-step model of mediated influence (highlighting the importance of social networks and opinion leaders) and by “uses and gratifications,” which argued that individuals use the media for their own purposes. Such approaches now compete alongside theories about the media’s power to cultivate certain understandings of the world (cultivation theory; Gerbner, 1973) or priorities (agenda-setting theory; McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Each approach set up a new research question in opposition to others. Uses and gratifications theory, for example, demands that we ask “not what the media do to the public but what the public do with the media,” whereas agenda-setting theory asserts that we should look at the media’s role in telling us “not what to think but what to think about.”

A turning point in audience research was established in the late 1970s by Stuart Hall’s model of encoding and decoding (Hall, 1980). Hall argued that texts are polysemic and that there is no necessary correspondence between the message encoded by the film or program maker and that decoded by audiences. To understand the role of the media, Hall argued that one must discover how different groups respond to any particular program. Hall promoted a social theory of subjectivity and meaning construction, arguing that audience research should be in the business of locating “significant clusters” of meaning and linking these to the social and discursive positioning of readers.

It was this understanding that laid the groundwork in the 1980s and 1990s for the burgeoning of a series of in-depth qualitative studies attentive to audience interpretation and activity. These studies focused on groups and sampled along diverse social variables because of the interest in “interpretative communities.” The first and most famous of these is David Morley’s (1980) study, “The Nationwide Audience.” At first, class differences were the main focus of attention (at least within U.K. research), but debates about American cultural colonialism across Europe also helped encourage interest in ethnic diversity and cross-cultural interpretations (e.g., Ang, 1985; Katz & Liebes, 1985). At the same time, the rise of gay liberation and feminism influenced a growing interest in “queer” and “camp” readings, as well as prompting work into women’s enjoyment of a despised cultural output, the soap opera. Distinct strands of research were developed that focused on exploring pleasure and identifying cultural competencies as well as claiming “fandom” as a crucial area of study (e.g., Hobson, 1982; Lewis, 1992).

During the 1980s and 1990s, researchers also increasingly focused on how the media were consumed as objects as well as texts. David Morley himself became dissatisfied with the artificial nature of showing videos to groups who might not have watched them otherwise and would certainly not have done so under the same circumstances (in the same groups, with the same degree of attention). He became interested in the home as a site of consumption and began to pursue more naturalistic research methods, leading to an increased interest in how people negotiated “living room politics” around media technologies (Morley, 1986). In a parallel development coming from a background in literary studies, Janice Radway (1984) highlighted the importance of the act of reading as much as the nature of the text. She argued that although the text might promote an anti-feminist message, the practice of reading could be women’s way of creating space for themselves and resisting the demands of their families (Radway, 1984).

The 1980s and early 1990s, then, particularly within media/cultural studies in the United Kingdom, saw a turn to three dimensional qualitative work exploring many different dimensions of audiences: opening up new ways of researching media reception and new ways of theorizing power. These developments were not, however, viewed without some disquiet. Fierce disputes arose about the balance between attention to the “public” and “private” spheres and the extent to which audience activity was being exaggerated and “the message” ignored (see Corner, 1991; Eldridge, Kitzinger, & Williams, 1997; Gray, 1999; Miller & Philo, 2001). Many researchers insisted on the need to return to or retain a concern with how media texts might influence public understandings despite, or in light of, audience activity. Researchers at Glasgow, for example, built on previous text-based work carried out by the Glasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980) to explore how media representations might relate to public understanding. They used focus groups to research how people made sense of issues ranging from industrial disputes or “terrorism” to “mad cow” disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]) and AIDS. Much of this work sought to examine media “effects” while also taking into account how interpretation, pleasure, and social networks mediated audience-text relations. For examples of this work, see Getting the Message (Eldridge, 1993), The Circuit of Mass Communication (Miller, Kitzinger, Williams, & Beharrell, 1998), and Message Received (Philo, 1999b). Similar in-depth studies were being conducted elsewhere into issues such as the media’s role in framing people’s talk about Arab-Israeli conflict (Gamson, 1992), responses to nuclear energy (Corner, Richardson, & Fenton, 1990), and the influence of television programs such as The Cosby Show on racism (Jhally & Lewis, 1992). In combination, such work represents a body of “new effects research” (see Kitzinger, 1999, 2002).

It is against this backdrop that audience research needs to be understood. Studying audiences is never innocent. How audiences are investigated will always interact with the dimensions outlined above, although, at least in theory, this should be a two-way process. The next part of the chapter raises sampling issues—how to constitute audience research participants, as well as who, when, and where to study—before moving on to outline diverse data collection techniques.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

♦ Beragam pertanyaan pada penonton, budaya, politik, dan identitas: tinjauan singkat teori berlawanan dan pendekatanAsal-usul kontemporer media massa studi sering terletak di Jerman tahun 1930-an, dimana akademisi di sekolah Frankfurt menanggapi keturunan Jerman ke fasisme dengan mengembangkan teori-teori tentang publik massal tanggapan terhadap propaganda. Sejak itu, bidang telah mengalami banyak transmutations. Mazhab Frankfurt hypodermic model (efek langsung) ditantang oleh model dua langkah ditengahi pengaruh (menyoroti pentingnya jaringan sosial dan pemimpin opini) dan "penggunaan dan pemenuhan kepuasan", yang berpendapat bahwa individu menggunakan media untuk tujuan mereka sendiri. Pendekatan seperti sekarang bersaing bersama teori tentang kekuatan media untuk menumbuhkan pemahaman tertentu di dunia (Teori kultivasi; Gerbner, 1973) atau prioritas (penetapan agenda teori; McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Setiap pendekatan mengatur pertanyaan penelitian baru bertentangan dengan orang lain. Teori penggunaan dan pemenuhan kepuasan, misalnya, menuntut bahwa kita bertanya "apa media tidak untuk umum tapi apa masyarakat dengan media," sedangkan penetapan agenda teori menyatakan bahwa kita harus melihat pada peran media dalam mengatakan "tidak apa yang harus berpikir, tapi apa yang harus memikirkan."Titik balik dalam penelitian penonton didirikan tahun 1970 oleh model Stuart Hall encoding dan decoding (Hall, 1980). Hall berpendapat bahwa teks-teks polysemic dan bahwa ada tidak perlu surat-menyurat antara pesan dikodekan oleh pembuat film atau program dan yang diterjemahkan oleh khalayak. Untuk memahami peran media, Hall berpendapat bahwa salah satu harus menemukan bagaimana berbagai kelompok menanggapi program tertentu. Hall dipromosikan teori sosial subjektivitas dan konstruksi makna, berdebat bahwa penonton penelitian harus dalam bisnis mencari "cluster signifikan" berarti dan menghubungkan kepada posisi sosial dan diskursif pembaca.Itu adalah pengertian ini yang meletakkan landasan di 1980-an dan 1990-an untuk berkembang dari serangkaian studi kualitatif mendalam memperhatikan penonton interpretasi dan aktivitas. Studi ini difokuskan pada kelompok dan sampel sepanjang beragam variabel sosial karena minat dalam "interpretatif masyarakat." Pertama dan yang paling terkenal adalah David Morley (1980) studi, "Penonton nasional." Pada awalnya, perbedaan kelas adalah fokus utama dari perhatian (setidaknya dalam U.K. penelitian), tetapi perdebatan tentang Amerika budaya kolonialisme di seluruh Eropa juga membantu mendorong minat dalam keragaman etnis dan lintas-budaya interpretasi (misalnya, Ang, 1985; Katz & Liebes, 1985). Pada saat yang sama, munculnya gay pembebasan dan feminisme dipengaruhi minat dalam "queer" dan "kamp" bacaan, serta mendorong kerja ke dalam kenikmatan wanita output budaya yang dibenci, sinetron. Berbeda helai penelitian dikembangkan yang difokuskan untuk menggali sesuatu kenikmatan dan mengidentifikasi budaya kompetensi serta mengklaim "fandom" sebagai area penting untuk studi (e.g., Hobson, 1982; Lewis, 1992).Selama 1980-an dan 1990-an, para peneliti juga semakin berfokus pada bagaimana media dikonsumsi sebagai objek serta teks. David Morley dirinya menjadi puas dengan sifat buatan menampilkan video untuk kelompok yang mungkin tidak telah menyaksikan mereka sebaliknya dan tentu saja tidak akan melakukan begitu dalam situasi yang sama (dalam kelompok yang sama, dengan gelar yang sama perhatian). Ia tertarik dalam rumah sebagai situs konsumsi dan mulai untuk mengejar lebih naturalistik metode penelitian, yang mengarah ke peningkatan minat pada bagaimana orang dinegosiasikan "ruang politik" di sekitar teknologi media (Morley, 1986). Dalam pengembangan paralel berasal dari latar belakang dalam studi sastra, Janice Radway (1984) menyoroti pentingnya tindakan membaca sebanyak sifat teks. Dia berpendapat bahwa walaupun teks mungkin mempromosikan pesan anti-feminis, amalan membaca bisa wanita cara untuk menciptakan ruang untuk diri mereka sendiri dan menolak tuntutan keluarga mereka (Radway, 1984).The 1980s and early 1990s, then, particularly within media/cultural studies in the United Kingdom, saw a turn to three dimensional qualitative work exploring many different dimensions of audiences: opening up new ways of researching media reception and new ways of theorizing power. These developments were not, however, viewed without some disquiet. Fierce disputes arose about the balance between attention to the “public” and “private” spheres and the extent to which audience activity was being exaggerated and “the message” ignored (see Corner, 1991; Eldridge, Kitzinger, & Williams, 1997; Gray, 1999; Miller & Philo, 2001). Many researchers insisted on the need to return to or retain a concern with how media texts might influence public understandings despite, or in light of, audience activity. Researchers at Glasgow, for example, built on previous text-based work carried out by the Glasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980) to explore how media representations might relate to public understanding. They used focus groups to research how people made sense of issues ranging from industrial disputes or “terrorism” to “mad cow” disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]) and AIDS. Much of this work sought to examine media “effects” while also taking into account how interpretation, pleasure, and social networks mediated audience-text relations. For examples of this work, see Getting the Message (Eldridge, 1993), The Circuit of Mass Communication (Miller, Kitzinger, Williams, & Beharrell, 1998), and Message Received (Philo, 1999b). Similar in-depth studies were being conducted elsewhere into issues such as the media’s role in framing people’s talk about Arab-Israeli conflict (Gamson, 1992), responses to nuclear energy (Corner, Richardson, & Fenton, 1990), and the influence of television programs such as The Cosby Show on racism (Jhally & Lewis, 1992). In combination, such work represents a body of “new effects research” (see Kitzinger, 1999, 2002).Ini adalah melawan latar belakang ini bahwa penonton penelitian perlu dipahami. Belajar penonton tidak pernah bersalah. Bagaimana khalayak yang diselidiki akan selalu berinteraksi dengan dimensi yang diuraikan di atas, walaupun, setidaknya dalam teori, ini harus menjadi proses dua arah. Bagian selanjutnya dari bab menimbulkan masalah sampling — cara merupakan peserta penelitian penonton, serta yang, Kapan, dan di mana untuk belajar — sebelum pindah ke garis besar teknik-teknik pengumpulan data yang beragam.