EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCHExperimental a

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Experimental audience research involves studying controlled variables to test their effect. Such research is most closely associated with laboratory research into the impact of violence in the media (Bandura et al., 1963). However, experimental designs have been used to explore other theories, too. Iyengar and Kinder (1987) introduced an experimental approach to agendasetting research in their study News That Matters: Television and American Public Opinion. They presented research participants with videotapes of television news broadcasts that had been altered by inserting extra news coverage of specific issues. Similar experimental approaches have been taken to examine the impact of “framing” (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997), test out cultivation theory (Rossler & Brosius, 2001), or explore how audiences view online news stories depending on the sources that they think have selected them (Sundar & Nass, 2001).

MULTILEVEL AND LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH
Any research is a snapshot in time and space, prioritizing an examination of some processes at the expense of others. However, understandings of the communication process can be increased by research that combines audience reception work (decoding) with studies of media content and production (encoding). (See, for example, the study of AIDS conducted by Miller et al., 1998.) Longitudinal work can also be invaluable. My own initial interviews with child sexual abuse survivors were conducted before the media “discovered” the issue. Comparing these early interviews with subsequent interviews with survivors a decade later provided insights into the media’s role in constructing and transforming identities (Kitzinger, 2001, 2004). A longitudinal research design can be even more powerful when researchers go back to the same research participants. Reilly, for example, conducted focus groups in the early 1990s to explore how people in the United Kingdom made sense of mad cow disease. A few years later (1996), the mad cow crisis hit Britain with the admission that BSE could be linked with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Reilly was able to reconvene 13 of her initial 26 groups and explore their reassessment of the media coverage and their own views in light of such changes (Reilly, 1999).

HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical studies of audiences allow for even greater depth of insight into how meanings and practices have changed over time. Historians of “audiencehood” have been interested in issues such as the constitution of audiences for books, penny newspapers, or early cinema and the way in which reading, viewing, or listening was experienced. They have also explored how the media might interact with the creation of new forms of identity. Repeat focus groups or in-depth ethnographies, however, are rarely an option for those interested in such questions. Shifts within living memory can be accessed through interviewing people who were around at the time. Van Zoonen and Wieten (1994), for example, interviewed older people about the introduction of television into Dutch society in the 1950s. Beyond this, the historian is restricted to written and pictorial sources. This can include gleaning from editors’ claims about their readers or from contemporary diaries or drawing on old mass-observation studies (e.g., Harper & Porter’s [1996] study of crying in the cinema). Historians have documented family library holdings, newspaper subscriptions, and bookstore inventories and even examined how reading is illustrated in paintings (Darnton, cited in Schudson, 1991). Other data include archived letters to newspaper editors or radio broadcasters or fan letters to film producers (Nord, 1995; Ryfe, 2001; Stacey, 1994). Historians may need to be eclectic in their approach. Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs (1992), in their work on “Beatlemania,” for example, construct their argument using a variety of sources, including women’s recollections of being Beatles fans, magazine articles, television viewing figures, a Gallup Poll, and quotes from DJs of the time. Other historians focus on specific types of viewers. Staiger, for example, analyzed comments by film critics (as a very specialized audience) in the 1920s and argued that they developed an aesthetic based as much on a film’s expression of hyperpatriotic nationalist positions as on categories such as narrative or visual style (Staiger, cited in Smoodin, 1996).

Reflections and Conclusion
The above discussion has offered a whistlestop tour through audience research methods. This chapter is not intended to offer a “how-to” guide but, rather, introduces a range of approaches to this complex area of study. Readers wishing to learn more about specific research techniques will need to follow up specialist literature. I have also not touched on the broader debates about ethics, politics, and epistemology. Implicit in many of the approaches above are different models of what counts as meaningful knowledge and diverse ideas about how researchers can or should “represent” research participants. For each approach, there are also, of course, radically different ways of analyzing and presenting data (or, indeed, diverse degrees to which scholars place value on empirical data at all). Those debates are beyond the scope of the present chapter.

What I hope I have achieved is to introduce some of the strands running through the web of audience research. If nothing else, I hope to have highlighted the interconnection between theories about audiences, whom we study, how we study, and the questions we pursue. It is through conscious reflection on these interconnections, as well as awareness of alternative approaches, that understanding can be deepened and innovation developed.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

PENELITIAN EKSPERIMENTALPenelitian eksperimental penonton melibatkan mempelajari dikendalikan variabel untuk menguji efek mereka. Penelitian tersebut yang paling erat kaitannya dengan penelitian laboratorium menjadi dampak dari kekerasan di media (Bandura et al., 1963). Namun, desain eksperimental telah digunakan untuk menjelajahi teori-teori lain, terlalu. Iyengar dan Kinder (1987) memperkenalkan pendekatan eksperimental untuk agendasetting penelitian dalam studi mereka berita bahwa Matters: televisi dan opini publik Amerika. Mereka disajikan peserta penelitian dengan kaset siaran berita televisi yang telah diubah dengan memasukkan liputan berita tambahan dari isu-isu spesifik. Pendekatan eksperimental yang serupa telah diambil untuk mengkaji dampak dari "framing" (harga, Tewksbury, & kekuatan, 1997), menguji Teori kultivasi (Rossler & Brosius, 2001), atau menjelajahi bagaimana khalayak melihat kisah-kisah berita online tergantung pada sumber-sumber yang mereka pikir telah memilih mereka (Sundar & Nass, 2001).PENELITIAN BERTINGKAT DAN LONGITUDINALPenelitian adalah sebuah snapshot di waktu dan ruang, memprioritaskan pemeriksaan beberapa proses dengan mengorbankan orang lain. Namun, pemahaman proses komunikasi dapat ditingkatkan oleh penelitian yang menggabungkan pekerjaan resepsi penonton (decoding) dengan studi media konten dan produksi (pengkodean). (Lihat, sebagai contoh, studi tentang AIDS yang dilakukan oleh Miller et al., 1998.) Longitudinal kerja juga dapat berharga. Wawancara awal saya sendiri dengan korban pelecehan seksual anak dilakukan sebelum media "menemukan" masalah. Membandingkan ini awal wawancara dengan wawancara berikutnya dengan korban dekade kemudian memberikan wawasan peran media dalam membangun dan mengubah identitas (Kitzinger, 2001, 2004). Desain Penelitian longitudinal yang dapat bahkan lebih kuat ketika para peneliti kembali kepada para peserta penelitian yang sama. Reilly, misalnya, kelompok-kelompok fokus yang dilakukan di awal 1990-an untuk mengeksplorasi bagaimana orang-orang di Inggris yang masuk akal dari gila sapi penyakit. Beberapa tahun kemudian (1996), krisis sapi gila memukul Britain dengan pengakuan bahwa BSE bisa dihubungkan dengan Creutzfeldt - Jakob penyakit (CJD). Reilly mampu reconvene 13 kelompok 26 nya awal dan menjelajahi mengkaji-ulang mereka liputan media dan pandangan mereka sendiri dalam terang perubahan tersebut (Reilly, 1999).PENELITIAN SEJARAHHistorical studies of audiences allow for even greater depth of insight into how meanings and practices have changed over time. Historians of “audiencehood” have been interested in issues such as the constitution of audiences for books, penny newspapers, or early cinema and the way in which reading, viewing, or listening was experienced. They have also explored how the media might interact with the creation of new forms of identity. Repeat focus groups or in-depth ethnographies, however, are rarely an option for those interested in such questions. Shifts within living memory can be accessed through interviewing people who were around at the time. Van Zoonen and Wieten (1994), for example, interviewed older people about the introduction of television into Dutch society in the 1950s. Beyond this, the historian is restricted to written and pictorial sources. This can include gleaning from editors’ claims about their readers or from contemporary diaries or drawing on old mass-observation studies (e.g., Harper & Porter’s [1996] study of crying in the cinema). Historians have documented family library holdings, newspaper subscriptions, and bookstore inventories and even examined how reading is illustrated in paintings (Darnton, cited in Schudson, 1991). Other data include archived letters to newspaper editors or radio broadcasters or fan letters to film producers (Nord, 1995; Ryfe, 2001; Stacey, 1994). Historians may need to be eclectic in their approach. Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs (1992), in their work on “Beatlemania,” for example, construct their argument using a variety of sources, including women’s recollections of being Beatles fans, magazine articles, television viewing figures, a Gallup Poll, and quotes from DJs of the time. Other historians focus on specific types of viewers. Staiger, for example, analyzed comments by film critics (as a very specialized audience) in the 1920s and argued that they developed an aesthetic based as much on a film’s expression of hyperpatriotic nationalist positions as on categories such as narrative or visual style (Staiger, cited in Smoodin, 1996).Refleksi dan kesimpulanDiskusi di atas telah menawarkan tur whistlestop melalui metode penelitian penonton. Bab ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk menawarkan panduan "how-to" tapi, lebih tepatnya, memperkenalkan berbagai pendekatan untuk kompleks bidang studi. Pembaca yang ingin belajar lebih banyak tentang teknik penelitian tertentu akan perlu menindaklanjuti spesialis sastra. Saya juga tidak menyentuh pada perdebatan lebih luas tentang etika, politik, dan Epistemologi. Tersirat dalam banyak pendekatan yang di atas adalah model yang berbeda dari apa yang dianggap sebagai bermakna pengetahuan dan ide-ide yang berbeda tentang bagaimana para peneliti dapat atau seharusnya "mewakili" peserta penelitian. Untuk setiap pendekatan, ada juga, tentu saja, sangat berbeda cara menganalisis dan menyajikan data (atau, memang, beragam derajat untuk sarjana yang menempatkan nilai pada data empiris sama sekali). Perdebatan tersebut berada di luar lingkup bab.Apa yang saya berharap saya capai adalah untuk memperkenalkan beberapa helai berjalan melalui web penelitian penonton. Jika tidak ada yang lain, saya berharap untuk memiliki disorot interkoneksi antara teori tentang khalayak, siapa kita belajar, bagaimana kita belajar, dan pertanyaan-pertanyaan kita. Ini adalah melalui sadar refleksi pada interkoneksi ini, serta kesadaran pendekatan alternatif, bahwa pemahaman dapat memperdalam dan inovasi yang dikembangkan.