In the last entry I explored one of Ien Ang's most important works looking at audience research and its pitfalls. Her reclassification of "critical" audience research as a context dependent term has, in many ways, been a corner stone in media research. In this entry, I will explore the ways in which media researchers have been influenced by Ang's work.
Within the field of audience research, there has been what has been described as “a shift towards active audience research” that follows the metaphorical ‘path’ forged by leading theorists such as Morley and Ang have carved. Theorists such as Livingstone (1990, 1994) and Moores (1993) have looked at how media and new media technologies have integrated themselves into domestic life. Such theorists have also studied the diversity of textual interpretation and everyday audience discourse in terms analytical paradigms such as gender.
One article, in particular describes the application of the new ways of thinking. A study of Canadian households (Canada being recognised as a nation of high media consumption) looked at the ways in which the family dynamic affect media consumption. Another study described in the article, was that of Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash and Weaver (1992). This study involved the analysis of women’s responses to televised violence against women.
“(Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash and Weaver, 1992) obtained quantitative data from questionnaires about personal backgrounds and individual responses to screenings of televisual violence as well as qualitative data from group discussions”
[“The Active Pursuit of Active Viewers: Directions in Audience research”, Debra Clarke, Page 4]
This kind of methodology is an example of “active” audience research, as it accounts for individuality and contextual understanding of text interpretations. In the next entry, I will be focussing on the negative implications of “active” audience research, as well as Ang’s personal critics.
References:
[“The Active Pursuit of Active Viewers: Directions in Audience research”, Debra Clarke Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 25, #1 (2000)]
No comments:
Post a Comment