TECHNIQUES FOR STUDYING MEDIA INSTITUTIONS AND MEDIA AUDIENCES

FOURTH BLOG ENTRY

From the blogger’s desk

For the purposes of easier understanding or comprehension, each sought out study (academic or otherwise) is inclusive of and determined by certain, clearly defined focus point(s). These focus point(s), needless to mention, assists towards achieving a concise and logical study. Further, each study is also inclusive of research methods and techniques that assist in the deeper exploration of that study with the aim of deriving at proper solutions that will make the process of learning more conducive and insightful. This was a point briefly touched on in the previous (third) blog post. Now, the focus here is to reflect and elaborate on the research techniques one can employ when studying media institutions and media audiences. Coupled with that will be a further elaboration on the different foci and purposes that these techniques entail. This latter part of the post will be delved into in that such a way that one sees how these techniques differ in their focus when studying media institutions as opposed to studying media audiences.

Techniques (methods) for studying media institutions and the object(s) of analysis

A point mentioned earlier on is that each proposed study must be inclusive of research techniques for one to be able to do justice to the exploration of that study. The same is true for the study of media institutions. Here, it is found a clearly defined set of methods that assist media practitioners (or any other interested party) in understanding the organisational culture, mandate, and as a result, the disseminated media products of said institutions. As a research technique for studying media institutions one can speak of (1) Archival research whereby the researcher is concerned with locating, evaluating, and systematically interpreting the sources found in archives. The logic behind this type of technique is that the internal documented history of an institution can prove quite insightful into the mode(s) of operation for that institution, both past and present. These internal documents can/are inclusive of “minutes from meetings, memorandums, books, and academic journals” (Stokes 2012: 83). Such documents are also inclusive of “past policy documents and history of legislation” (Stokes 2003:25). In an important sense, the object of analysis in archival research is/are documents (internal and external) that are purposefully chosen with the aim of shedding some light on a media institution under research. In this way, media industry researchers cannot be seen, as a result, to lack any important information about a particular media industry they might be investigating at the time (Holt & Perren 2009: 199).  

As a media industry research technique also, (2) Interview(s) is a way in which media researchers get to find out more about a certain media industry by closely engaging, through one on one sessions, with the employees of that industry. As people, employees probably know exactly what goes on inside an institution. That is they (employees) know when, why, what, by who’s hand, and to who’s benefit are things done in that particular institution. Media researchers therefore capitalise on this advantage that is brought by interview(s) as the same advantage is not present when engaging with documents. The said technique, when carefully administered, provides one with an insider’s view into the actual workings of media industries. As a result, one gets to find out ‘a story behind the story’. In a nutshell, the research technique of interviews is conducted as a way of establishing the “opinions and attitudes of industry workers” (Stokes 2003: 25). Of course, industry workers are inclusive of “actors, writers, producers, editors, directors, and employees” (Stokes 2003: 114). These are in a better position of alerting the researcher of any activity (be it ulterior or not) that is seen to occur at a particular media institution. Indeed, interviews as a research method do prove to present one with a concise and insightful study.

One of the purposes of studying media audiences (see third blog entry) is to find out how audiences interact, define and contextualise the messages they encounter. In the case of studying media institutions I believe the same principle applies. By this I mean that the researcher’s use of (3) participant observation makes it more apparent how industry workers interact with the workings of their particular organisation and how these are achieved. Put another way, such a research technique assists the researcher, or in this case the observer, gets to find out more about the organisation by observing the day to day running of things. It is by being a participant that such a task can be achieved. The logic behind is that by participating in an openly active (passive) way, the researcher is in a position of establishing the greater operational conduct that is at play in a certain media organisation under investigation. Perhaps, investigation might be the wrong word to use here. I would prefer to stick with research. By definition, participant observation is one type of data collection method typically done in the qualitative research paradigm. It is a widely used methodology in many disciplines, particularly in cultural anthropology and (European) ethnology, less so in sociology, communication studies, human geography and social psychology. The researcher gets to have an insider(s) view of an organisation by employing this methodology (Stokes 2003:122). In such a sense, the researcher sees to it that he/she promotes the value(s) of engagement and participation that will enhance the process of research and in turn provide astute insight into media institutions and the workings therein (Holt & Perren 2009:217-18). As a set object of analysis here, one is basically interested in the “working practices of a company or organisation, and the behaviour of workers in that industry” (Stokes 2003:25).

 

 

 

Techniques (methods) for studying media audiences and the object(s) of analysis

Not only is the study of media audiences of great interest to media researchers but it is of equal great interest to media practitioners in organisations as well. Reason for this, one might imagine, is that media organisations have to adequately satisfy the needs of their audience in order for their (media institutions) products (messages) to have the proper reception or to be bought, so to speak. In this way, a properly done audience research is said to make a media organisation to be well on its way to achieving optimal results that are most profitable. An improperly done audience research, on the other hand, well, the consequences here more especially for a media institution are quite obvious. Speaking of audience research, one can employ the research technique of (1) participation observation to adequately observe the behaviour of people as they engage with the different media they have at their disposal. It is worth mentioning that the focus here is observing the “behaviour of people in their own environment” (Stokes 2003:26). This serves as a slight deviation from the focus on the study of media institutions where the researcher is interested in people specifically working in a certain media organisation. Although, a thread that can be said to be common is that in both the said research undertakings the researcher mainly deals with people and their interpretations of events, or in this particular case, their interpretations of messages. Such a practice is said to be most prevalent in participant observation as an overall qualitative research methodology. Now, in order to observe adequately the audience it must be made sure that there is no attempt to try and control the process of observation through any hidden agenda(s) or intended misguidance (Mytton 2007:144). Moreover, participant observation “can be a way of seeing who turns the radio or television on, who chooses or switches the channels and at what time” (Mytton 2007:145). This particular usage of observation of audiences can provide valuable information to media institutions as per concerning the behaviour and highly regarded preferences (tastes) of their audience.

People’s responses to questions can be taken to be a very valid source of information, especially when these are related to a specific sought out study by a researcher. Further, what can be said to be more of an art is the way in which research questions are set specifically for the purpose of eliciting the most effective of responses. A situation of this sort can be seen to be brought about by the careful systematic usage of (2) survey research which researchers utilise in order to ‘test the waters’ as it were. So as to determine how media audiences view (or review) and relate to certain issues that are, might I reiterate, media centric, and in a narrower sense, issues pertaining to the mass media. Survey research is concerned with “people’s responses to questions” (Stokes 2003:26). Such responses are seen to reflect the thoughts, suggestions, habits, and preferences of media audiences as they relate to certain media outlets. A radio station, for instance, might conduct a survey research in order to find out what its audience thinks about a new weekly talk show slot that discusses news that made airwaves in each week. The same survey can be conducted by the television and newspaper industry as a way of establishing people’s views and as a result, people’s reception (Mytton 2007:126). It should be especially noted that conducting survey research requires a great amount of ethical conducted. As media researchers, we should be cognisant of the fact that ethics play a crucial role in the research process and this further adds to the credibility of an embarked upon research project. Ethical conduct in survey research includes informing respondents in clear and transparent manner and protecting them (Fowler 2013:140). I recall touching on this very point in my first blog entry as one of the core principles of ethical conduct in media researchers. Survey research must also be inclusive of a set of good, clear and unambiguous questions that when asked will not only reveal the preferences of media audiences but will tell the researcher how these think and act (Fowler 2013:110).

The overall theme on which this blogspot is based on is that of qualitative media analysis and the techniques used therein. The most basic definition of (3) in depth interviews is that it is the meeting of people face to face, especially for consultation or otherwise stated reason(s). Some unpacking of this definition is called for. The face to face element spoken of in this definition speaks to the individual aspect of in depth interviews. By this is it meant that in interviews the emphasis is not necessarily on social interaction but it is on the individual (Mytton 2007:141). As a result, it is the individual’s views, needs, and attitudes that are most focused on in the said research methodology (Mytton 2007:141). More to the point, it is the individual media audience’s views and attitudes that must be understood and revealed. We are living in an age whereby one does not speak of media masses anymore because this carried with it the connotation that people were oblivious to their own individual usage of the media. Rather, one can now speak of media audiences who can be defined and related to both in collective and individualistic terms. These further transcend to the usage of different media because one said medium can be used differently by different individuals (audiences) and can thus fulfil different needs. In order to find out more about audience’s views and behaviour it is advised that media researchers must always be on the lookout for “hidden assumptions and unspoken, underlying beliefs” (Mytton 2007:143). These will be exhibited by the audience member in question at the time. One cannot end a discussion on in depth interviews without mentioning that it is indeed a technique by which media companies get to find out about the reception of their products. Television companies, for instance, would employ in depth interviews so as to find out how many people are watching which programmes. In like manner, advertising companies need to know which suitable mediums their products must be advertised in, should it be in newspapers, magazines, or during popular television or radio programmes. All of this can be understood and revealed by the systematic use of in depth interviews (Stokes 2003:26). Finally, the said research methodology is used as a way of studying and more importantly as a way of engaging and ensuring participation in media audiences (Holt and Perren 2009:217).

There can be said to be clear distinction between studying media audiences and media institutions. Where studying media institutions focused on industry workers who produce and disseminate media products, media audiences focused on the individual consumers of those very products and how they are received, used and made sense of. I hope the above discussions were able to bring these distinctions clearly to the fore, or at least tried to.

REFERENCES

Fowler, FJ. 2013. Survey research methods. 5^th edition. Los Angeles. Sage.

Holt, J & Perren, A. 2008. The media industries: history, theory, and method. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.

Mytton, G. 2007. Handbook on radio and television audience research. (Web edition). Paris: UNICEF and UNESCO.

Stokes, J. 2003. How to do media and cultural studies research. London. Sage.