Week 6- The Media Research Industry
Today’s readings explore the social and historical context of the genesis and evolution of media research as we know it today. Communication influences and is influenced by economic, cultural, social and political factors. In the 1940s, as mass media proliferated and concern about the effects of propaganda increased, funding and interest in media research also grew. Social scientists then debated about the role and the direction that media research should take. Two of schools of thought -- the Columbia School led by Lazarsfeld and Merton and the Frankfurt School, with Horkheimer and Adorno-- differed in philosophical approach and methodology, but both sought to understand the role of communication in society.
The Columbia School viewed the role of media research as a type of commodity, which should not only contribute to a better understanding of how communication works, but should be used to improve the effectiveness of communication for advertisers, the government, and other organizations. The Frankfurt School believed that media research should be for the social good and draw attention to positive moral ideals and should be used to critique and seek to improve these economic, political, social and cultural entities. understand the philosophical underpinnings of what is happening.
Both Schools and their respective followers approached the design, implementation and analysis of media research from two directions -- the Columbia School’s administrative approach and the Frankfurt School’s critical theory. The basic communication process includes a sender and a receiver. Research influenced by the Columbia School, took a mechanistic approach to examining individual effects on the receiver by measuring such aspects as changes in attitude and behavior as a result of media use. It did reflect the behaviorists’ “stimulus-response” concept which was applied to the use and interaction with media as a force for changing opinions. Followers of the Frankfurt School called for a critical examination of the sender or the “culture industry.” James Rorty’s “The Business Nobody Knows” which examined advertisers effect on the individual and social psyche and Adorno’s “A Social Critique of Radio” are examples of the Frankfurt School.
There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.. With any new media, whether it’s radio or the internet, it is logical to begin by examining the effect on the person. While there was so much focus on the passive receiver that Lynd called it seeking “truth by counting noses,” Lazarsfeld did bring scientific discipline and professionalism to communication research. It was also implied that Lazarsfeld “sold out” because he received funding from sources with a vested interest in the results. As Simonson and Weimann point out, the limited effects paradigm was one small part of Lazarsfeld body of work and in other writing he and Merton did identify specific conditions in which media might have strong effects, drew attention to the ideological force of commercial media systems, and addressed other issues relevant to the culture industry. It could also be argued that today’s field of media researchers would not enjoy the current level of credibility without that initial investment of those vested interests.
Media researchers must continually question their motives and the tools they use to examine the social, political, economic and cultural ramifications of communication. While Gitlin’s critique of the Lazarsfeld and Katz Decatur study was a bit strident, he did raise important questions for media researchers to ask themselves today and into the future. In many respects, media research has become a self-sustaining industry on university campuses. It’s important to understand the social and historical context that has and continues to shape media research. As Gitlin points out so well, “mass communications research descends directly from the development of sophisticated marketing techniques. Even today, research is conceived, not because of what society needs to know, but what business needs to know to sell”. Even today, how does one explain the rash of research about internet use and effects? Is it driven by a need for greater social understanding or to answer the question – what sells?
The Columbia School viewed the role of media research as a type of commodity, which should not only contribute to a better understanding of how communication works, but should be used to improve the effectiveness of communication for advertisers, the government, and other organizations. The Frankfurt School believed that media research should be for the social good and draw attention to positive moral ideals and should be used to critique and seek to improve these economic, political, social and cultural entities. understand the philosophical underpinnings of what is happening.
Both Schools and their respective followers approached the design, implementation and analysis of media research from two directions -- the Columbia School’s administrative approach and the Frankfurt School’s critical theory. The basic communication process includes a sender and a receiver. Research influenced by the Columbia School, took a mechanistic approach to examining individual effects on the receiver by measuring such aspects as changes in attitude and behavior as a result of media use. It did reflect the behaviorists’ “stimulus-response” concept which was applied to the use and interaction with media as a force for changing opinions. Followers of the Frankfurt School called for a critical examination of the sender or the “culture industry.” James Rorty’s “The Business Nobody Knows” which examined advertisers effect on the individual and social psyche and Adorno’s “A Social Critique of Radio” are examples of the Frankfurt School.
There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.. With any new media, whether it’s radio or the internet, it is logical to begin by examining the effect on the person. While there was so much focus on the passive receiver that Lynd called it seeking “truth by counting noses,” Lazarsfeld did bring scientific discipline and professionalism to communication research. It was also implied that Lazarsfeld “sold out” because he received funding from sources with a vested interest in the results. As Simonson and Weimann point out, the limited effects paradigm was one small part of Lazarsfeld body of work and in other writing he and Merton did identify specific conditions in which media might have strong effects, drew attention to the ideological force of commercial media systems, and addressed other issues relevant to the culture industry. It could also be argued that today’s field of media researchers would not enjoy the current level of credibility without that initial investment of those vested interests.
Media researchers must continually question their motives and the tools they use to examine the social, political, economic and cultural ramifications of communication. While Gitlin’s critique of the Lazarsfeld and Katz Decatur study was a bit strident, he did raise important questions for media researchers to ask themselves today and into the future. In many respects, media research has become a self-sustaining industry on university campuses. It’s important to understand the social and historical context that has and continues to shape media research. As Gitlin points out so well, “mass communications research descends directly from the development of sophisticated marketing techniques. Even today, research is conceived, not because of what society needs to know, but what business needs to know to sell”. Even today, how does one explain the rash of research about internet use and effects? Is it driven by a need for greater social understanding or to answer the question – what sells?
posted by Vicky Hildebrandt at
4:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home