Fifth Blog Entry

A comparative critique of the research projects by Lloyd, Duncan, and Bussiek (2010) on Public broadcasting in Africa; and Human Capital (2008) on Public service broadcasting now and in the future

Introduction

This blog entry shall provide a comparative critique on the above-mentioned research projects conducted on the public broadcasting between the years 2008 and 2010. The writer shall use the components that make up writing the research project in order to be able to compare these research projects.

A comparative critique

Firstly the writer shall compare both research projects in terms of their titles. When one take a glance at each of these research project’s title, it emerges that in Lloyd et al (2010) research project; the main title perfectly describes the research project by using the secondary or supporting titles. The title managed to describe the type of the research as a survey, had also described which part of Africa is being researched in relation with the public broadcasting.

While looking at the Human Capital (2008) research report; the title is somehow vague in terms the research project setting (where the research did take place). But apart from that mistake, the title of the report does describe the research project well and more importantly does explain which specific aspect of the media is being researched in the public service broadcasting during the given time periods. The title makes it clear that the research project is aimed at researching the audience attitudes.

According to the Undergraduate Research Conference (2014) “an abstract is a one-paragraph summary of a research project”. It goes on to establish that; abstracts precede papers in research journals and appear in programs of scholarly conferences. One may put it that; an abstract is that summary that gives a reader an overview of what is covered in the research.

In relation to the Lloyd et al (2010) research project the researchers in what they referred to as ‘foreword’ clearly detailed the background of the public service broadcasting in Africa and also mentioned some common problems such institutions are faced with. In the final paragraph of their foreword the researchers give an indication of what their project aims to address or solve.

While Lloyd et al (2010) uses a clear narrated abstract, Human Capital (2008) research project uses a more sophisticated form of an abstract. In the executive summary part, the researchers use a point-by-point format where they provide the findings obtained from the projects participants. One may strongly argue that, this form of summary may be treated as an abstract. To substantiate this argument, one may put it that such findings contain a rich information about what the research was all about and can still appeal to the reader to go on reading the research project.

In both the Lloyd et al (2010) and Human Capital (2008) studies, the introductory part of each does make the purpose of the research clear. In Lloyd et al (2010) the purpose of the study is made clear, for example, where they indicate that; in order to assist the current, renewed efforts towards broadcasting reform in South Africa, the research and editing team have made their findings, conclusions and recommendations successively available to the SOS Coalition. The latter clearly indicates the need or purpose of the study to have been undertaken, one may argue.

With Human Capital (2008) study, the introductory part the researcher clearly indicates the purpose of the study where it is stated that; the purpose of the research is to help inform the BBC’s submission to Ofcom’s second review of public service broadcasting, currently underway. Well put and full of detail, one may argue that; the reader would not struggle in understanding the purpose of the study.

In both studies it emerges that, in Lloyd et al (2010) study, the problem statement is vague but explained by the title of the study, one may contend. This conclusion is arrived at given the nature of the study as a survey, which one may argue that its main purpose was to investigate the state of the matters at hand but not to answer an answered question as one may put it. But in contrast to that; the Human Capital (2008) study lays a clear problem statement as; “the purpose of the research is to help inform the BBC’s submission to Ofcom’s second review of public service broadcasting, currently underway”.

In relation to the Human Capital (2008) study Human Capital was commissioned by the BBC Executive to carry out a programme of audience research investigating attitudes towards public service broadcasting (PSB) and plurality. In other words, the BBC Executive saw it as worthwhile for the study to be conducted, hence a reason for the study. For Lloyd et al (2010); the main reason for conducting this research was to contribute to Africa’s democratic consolidation. One may argue that it may have been a problem that African democracies may at some stages seen as unconsolidated and prone to rapid collapse after they have been acquired by African states. South Africa was used as a subject of this research.

Lloyd et al (2010) study does not use research questions as one reads through it. The integral part of the study is the discussion on the important aspects that are viewed by the researchers as suitable for arriving at conclusions and recommendations. Aspects discussed and investigated are among other things, the landscape of broadcasting, the regulation towards broadcasting, and the programming part of broadcasting. For Human Capital (2008) study the researcher does not have a clear research question. Only the problem statement is apparent which can in turn be restated as a research questions. One may in a question form re-state it as “what attitudes do the audiences hold towards the Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) and plurality?”

It is clear that both studies use the aid of statistics in terms of arriving at their findings. The different statistical methods such as graphs are used to present different data that contains figures.  One may add that, the statistical methods used in both studies are well explained and comprehensive for one to use.

Finally when looking to these two studies in relation to the conclusions and recommendations, it emerged that the Human Capital (2008) study does not have any recommendations but only conclusions. In contrast to that, Lloyd et al (2010) study provides for both conclusions and recommendations. All the concluding remarks are them followed by the recommendations, for example; they recommend that, inter alia, ICASA (Independent Communication Authority of South Africa) as well as civil society organisations should review the diversity of news across the different stations to assess whether or not current measures are ensuring access to diverse and original news on radio, or if there is an over-reliance on news agencies for content.

Conclusion

A comparative critique has been undertaken in relation of the two studies namely; Lloyd et al (2010) and Human Capital (2008). With the aid of the guidelines for conducting a critique of the research, certain aspects have been rooted out when comparing the two studies. It was found out that while most of the research components are present in both studies components such as the recommendations were lacking in the other study.

 List of Sources

Human Capital. 2008. Public Service Broadcasting Now and in the Future - Audience Attitudes. A report plus research appendix by Human Capital. [O]: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/now_future.pdf
Lloyd, L., Duncan, J., Minnie, J. and Bussiek, H. 2010. Public Broadcasting in Africa. A Survey. South Africa Country Report. [O]: http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/images/uploads/Annexure_D_-_Afrimap_Research.pdf

Undergraduate Research Conference. 2014. How to Write an Abstract for the Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities Conference [O] Available: http://undergraduateresearch.ucdavis.edu/urcConf/write.html (Accessed on 22 August 2014).

Fourth Blog Entry

Research techniques one can employ when studying media institutions and media audiences and the different foci and purposes these techniques would entail when studying media institutions as opposed to studying media audiences

Introduction

Media institution alternatively referred to as culture industry in Stokes (2003:101), is defined as one which has its main function the production or distribution of art, entertainment or information. As the topic indicates, the writer shall break it into two parts. Firstly a discussion on the research techniques one can employ when studying media institutions shall be engaged with and subsequently, a discussion on the different foci and purposes these techniques would entail when studying media institutions as opposed to studying media audiences shall follow.

Research techniques one can employ when studying media institutions

Various approaches or types of research are provided in Stokes (2003) with which a researcher may study the media industries. According to Stokes (2003:109-125), the following four (4) research types may be employed to research the media institutions;

1. Archive research
Archive research involves accessing original documents and using these as the basis of your research or object of analysis, Stokes (2003:109) indicates. She further points out that archive research is one of the most frequently used methods of media research, including cultural and film history. With her explanation of what an archive is; one may conclude that this type of method is focused into obtaining much information about a specific researched institution. According to Stokes (2003) archive research is one of the main methods used in all forms of historical research, including those based on texts and audiences.

2. The interview
According to Stokes (2003:114) the interview are primary means by which people are used as sources of evidence in a research. She defines interview as a method in media and cultural research that enables us to find out about people’s ideas, opinions and attitudes. As she puts it; Stokes (2003) indicates that the interview might be one’s primary method or it may be used to gain background information. In simpler terms, the interview may be used to support the data derived from, for example, the archive, or used as the primary source of data if none has been obtained. Jane Stokes indicates that interviews have been used more recently to study British soap operas. Lesley Henderson (1999) work which elicits some interesting insights into how and why soap operas address serious social issues such as breast cancer or domestic violence is cited by Stokes (2003) as an example of the use of the interview. Stokes (2003) indicates that Henderson interviewed personnel who worked on the leading television soaps in Britain such as people at various levels of the production, including writers, producers and script editors. One may conclude that the interview method is mainly concerned with individuals rather than stored material.

3. Participation observation
Stokes (2003:120) maintains that the scepticism of people in the media industry towards media studies as one of the hurdles that has to be overcome in researching media studies suggested a need for the participation observation method. Stokes (2003:120) points out that; one of the methods of understanding the routines is through participating in these routines oneself. In other words, Stokes (2003) suggests that for one to understand how the media institutions operate is for one to participate in such media institutions daily operations. In regards of media studies as Stokes (2003) indicates; most participant observation is done in industries by people who already work there or who have very good contacts, and the fieldwork is conducted over several months. She further points out that scholars have used this method in the past to examine the decision-making process at work, the professional norms and values of media workers, and how ideology behind their work gets translated into media content. The latter may be equated to the daily operations of any media institution, one may indicate.

4. Oral history
Although the oral history method typical use in media studies field is in researching audience as Stokes (2003:124) admits, she indicates that; however, it is possible to conduct an oral history study of the culture industries if you have access to people who witnessed significant developments in the history of the media. Citing Mark Williams example, Stokes (2003) indicates that Williams, 1999) interviewed Monty Margetts, the presenter of an early television cookery programme, using the techniques of oral history. However Stokes (2003) warns of the difficulty that arises from getting access to people in the industry to interview about the past.

Research techniques one can employ when studying media institutions
In her book, Stokes (2003) identifies several methods that one may employ in studying media audiences and also indicates that the primary object of analysis in that regard is people. In simpler terms Stokes (2003) highlights the point that as opposed to studying media institutions, studying media audiences is entirely people-oriented. The following methods are detailed as the best methods when one is to study media audiences.

1. Observing audiences
According to Stokes (2003:137), scientific method is based on observation, thus many methods of observing audience behaviour. She specifically singles out the experimental (laboratory) research and ethnography as some of the methods that may be useful when studying media audience. In regards to experimental research; Stokes (2003:137) indicates that this method is directly derived from science.  As Jane Stokes (2003) points out; “in the early days of mass communication research (the 1920s and 1930s), some experiments were made within the laboratory setting. Citing the Payne Fund Studies, conducted in the USA between 1928 and 1932, Stokes indicates that such studies included laboratory experiments among the many methods employed to investigate the impact of the cinema on children and young people. It may be put that, this method is concerned with observing physical responses of participants in the study rather than asking the participants questions in order to obtain answers. In one of the Payne Fund Studies as Stokes (2003) indicates; it was found that the youngsters displayed physical responses while watching films, leading the researcher to conclude that the movies did have an effect on young viewers. One of their findings, Stokes (2003) explains, was that adolescents of sixteen years of age got more excited than children of nine during scenes involving themes of a romantic or sexual nature.
Regarding ethnography, Stokes (2003) explains that this method is the most direct way of finding out how audiences behave by observing in the field. In contrast to the former method, ethnography might involve observing how people behave when they are actually watching television, shopping, dancing and so on, as Stokes (2003:138) puts it. One may maintain that, ethnography draws its focus more from the real-time behaviour of the subject of analysis rather than the effects displayed. Interestingly, Stokes (2003:140) indicates that ethnographic methods are often used in combination with other methods, commonly the interview.

2. Asking questions
“While ethnography and methods of observation can be useful in finding out about audience behaviour, if you want to find out about people’s ideas, opinions and attitudes, there is no substitute for asking them”, Stokes (2003:141). Well put and straightforward, Jane Stokes indicates that this method is focused with asking the audience questions in order for a researcher to understand some of their hidden aspects, one may maintain. According to Stokes (2003), whether they use questionnaires, interviews or focus groups, researchers are not directly observing respondents to get information, but are relying on reports of participants in the study. Stokes (2003) warns that; it is important to remember that the subjects are relaying information to the researcher about their world and are thus observing on the researcher’s behalf. In other words, what is meant is that; the subjects are the primary source of information which is unknown to the researcher, one may put it. But Stokes (2003:141) highlights that; a key to making sure that respondents give accurate reports lies in the design of the questions. Stokes (2003: 141-148) explains in-depth the technical aspects of employing this method such as, the questionnaire design, types of questions, reliability and validity techniques and so on. 

3. Focus groups
Stokes (2003:148) indicates that; the focus group is a good way of researching the responses, ideas and opinions of people in greater depth than survey. She further explains that a focus is an organized discussion of a small group of people on a given topic. One may put it that; a focus group is all about a discussion by pre-selected people (participants) about the topic researched. While regarding focus groups as best approach if one want to find out why people believe what they do, understand more of nuanced reasons behind their answers or question them about their opinions of particular media texts, Stokes (2003:148) admits that it is a more textured method of analysis and one plagued with problems of reliability and validity as a consequence.

In organizing one’s focus group, Stokes (2003:150) indicates that professionals pay people to attend focus groups. She therefore encourages one to consider their access to potential subjects and try to design a study which allows them to use their friends and fellow students (if one is a student) as subjects as much as possible. Stokes (2003:151) indicates that as to the number of subjects, there is no definitive answer as to how many people you should interview or survey in one’s audience research.

4. Oral history
Finally, another method used to research media audience is the oral history, as Stokes (2003) indicates. According to Stokes (2003:151) “interviewing is a very good way of finding out about people’s behaviour and their attitudes to the past as well as the present”. One may put it that this method is concerned with the knowledge that particular people posses about the media audience in different media epochs. According to Stokes (2003) O’Sullivan found that very little work had been done on how audiences experienced television viewing, hence this method can be used to good effect to investigate audience in the past. Stokes (2003) cites one example as being a research question such as “How influential was punk music on people growing up in the 1970s?” Given the period which this question tries to investigate, it may be put that most of the data collection will rely on the oral interviews with people who had grew up during that period of time, one may maintain.

Conclusion
This blog has addressed the methods or techniques that one may employ when researching media institutions and media audiences. It has emerged that some methods used overlaps between the audience research and the media institution research. Although the methods used are at some stages similar, such as the oral history method, the audience research methods seem to mostly rely on people while the institutions rely on the media artefacts as the subjects of the study. The different foci and purposes of each research methods were also indicated in the discussions under each media component (audience or institutions) respectively.

List of Sources

Stokes, J. 2003. How to do media and cultural studies research. London: Sage. [O] Available:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/53980534/Stokes-How-Todo-Cultural-Studies (Accessed 21 August 2014)

Third Blog Entry

The purpose of this blog is to reflect on the two main aspects on the media. The writer attempts to elaborate on firstly, the purpose of studying media audiences then secondly, the purpose of studying media institutions. Works from various distinguished authors are employed in order to address these two aspects on the media.

a. The purpose of studying media audiences

In order to address the topic, one’s point of departure must be defining what audience is.  Hartley (2011:16) indicates that; originating as a collective noun for those within earshot, who can ‘audit’ a dramatic performance or hear the words of a monarch or pope, the term audience is now used to describe a large number of individually unidentifiable and mutually anonymous people, usually united by their participation in the media. He further points out that; given the varying demographics of this group, not to mention variations between nations, the concept itself is a means by which such an essentially unknowable group can be imagined. With the aid of Hartley (2011) observations, one may strongly assert that, indeed, the media audiences may be equated to an abstract to the media institutions. In simpler terms, it may be put that; the media institutions are perpetually delivering their content to the large number of people who are unknown to such institutions, one may argue.

In an attempt to answer his question “Why audience research?”, Mytton (1999:14) establishes that, the questions “Who is listening?” or “Who is watching?” are surely not unwarranted or even remarkable questions to ask. He suggests that; certainly the broadcasters need to know something about the people who are watching or listening. This indicates that as the media audience are as Hartley (2011) described, ‘the unknowable group that is imagined’.

While admitting that audience research is more than a matter of knowing if anyone is listening or watching, Mytton (1999:15) indicates that; by audience research we mean the various methods and techniques used to find out about audience. He goes on to point out that it covers a wide range of information gathering exercises.

According to Mytton (1999:16); broadcasters in the early days of radio in Europe and the United States knew remarkably little about their listeners. He further indicates that what they thought they knew was based on very unreliable and misleading methods. One may strongly argue that such unreliable methods were resulting from the lack of proper study of the audience, hence a need for audience research. With Mytton (1999) view on the nature of broadcasting in the early days of radio in the United States, an indication is that there was no systematic audience research. Mytton (1999:16) observes that most United States broadcasting was and is paid for by advertising which determined what went on air. But he further makes a point that the advertisers soon began to realise that they needed information that was independent of their views and opinions or those of the owners of the radio stations. The latter hints to the need for audience research that arose from the observations of the advertisers, one may argue.

According to Mytton (1999:19) audience research can be used as a means of maximising the effectiveness of public advocacy campaigns, and of improving and enhancing education and information for effective democracy and good governance. On the other side of the discourse Hartley (2011:17) indicates that audience enable media organisations to sell advertising or to fulfil their public and statutory obligations, whether for television, radio, magazines or the press. In his view, Hartley (2011) emphasises that it is important to know the size, quality (demographic composition) and characteristics of audiences for this purpose these data relate directly to revenue.

It now becomes clear to one that the audience is the most vital part of the media organisations to be able to survive in doing their business, one may point out. As Hartley (2011:17) puts it; “for media organisations, the concept of audience allows the exchange of information and entertainment to become commodified”.

b. The purpose of studying media institutions

According to McQuail (2010:282) “most organisations have mixed goals, and rarely are they all openly stated”. He points out that mass media are no exception, and they may even be particularly ambiguous in this respect. One may suggest that Dennis McQuail puts the media institutions in par with any other organisations that exist globally but most importantly hints that they may have different purposes. Indeed the media institutions would not function in a same manner as any others; they do have their own unique qualities. In his argument, McQuail (2010) indicates that most media are run as businesses but often with some ‘ideal’ goals, and some media are run primarily for ‘idealistic’ social or cultural purposes, without seeking profit.

Jensen (2012) work gives a more clear detail on the purpose of studying media institutions. In summary, according to Jensen (2012: 73-78) the internal environment and external context within which the media institutions operate informs their final product. One may point out that these internal functions of the media are subject to research, hence the need to study the media institutions.

According to Jensen (2012:72) the production of particular media artefacts within specific industrial systems obviously takes place within more general context. He indicates that one level of analysis that may be used when studying the media institutions is what he termed ‘national and international political economy and policy’. With this unit of analysis, Jensen (2012) attempted to explain how the media institutions and their functioning are affected by such factor afore mentioned. One may argue that; in order to understand a certain media institutions what appears to be of most importance is the degree of the effect put on the media institutions by the political sphere. In this regard, one may be able to understand the functioning of a specific media institution, one may put it.

Secondly Jansen (2012:73) speaks of the second level of analysis; specific industrial contexts and practices. He indicates that; historical approaches have also been prominent in research examining the institutional configuration of media industries, but further indicates that this level of analysis focuses precisely on specific industrial practices. One may put it that; this level of analysis focuses on the production norms the specific industry follows. Simply put, one may refer to those norms as the operational tradition. Jensen (2012:73) make notes of what researchers may make use of when applying this level of analysis on media institutions. According to Jansen (2012) researchers rely heavily on primary historical records- contracts, inter-office memoranda and among others things, production manuals.

In conclusion one may indicate that the purpose of studying media institutions lies on the understanding of how such institutions functions, what production do they follow, their stance in the political economy and in most cases for different countries, their position in relation to the government policies on the media. One may point out that policies on media vary from country to country and thus difference in the functioning of media institutions respectively.

 LIST OF SOURCES

Hartley, J. 2011. Communication, cultural and media studies. 4th edition. London: Routledge.

Jensen, KB. 2012. A handbook of media and communication research: qualitative and quantitative methodologies. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

Mytton, G. 2007. Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research. (web edition). Paris: UNICEF and UNESCO.

McQuail, D. 2010. McQuail’s mass communication theory. 6th edition. London: Sage.