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).