Page 77 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-05.qxd 8/16/2005 6:30 PM Page 64

64 Communication Theory & Research
at terms of co-operation that would serve the interests of further research and,
perhaps, those of the audience.
Trying to sum up the methodological similarities and dissimilarities between
our five research traditions, one is struck by the parallel between, on the one
hand, the functions of experimental research in effects and U&G studies, and on
the other the empirical–qualitative approach of literary, cultural and reception
studies.
In both cases, through intensive and careful observation of a small number of
selected cases, new knowledge is produced about what happens under specified
conditions. What ‘happens’ is audiences attributing particular meanings to a given
media content; these meanings, in turn, may come to inform and affect the cog-
nition and behaviour of particular audience members. These are forms of impact
which can be established, for example, through experimental designs or partici-
pant observation in family settings. Quantitative survey research, however, using
representative samples drawn from strictly defined populations, gains knowl-
edge about what happens in these populations with a precise measure of proba-
bility. The survey methodology is, of course, designed with a view to recreate,
so far as possible, a set of specified and uniform conditions under which the
respondents can address, in a theoretically grounded and valid manner, the kind
of audience response under examination. The verbal response by which an inter-
viewee addresses an aspect of media and related attributes is thus the funda-
mental constituent of such methodologies. The correlation of such responses
in terms of statistical procedures establishes the different forms of impact.
Eventually, survey research and experiments in the laboratory as well as
empirical qualitative studies are interdependent. Not only do they represent
complementary forms of evidence, reminiscent of the classical in vitro versus in
vivo distinction. They also enter into a system of theoretical checks and balances
in which the explanatory value of each mode of analysis – independently and
in combination with other analytical modes – may be examined. This type of
theory and methodology development is, indeed, one of the most important
tasks for further research in the area of audience studies.
The main results of our overview of the theoretical and methodological
characteristics of the five research traditions under discussion are schematically
summarized in Table 5.1. [...]

Further Research

It is unrealistic to hope to completely reconcile the differential legacies of arts
and sciences which inform the five traditions of audience research outlined in
this article, and as stated this is not our ambition. Yet we do maintain that there
are further possibilities of convergence at several levels of analysis, not least in
terms of interdisciplinary theory development.
For such possibilities to be realized, it is first necessary, however, that the dif-
ferential character of theory formation in the humanities and social sciences be
clearly recognized. What humanistically oriented audience theory has to offer is