Page 80 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-05.qxd 8/16/2005 6:30 PM Page 66

66 Communication Theory & Research
primarily verbal formulations of the rich heritage of finely nuanced insights
gained during decades or even centuries of studies of texts and their hypothe-
sized impact on audiences. In recent decades, this tradition has been formulated
in theories of discourse, representation and general semiotics; methodologies of
systematic textual analysis have been developed and applied to mass media
(van Dijk, 1983; Jensen, 1987b).
However, the merits of audience theory developed within the social science
tradition may lie as much in its formal characteristics as in its substantive results.
The relatively strong demands for clarity, consistency and systematization tradi-
tionally upheld in most social and behavioural sciences have forged their theo-
ries into strong instruments for guiding the search for new knowledge, as well
as for efficiently expressing and structuring knowledge already gained – in
traditions of audience research oriented towards the social sciences and the
humanities alike.
Substantively, our systematics suggest that a comprehensive theoretical
framework for audience research requires at least three components: (1) a theory
of the social structures in which media and audiences are embedded; (2) a theory
of discourse or communication which accounts for the nature of media repre-
sentation (print, aural, visual); and (3) a theory of socio-cultural and social–
psychological dispositions with which individuals approach and interact with
media content. Each of these three components, of course, needs further clarifi-
cation and differentiation. A social structure theory, for instance, must encom-
pass the macro (societal), the mezzo (institutional) and the micro (individual)
level. At present there is no such theory at hand. Mutatis mutandis, the same
applies to the other two components. Nevertheless, there are many useful frag-
ments lying around, which, once they have been pieced together, might be used
as efficient stepping-stones, if nothing else. [...]
In terms of methodology, this implies that studies in the area should combine
elements of content analysis with audience research in one design. Too often, research
based in the humanities has neglected standard demographic classifications of the
populations which it sets out to examine. Similarly, much social science research
has tended to think of content in technical terms, as isolated bits of information
rather than as culturally coded vehicles of meaning. Reconciling this split may be
more important for the development of truly interdisciplinary methodologies than
a routine examination of quantitative/qualitative and/or administrative/critical
distinctions. As of today, only few broad, long-term studies of this type are to be
found (cf. Hansson, 1959; Segers, 1978; Schmidt, 1980–82; Svensson, 1985).
The question about what general methodological standards can be applied in
such empirical combinations of different methodologies presents a thorny prob-
lem. In the long run, however, this problem may be solved by the happy fact that
in science and scholarship, Gresham’s law does not apply. Good methodological
currency drives out not so good methodological currency – not the other way round,
as is the case in the marketplace.
The basic characteristic of both humanistic scholarship and social science is
the demand for inter-subjective validity. In the social sciences, this demand has
been explicated in some detail in the technical terms of reliability, validity and
generalizability. Some such technical explications are presently being accepted in