Page 302 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

Appendix

Notes on method

The interviews in this book were conducted during an ongoing study of
meaning-making in the media age. An extensive account of that project,
along with in-depth discussions of its approach and methodology, were
1
published in 2004 as Media, Home, and Family. I will not repeat that mate-
rial here, but will provide a brief overview. Readers interested in more detail
should consult the earlier volume.
In the main, the theoretical and methodological approach of the overall
study is intended to address a gap in the media studies literature identified
by Lila Abu-Lughod in 1997. Assessing the “ethnographic turn” in media
theory, Abu-Lughod observed – to that point at least – much more theoret-
ical reflection on the value of this approach than actual field research had
2
taken place. The situation today is, of course, far different, and this study
joins a growing literature in media studies that is rapidly developing a
substantive record in ethnographic and interpretive audience research. 3
The approach taken in this book is linked to the development of the
overall research project as detailed in Media, Home, and Family. Briefly
put, the project began with the notion that the significance of media to
meaning (including religious or spiritual meaning) would be rooted in key
moments or “passages” of life. The approach was “post-positivist,”
stressing the need to shift the terms of analysis away from notions of the
instrumental power of the media to the moments and locations in life
where media are consumed. It soon became clear, however, both as the
result of field experience and evolving theoretical reflection, that this
approach was too limited. The field experience showed that the interaction
of media and religion clearly was taking place somewhere beyond those
key moments of crisis and transition. Theoretically, we were coming to
realize that our method necessitated a rethinking of our positions as
researchers and our complicity in the construction of the narratives we
were developing. My colleague Lynn Schofield Clark articulated for us the
4
notion that we were going beyond the “post-positivism” of our initial
phase to a “constructivist” position that moved to the center the question
of the status and meaning of the narratives we were developing from our
interviews. 5