REFLECT ON RESEARCH TECHNIQUES OF STUDYING MEDIA INSTITUTIONS AND MEDIA AUDIENCE

REFLECT ON RESEARCH TECHNIQUES OF STUDYING MEDIA INSTITUTIONS AND MEDIA AUDIENCE

With all the intense research that one has deployed so far in media research, one can conclude that social science research in a never ending process. Media studies are part of social research; hence it is very crucial to understand media institution together with their main custodian the audience. All this can be achieved by researching both and recognising that both might from time to time be studied by different method together or in isolation. It has been proven that audience research might not be the same as studying institution. According to, Schroder, Drotner, Kline and Murray (2003:16) all audience is obstructive.

Media audience cannot be studied empirically without at the same time interfering with the phenomenon to be studied, every day practices through which people use and make sense of the media. This is one of the major characteristics that differentiate audience research from other types of media research that studies content. Because the analysis of content can be measured and interpreted without interfering or affecting the object. It has been on ongoing concern about the method of participator observation among earthographers when studying audience as the minute we study audience we will be intruders in their lives and we will be affecting their behavior either predictably or unpredictably. The moment we start talking to people about their media experiences, things might get more complicated, because we cannot take mutual understanding for granted even when researcher and informant belong to the same ethnic group Schroder, Drotner, Kline and Murray (2003:17). For this reason audience research can never claim to find the truth about audience practices and meanings, only partial insight about how audiences use the media in a specific context.

Moving to another domain of audience research technique is where data collection takes place through some sort of personal encounter between researcher and informant, be that an individual or a focus group interview. This result in an interpersonal communication exchange which as per prior discussion we highlighted how the interpersonal contact can to some degree result in interference with the research results. From the viewpoints of the methods discussed above to study media audience it can be concluded that there is no empirical method to study that can provide a rock solid knowledge about human society and its social and cultural practices. The methods available to study media audience are not perfect but there is no alternative except ignorance, which comes at a great cost for the society and media institutions. Imagine if we did not have a study on how the television soapie Generations that plays on SABC 1 weekdays affects the audience behavior, the producer Mfundi Vundla will not be concerned with replacing the 16 main cast that he has fired due to an illegal strike for better working conditions.

In studying media audience we mostly aim at the results of how the audience is being affected by the media culture. Another important aspect of researching media is looking into the media culture and media institutions. A great deal of research into media and culture is conducted or commissioned by media companies and organisations involved in the production, distributions and dissemination of media. Which those we call media institutions, Stokes (2003:98). We need to ask ourselves as media researchers as to how can one research media culture? There are several methods for addressing different aspects of researching a media institution. Archive research is the most frequently used of all methods of media research in the cultural and film industry. It is sometimes a bit challenging to use archive research in media institution as media scholars as most institution do no freely make their documents accessible to the public.

The other method study media institution is the interview. Whereas archives research focuses on what has been written or recorded, interviews are the primary means by which we use people as source of evidence in our research. With respect to the study of media institutions interviews are used differently as compared to the study of media audience. With studying media audience it is not necessary to interview more than one person to get the results intended for the research. In the case of media institutions is you are going to be using interviews as a primary source of information, you probably several people to ensure your subjects are all representative. Remember with the study of audience you study the effect of media institutions to people, but with the study it media institutions you are studying the impact on institution on audience; hence you are required to have all subjects represented. Note that one most important aspect in the different techniques in studying media audience and institutions is the considerations of ethics in both studies. In audience research ethics are more considered than in media institutions. In studying media institutions it is important to understand the history of the institution as it shapes the future direction of the institution in the social environment.

SOURCES CONSULTED: Schroder, K. Drotner, K. Kline, S. and Murray C. 2003. Researching Audience. London: Arnold

Stokes, J. 2003. How to do media and cultural studies research. London: Sage

University of South Africa. Department of communication science.2014.Honours studies:Tutorial Letter 301/2014 for COMNHONE. Pretoria

University of South Africa. Department of communication science.2014.Media Research: Tutorial Letter 101/2014 for COM4802. Pretoria