|
|||
|
|
The empiricist researchers were concerned to find out as much as possible about media audiences, in much the same terms as advertisers today would seek information from, say the NRS: number of people, age, sex, social status, occupation, leisure and so on.
By and large these data tended to be used to support studies into the effectiveness of communication, rules for mounting effective campaigns and so on.
Contemporary commentators on media research are frequently dismissive of the 'scientific', experimental methods often employed in early empiricist 'Effects Research'. Whilst there is much to criticize in this approach, the critics often unfairly overstate their case, disregarding the methodological diversity which did exist at the time. Such diversity was often forced upon the researchers by the realization that their 'scientific', 'positivistic' approach was based on a transmission model of communication which conceives of a message being sent from sender to receiver, disregarding institutional, psychological, cultural and other factors which contribute to any possible effects the media may have.
Very important amongst these researchers was Carl Hovland of Yale whose carefully controlled experiments were designed to test the separate variables in the communication process. The main focus of his research was persuasion. Many of the principles he established are generally accepted today - one finds them being repeated, in one form or another, by, for example, political spin doctors, PR people, advertisers. However, it's worth bearing in mind that such people are trying to sell their services and so may be making greater claims for Hovland's principles than they deserve. Certainly, as mentioned above, many contemporary critics would criticize the unashamedly positivist approach adopted by Hovland, an approach which implies that it is possible to discern general 'rules' for effective and persuasive communication.
Please click here for more details of the Hovland approach:
Paul Lazarsfeld was also a very important researcher who contributed much to the development of empirical methods in the social sciences during his work at the Columbia Bureau of Applied Social Research. The most famous of the studies he conducted was that into voting behaviour carried out in the 1940s and which led him to develop the highly influential Two Step Flow Model of mass communication. As a result of his research, Lazarsfeld concluded that the media actually have quite limited effects on their audiences. This view of the media is common to many of the researchers in the US. Hovland, for example, whilst showing what variables can be altered to make a communication more or less effective, also places considerable emphasis on those factors, especially social factors such as group membership, which limit the persuasiveness of the message. Consequently, this view of the media is often referred to as the 'limited effects' paradigm or tradition.
In Towards a Sociology of Mass Communication (1971), McQuail summarises some of the main findings of the research which confirms this 'limited effects' view:
Consequently:
Schramm (1982) points to three powerful effects which the media can exert and which are pointed to by the research of the Columbia Bureau:
As mentioned above, the empiricist vein of research in the US was funded to a large extent by major corporations concerned to investigate the influence of their advertising and public relations and by political parties which wished to devise the most effective campaigns. Another important impetus came from the government which responded to widespread public concern about media (especially film and then, later, television) portrayals of violence and their possible link with juvenile delinquency. The nature of the assumed links was then and continues to be unclear and confused. Klapper (1960) reduced the assumptions to six basic forms:
mass media messages containing the portrayal of crimes and acts of violence can
In essence, it is these assumptions which continue to underlie public concern over the media's possible harmful effects, notably on children. This concern has been reflected in the government
funding of research into media violence and delinquency, both here and abroad. It is also reflected in the very extensive legislation in the UK (see the sections on regulation), and in frequently stated media assumptions that violent media messages cause violence. Because it is a matter of such widespread concern, there is a separate section on research into violence. Please click here to go to that section:
|