Ethnographic Approach to Audience Research - Essay Example

? Media Audiences Question What does an ethnographic approach to audience research involve? Briefly discuss howthis approach compares with other approaches to audience study and briefly outline the strengths and weaknesses of this approach in audience research. Answer: Ethnography is a branch of anthropology which provides scientific descriptions and interpretations of human social behavior. It is a systematic study of people that observes, through extensive fieldwork, how humans act and interact in a specific and defined culture. Ethnography is an approach to research dedicated to collecting in-depth information on social behavior in a specific context. Traditionally, culture was understood in geographic or ethnic terms (Arnould, 1998). Now culture or context (the word used in this paper), can refer to a range of settings/environments where people interact. Each context will be different and complex as a result of differences in history and cultural practices, for example. A context may be a school or workplace setting, a housing estate in an inner city or a hospital and will be selected based on the purpose of the research. The complexity of each context underpins and helps to explain behavior (Borman & Preissle-Goez 1986, pp. 42-57). The ethnographer a researcher using an ethnographic approach – will be interested in different types of behavior: for example, gaining insight into how children and teachers negotiate power in a classroom; how young people identify and ‘act out’ gang membership; or how apprentices learn new skills on the job Like other qualitative approaches research that seeks for more in-depth understanding and interpretation compared to quantitative approaches ethnography is concerned with the how and why of human behavior going beyond information that simply provides the what. For example, a survey investigating the choices people make about training over a twelve month period may find that a large number of people chose to opt out of additional literacy training at the end of a course cycle (Brown, 1995, pp. 951-69). The survey may well stop there as it is enough to know that decision was made. However, a more qualitative approach may decide to investigate further by interviewing those concerned to understand why this decision was made. Also, as with other qualitative approaches, in any one study, ethnography relies on a range of data collection methods and data sources to increase the validity of findings. A distinct feature of ethnography, however, is its reliance on participant observation – the researcher as a participant of the context being observed. The researcher is at one and the same time a researcher and participant. It is through the extensive and total immersion in a context that a participant observer is able to build a rich descriptive picture of those studied as a backdrop against which explanations can be explored (Arnould & Price 1993, pp. 24-45) When comparing all three different qualitative methodologies, each quite distinct in their procedures for data collection, interpretation and theoretical development. For example, grounded theory is ?exible in terms of data, but insists on theoretical sampling and saturation of both data and theory before theory development can be claimed. It is also a methodology particularly suited to situations that have a symbolic and, or, an interactional element to them. Consequently, it has potential for a number of research directions and contexts that go beyond consumer behavior, for example relationship marketing or even the sales situation (Brownlie, 1997, pp. 263-82). Ethnography is generally concerned with culture and power with the main forms of data generally participatory observation and interviews. Again, research agendas that focus on, for example, inter-departmental dynamics, gender issues, ethical marketing or green consumption may well bene?t from the application of an ethnographic approach. Finally phenomenology has its own unique characteristics and philosophy, which may be bene?cial in terms of theory building based around lived experiences, whether these consumption or strategic decision making (Arnould & Wallendorf 1994). In sum, each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but each are suited to the study of marketing phenomenon. However despite the ?exibility of the methodologies described, their application remains largely in the ?eld of experiential consumer behavior with their potential for theory development within the broader ?eld of marketing yet to be fully realised. Possibly this may be the next step in the development of qualitative research with marketing (Agar, 1983, pp. 32-48). Strengths and weaknesses The decision to use an ethnographic approach needs to be weighed against other choices. Questions on the time needed to carry out an in-depth study, its usefulness to potential audiences, and the cost benefits of choosing this type of approach over others need to be asked. Below is a brief outline of some of the strengths and weaknesses of an Strengths: 1. Makes sense of hidden meanings – uncovers ‘true’ behaviors and attitudes 2. Provides an in-depth descriptive account methods include in-depth notes & interviews 3. Participant observation intensive & extensive exposure to people’s lived experiences 4. Participant observation intensive & extensive exposure to people’s lived experiences 5. Interprets and explains by relating to existing theories 6. Deep insight into specific case study contexts . Weaknesses: 1. Time intensive 2. Expensive – potentially the case given the extensive nature of the research 3. Difficulties negotiating access to research sites 4. The impact of the researcher’s presence (whether overt or covert) needs to be considered this is the case in many qualitative approaches 5. Ethical issues exist over the correctness of participant observation – covert participation may breach people’s right to privacy while overt participation may distort how people behave. 6. Does not provide straightforward answers or quantifiable answers 7. Difficult to generalize findings from specific contexts Question 2: Briefly discuss arguments for and against using television ratings to measure audiences. Use examples to substantiate your argument.  Answer: Ratings hold a central position in measuring the strength of the audiences for the television industry. Ratings can have their positive and negative aspects of ratings use. It is a known fact that ratings provide an insight to analyze the strength of the audience, who get access to any sort of media such as television, viewing of any particular program, advertisements or a particular station/channel. Ratings are based on the information gathered from certain sampling techniques including geographical data and many more. The feedback collected through ratings enables the authorities to control what should be broadcasted and what should be banned from viewing. Audience ratings help the television industry to improve its broadcasting service performance, cost of its advertisements and sponsorships (Beville, 1988). The ratings approach depends on the behavior of the viewers which can be termed as exposure of an audience towards a media. This exposure of an audience is thoroughly analyzed which helps the television industry to target more audiences and to allocate time-slots to the sponsors. The ratings obtained for a certain program are also compared with other programs to determine the share of the audience. Ratings make a deep impact on the television authorities to analyze and determine the audience share and popularity of the channels and programs (Beville, 1988). However, rating approach to measure the strength of the audiences has been criticized by many researchers and theorists. Ratings have been observed as the standard to calculate the revenue generated through advertisements, therefore; television channels treat audiences as “commodities” by whom they make revenue on the consumption of their viewership. Different broadcasting channels struggle hard to gain maximum viewership as their economic system is heavily dependent on the amount of time spent in viewing a specific program and number of audience. In addition, audience ratings are also faced with strong criticism due to qualitative approach. This is mainly due to the reason that audience exposure is the only formula used for gathering data for ratings. The television industry only relies on the number of audience who are tuned to different program regardless of the fact that what they watch and what captures their interest. Ratings do not provide clear evidence in judging that which program or channel captures the mind of the audience and which one they find more interesting to watch. However, broadcasters can overcome the issue of low ratings for a certain program or channel by bringing changes to the programming decisions rather focusing on audience research. As a result, we can say that ratings benefit the broadcasters to a greater extent. Broadcasters are only focused on increasing their audience ratings regardless of the programs and the interest of the audience which is a failed approach. The above approach was criticized by two researchers Eileen Meehan and Ien Aang. Both of the researchers opposed the manipulation of the audiences by the use of the ratings. Meehan (2002) observed that there is very small amount of people involved in the main decision making process in making the choice for the television programming. And the present television programming doesn’t reflect the preferred choice of the mass audience. Ang argued that television broadcasters are least bothered about their audiences and their choices. However, ratings are just another mean of “collected audience data” that helps the broadcasters and the sponsors with the information they need. This offers the television industry to make their future decisions. Ang (1991) refers to this situation as “provisional certainty.” Also, this creates a stagnant competitor environment where everyone imitates the other one in programming to target more audiences. This is common in American television broadcasting services. Similarly, Australian broadcasting services were also criticized for their same attitude towards the audience ratings. The reliance on ratings to measure the strength of the mass audience gave a major setback to the popularity to the Australian broadcasters which earned them heavy losses. As a result, they were faced by the major aggression from their sponsors who were reluctant to consider any errors in the sampling techniques used in gathering the information. However, this Australian controversy raised some eyebrows on the authenticity of the ratings, their use by the broadcasters and the reliance of advertisers on the rating measurements. Question 3: The term ‘audience’ has been defined in different and overlapping ways, from the definition deployed by pioneers in the field of mass media research, to definitions found in more recent debate and theoretical dispute. Using examples briefly discuss differences in defining the term “audience” Answer: Audience plays a key role in determining the success of any media, program or channel. Undeniably audience stands as the backbone of any mass media. But this term has been exploited and manipulated by many researchers and theorists when they relate the actual meaning of audience in relation to define mass media and other broadcasting services. It is easily understandable that no program, channel or a media can excel without having a proper viewership or a large number of audiences. The term Audience is a broad term to be defined. It holds a vast meaning in it and reflects the broader scope in defining the real meaning of audience in context to mass media. Some of the researchers have used the term audience as a commodity or an economical source to earn revenue from the sponsors by the television authorities while on the other hand; some researchers define audience simply as the viewers. However, there is a clear rift has been observed on the definition and usage of this term which hold broader meanings and concepts in it. Some theorists see this term as conflicting in nature because broadcasting services can manipulate the true meanings of audience as viewers into potential customers for viewing their programs, giving their time and making them to gain profits and generate revenues through advertisements. It has been observed that television broadcasters gain high advantage by playing with the psyche of these audiences. They play a key role in shaping the behavior of the audiences as well as their lifestyle. It is important to understand that it is not always the audiences that decide what to watch and what not to watch in fact it has been observed that the behavior, personal choice and preference is determined by the broadcasters which compel them to watch a certain program in order to gain maximum viewership (Ang, 1991). Audiences are divided into active audience and passive audience. Active audiences are individualistic and have selective approach in viewing the media whereas on the other hand, passive audiences are the ones who are vulnerable in nature and their observation. Audience can also be differentiated on the level of their involvement in the media. Media has targeted the audience on a large scale i.e. from their individualism to their cultural level. List of References: Ang, I. (1991). Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge. Agar, M 1983, ‘Ethnographic evidence’, Urban Life, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 32-48. Arnould, E.J. 1998, ‘Daring consumer-oriented ethnography’, in Stern, B. (Ed.), Representing Consumers: Voices, Views and Visions, Routledge, London. Arnould, E.J & Price, L. 1993, ‘River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 20, pp. 24-45. Arnould, E.J. & Wallendorf, M. 1994, ‘Market oriented ethnography: interpretation building and marketing strategy formulation’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 31, pp. 484-504. Borman, K. & Preissle-Goez, J. 1986, ‘Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn’t work’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 42-57. Brown, A. 1994, ‘Politics, symbolic action and myth making in pursuit of legitimacy’, Organization Studies, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 861-78. Brown, A. 1995, ‘Managing understandings: politics, symbolism, niche marketing and the quest for legitimacy in IT implementation’, Organization Studies, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 951-69. Brownlie, D. 1997, ‘Beyond ethnography: towards writerly accounts of organising in Marketing’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 31, no. 3/4, pp. 263-82 Beville, H., M. (1988). Audience Ratings: Radio, Television, and Cable. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meehan, Eileen R. (2002). “Gendering the Commodity Audience: Critical Media Research,Feminism, and Political Economy.” In Sex & Money: Feminism and Political Economy in the Media, edited by Eileen R. Meehan and Ellen Riordan, 209-22.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Read More