Sunday, October 3, 2010

Media consumption and public engagement.

Media consumption and public engagement.

In reviewing this article as a whole, in parts, and in re-read sentences after re-read sentences, i want to draw on three main observations. The first: how much research was done in the literature, and why. The second: this study illustrates why it is impossible to look at online data without having to consider offline data and vice versa. The third: it felt like the research conducted was so broad they raised more questions than it answered.

Couldry and Livingstone did more background research than i even fathomed to consider. They truly dissected everything they wanted to look at, and exhausted the literature out there. Their main research question, “What can media, and the organization of communication, contribute to democratic engagement and so to the long-term sustainability of democracy,” First the authors set out to distinguish “public” from “political.” I was really appreciative of this because as i was researching the digital stacks for my own research on participatory culture, it seemed like every other article was on the elections, polls, and votes. To look at engagement through the lens of media and participation through the lens of actionable engagement was brilliant. Right off this really helped me see how to frame your research parameters. If they had not done so, i would have assumed political engagement.

The other main take-away i had from the theoretical foundations section of this article was how much attention was payed to the methodology. The emphasis here was not the how, but why. Couldry and Livingstone did ample research on studies that utilized diaries, surveys, and interviews, because they were going to utilize all three methods. The diary was utilized because they wanted a way for the participants to be able to reflect. It was never intended to be a daily journal, but more of something at the end of the week they could record thoughts and impressions. The interviews were established to that they could put into context the journal entries. There was a fear that the journal entries would form a narrative as opposed to a genuine reflection, so the interviews were to help the participants and the researchers stay honest. The surveys were also in place to help get the participants on the right course when it came to their responses. They weren’t prompts by any means, but it put into perspective what they should be taking into consideration.

This was key for me as well. Throughout this entire section of the article there was definitely more emphasis put on the issues or difficulties/limitations they foresaw themselves getting into. This really helped narrow their focus and eliminate any skepticism or ambiguity in their research. I’ve been taking so much time to think about what i want to research, and virtually none spent on what i am not. By setting clear expectations on what i’m not trying to do, or being transparent in any difficulties can actually increase credibility, or at least that was the impression i got when i was reading.

When looking at the results of the research there was a lot of discussion on why each answer created more questions than it answered. Each one of these responses essentially boiled down to the fact they were only looking at “online” data without taking into consideration of offline data. Two examples are when they looked at the medium of choice to report their journal in, and what types of media the participants placed more value in.

The researchers felt that they wanted to let the participants report their observations in a way that would be the least intrusive on their day to day routine. This meant that if someone was more comfortable emailing, writing, blogging, or doing an audio recording, they could. The intent was wonderful because they desired the most natural and honest responses, so they left the medium open. The consequence was not only that it was difficult to decode consistently across all platforms of media, but the content of the responses was vastly different given the medium of choice. For example, those who chose email were usually keeping a daily report of their mediated activities while on break at work, meaning their responses were very short and to the point. Email was also a popular medium for those under 50 years of age. Those who chose audio/diary recordings tended to tell stories, and was more popular with those over 50. It was difficult for the researchers to leave out external factors such as medium, participant demographics, and the physical conditions in which the documentation occurred.

The second area where the researchers had difficulty in separating online vs offline data was in seeing where each participant found value in the media. The biggest example of this was the differentiation of how the media was used. The biggest example of this occurred when the researchers found participants over 50 years of age mostly read the paper as a means to “keep up with the daily news,” whereas younger participants kept up with the daily news through television and the internet. This made it particularly difficult in trying to determine if different forms of media spurred any more participation than others. Each conclusion they came to was, “it depends.”

This leads me to the last observation I wanted to make in the fact that this research book raised more questions than it answered. Now i’m not saying this a bad thing by any means, but the purpose wasn’t to see what questions would arise, but rather to answer a specific research question. I felt there were a significant amount of factors that played into the ambiguity of this research. First, the demographics of the participants were overwhelmingly over 30 and female. Because of this, there wasn't a balanced representation in the values of the participants, making every conclusion they had circumstantial. Second, by opening up so many different ways the participants could respond to the research, it made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions from one medium to the next without having to take into consideration offline factors. I don’t feel as though i would have a large problem with this research if they set out to simply explore the impacts media had on public engagement in a case by case basis. For example, instead of just saying “mediated public engagement,” they should add a specific medium like “...through news periodicals.” By isolating each major medium i felt they could have focused on why the offline data mattered as opposed to continually having to use the data as adding complications. I respect the fact that the researchers were trying to create a comprehensive study, but i now see the complications of trying to do so in the fact every single factor cross-references each other and trying to wrap it all up in a pretty bow become difficult.

In conclusion I did take a lot away from this article on how effective literature reviews can be in fine tuning the parameters of your research topic. I now know that i have to look into a lot of different areas not only in regards to the trending topics of my research(generational studies, participatory culture, online communities), but the successes of ethnographic online community studies as well. I also have a much better understanding of why narrowing the research question down is vitally important to the results section. I think my first hint of this was that the “issues” section of the results was longer than the literature review, or at least it felt like it was. This means that for the literature review I do for my thesis, I need to focus on the “why” more than the “what” or 
“how.” I know I want to do a case study on Project for Awesome 2010. I know I’m going to do this through interviews and participation. The “why,” however needs to be clearly stated so that I can focus my research questions. Am i doing the research because I dislike the rapport my generation has developed in the eyes of organizations and ivory towers? Am I doing it because I want to draw upon the key components that make this online community successful and conceptualize them in the work environment? Etc. The last thing I want to reflect on is that it’s ok to end up with more questions than I start with. Research is an evolving process to where I wont know have the questions and issues I’ll inevitably have until i’m experiencing them. I didn’t love the book, however, it absolutely demonstrated a framework for me, thus clarifying a lot of ambiguity for myself.

No comments:

Post a Comment