Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience Research

Communication, Culture & Critique ISSN 1753-9129

ORIGINAL ART ICLE

Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Roleof the Interview in the History of AudienceResearch

Sonia Livingstone

Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A2AE, UK

Inspired by the ‘‘Keywords in Communication’’ theme of the 2009 ICA conference, thispaper observes the pivotal role played by ‘‘the interview’’ in the history of audience research.Although interviewing implies bidirectionality, research following Lazarsfeld constructedthe powerful interviewer and obedient interviewee, a tradition challenged by the criticalturn in reception studies and its emphasis on interviewee expertise. This enabled research topose crucial challenges to media and communication theory through giving the audience avoice. Yet today, this challenge risks being undermined as textbooks emphasize traditionalmethods, as the analysis of new media repositions mass audiences as ‘‘passive,’’ and asresearchers seem reluctant in practice to go out and talk to the public.

doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2010.01086.x

Inspired by the ‘‘Keywords in Communication’’ theme of the 2009 ICA conference,this paper observes the pivotal role played by one research method, ‘‘the interview,’’in the history of audience research. Simonson (2009) notes that the ‘‘interview’’originally referenced the ceremonial meetings of royalty—in an interview with theQueen, power lay with the Queen, with the interviewer as supplicant. More recently,Simonson suggests, interviews have figured within diverse ‘‘ecologies of power’’but one approach has undoubtedly predominated, in direct contrast with the royalmodel. When Lazarsfeld (1944) specified the techniques of open-ended interviewingfor studying public opinion, power lay clearly with the interviewer —constructed asa scrupulously impersonal expert trained to ‘‘gather’’ uncontaminated informationfrom obedient subjects. Furthermore, it was this approach that framed the earlydecades of audience research, including uses and gratifications, attitudinal, and someeffects studies. Although the Lazarsfeld tradition persists in the toolkit approachof many text books, it has been strongly challenged. In Keywords, Williams (1983)

Corresponding author: Sonia Livingstone; e-mail: [email protected]

566 Communication, Culture & Critique 3 (2010) 566–571 © 2010 International Communication Association

S. Livingstone Giving People a Voice

traced historical shifts in the power relations underlying each keyword, noting that‘‘the primary goal in each entry was to unsettle any (usually conservative) fixing ofthe meaning of a keyword’’ (Jones, 2006, p. 1210). Scrutiny of the term ‘‘interview’’surely emphasizes its bidirectionality (‘‘inter’’), and it was a renewed recognition ofthis power of interviewees to grant an interview (as well as recognition of the potentialabuses of power on behalf of interviewers) that stimulated critical rethinking of therelation between researcher and researched.

Half a century on from Lazarsfeld, critical researchers do ‘‘research with’’ ratherthan ‘‘research on’’ their interviewees (once ‘‘subjects,’’ then ‘‘respondents,’’ now‘‘informants’’ or ‘‘participants’’), treating them with respect, checking findings withthem to test their credibility, and designing research so as to be beneficial to inter-viewees as well as to the (still generally more powerful) interviewer. In terms offeminist methodology, this is to undermine the ‘‘masculine paradigm’’ in which‘‘interviewing necessitates the manipulation of interviewees as objects of study . . .

[although, paradoxically,] this can only be achieved via a certain amount of humanetreatment’’ (Oakley, 2005, p. 218). In other words, the masculine paradigm encour-ages a deceptively gentle approach that ensures the interviewee provides just whatthe interviewer requires in a manner far from the egalitarian power relations impliedby the notion of interview (Doucet & Mauthner, 2008). The critical alternative,then, enables interviewees to negotiate the terms of the interview and expressthemselves freely, including scope for them to question, surprise, or challenge theinterviewer.

It was this potential for surprise, in the rethought ‘‘interview,’’ that proved sogenerative in the history of audience research and, consequently, in the wider fieldof media and communications. In the 1980s and 1990s, the critical turn, drawingenergy from parallel developments in, most notably, cultural studies, social semi-otics, feminist research, consumption studies, and the anthropology of everyday life,determined to give the audience a voice, and this opened the way to a sea changein the wider critical analysis of media power (Livingstone, 1998). Findings froma series of interview studies (including the individual interviews of Hobson, 1982;Hodge & Tripp, 1986; Lewis, 1991; Radway, 1984; Schrøder, 1988, as well as thefocus group interviews of Liebes & Katz, 1990; Livingstone & Lunt, 1994; Morley,1992) demanded that ‘‘the audience,’’ singular, had to be rethought as ‘‘audiences,’’plural—for audiences turned out to take up, with alacrity, wit, and enthusiasm thepolysemic invitations of media texts. The audience, noun, had to be rethought interms of verbs—engaging, interpreting, negotiating, playing, critiquing, even audi-encing (Fiske, 1992)—whereas the noun was appropriated by industry and state(Ang, 1996).

Most important, interviewing audiences became the Trojan horse that openedup new forms of inquiry. First, it undermined the authority of elite textual analystswho had long conjured up model readers and sutured subjects without checkingif empirical readers were dutifully following. Second, it revealed the everydaymicrotactics of appropriation that reshape and remediate media forms and goods,

Communication, Culture & Critique 3 (2010) 566–571 © 2010 International Communication Association 567

Giving People a Voice S. Livingstone

forcing academic recognition of marginalized voices, unexpected experiences, andthe importance of the lifeworld in the circuit of culture. Third, it challenged theoriesof political economy and media imperialism, revealing processes of reappropriation,glocalization, counterflow, and, occasionally, resistance to dominant media power.Finally, it helped explain why the universalistic claims of media effects theories onlyever apply contingently, for media influence always depends on the context. In short,drawing on a rich mixture of semiotic theory, cultural critique, anthropologicalmethods, and the feminist revalorization of the ‘‘everyday,’’ audience receptionstudies, accompanied by audience ethnographies, launched a successful challenge tohitherto dominant theories of mass communication.

This story is no longer new, but in the subsequent rush to embrace ever moreethnographic methods, we should not overlook this history as much has beengained interviewing; much has been gained by talking to or directly asking theaudience (interview methods can complement and compensate for the limitationsof observational ones; Hoijer, 2008). This is not to advocate a naive empiricism, butrather to emphasize that, when claims are taken for granted about what audiencesdo or think or understand—claims which are often homogenizing, dismissive, orpatronizing—the very act of going out to speak with them can be critical (Hartley,2006). For this reason, accounts of audience research often begin with the thesis tobe critiqued or the myth to be countered—that soap opera audiences are mindlessor that talk show audiences are voyeuristic—in order then to reveal a more complexand illuminating picture of interpretative activity in context. To give two examplesfrom many, van Zoonen (2001) found by listening carefully to the audiences for BigBrother that the show provides an opportunity to renegotiate established boundariesbetween public and private, even questioning the ways that elites maintain theirprivilege (see also Livingstone & Lunt, 1994, on the talk show). Second, as Fiske(1992, p. 191) argued of audiences for a popular sitcom, their calling it ‘‘the most‘realistic show’ on television’’ does not make them stupid but rather reveals how theyuse ‘‘its carnivalesque elements as ways of expressing the difference between theirexperience of family life and that proposed for them by the dominant social norms.’’

Audiences’ engagement with supposedly trashy genres may allow them to explorewhat is real and how things could be otherwise, especially in relation to the genderand class relations of everyday life (Ang, 1996; Morley, 1992; Radway, 1984). Thisargument is not intended to assert naive notions of audience autonomy or overblownclaims of resistance, for ‘‘these models of audience activity were not . . . designed . . .

to make us forget the question of media power, but rather to be able to conceptualizeit in more complex and adequate ways’’ (Morley, 2006, p. 106). It is for these reasonsthat Schrøder, Drotner, Kline, and Murray (2003, p. 143) reframe what it means to‘‘ask the audience’’ thus:

Reception research methodology is predicated upon the qualitative researchinterview, which is used as a discursive generator for obtaining an insight intothe interpretative repertoires at the disposal of the informants as they make



sense of a specific media product. The interview is thus, ultimately, a vehiclefor bringing forward the media-induced meanings of the informants’lifeworld.

In short, to undermine the authority of text analysts is not to deny the role ofmedia forms and texts. To recognize local processes of meaning making is not todeny the political-economic might of media conglomerates. To see media influenceas contingent is not to deny its existence. To recognize the shaping role of diverselifeworlds is not to deny the social structures that, in turn, shape those lifeworlds. Mydefensive tone arises from the fact that all these and other claims have, over the years,been levied at practitioners of audience research, notwithstanding the critical forceof their theoretical and empirical insights, as I have sought to document in brief here.

Yet for some, going out and asking audiences still seems difficult—students andeven colleagues betray a rather practical reluctance to going outside the university,perhaps a distaste for risky negotiations with ‘‘real people’’ on their home ground.They look a little guilty when it is pointed out that, although they have diligently stud-ied media production, coded media representations, or examined public accounts ofdaily practices, they have omitted a key element in Johnson’s (1986/1987) ‘‘circuitof culture,’’ for this includes consumption as well as production or, for Hall (1980),decoding as well as encoding or, indeed, as for Habermas (1987), the lifeworld as wellas the system world. Yet how else can research move beyond positioning audiences asthe most spoken for and presumed about constituency in today’s mediated ecologiesof power?

Although the critical potential of giving the audience a voice has been recognized,now that theories and methods are once again being rethought for a digital age,it seems that we risk slipping back. When one hears that Internet use is activeby comparison with passive television audiences, or that interactive texts poseinterpretative challenges unprecedented in media history, or when one is presentedwith analyses of new media forms packed with unspoken assumptions about howpeople (often rendered singular as ‘‘the user’’) engage with them, it seems theargument for active audiences is easily forgotten (Press & Livingstone, 2006). Indeed,taking audiences for granted seems to come naturally. Each year when I teach mycourse on audiences, I find that students readily forget to distinguish implied fromactual audiences, not noticing whether a book about Big Brother includes audienceinterviews, and not noticing that Schrøder (1988) did speak to Dynasty audiences butthat Gripsrud (1995) did not, that Radway (1984) engaged with empirical audiencesand Modleski (1982) did not. Curiously, it remains easy to presume that one knowswhat other people think or feel.

Although audience studies have left behind Lazarsfeld’s ‘‘masculine’’ paradox ofimpersonal humanity, Hermes (2006) suggests that a new paradox has inspired and,simultaneously, undermined the critical potential of empirical work: ‘‘The impetusbehind audience research is precisely motivated by the wish not to speak on behalfof others even though, as a researcher, one does exactly that’’ (p. 156). This reminds


Giving People a Voice S. Livingstone

us that at the heart of the interview is not only speech but also listening. A poorlyconducted interview may be marked both by an interviewee reluctant to speak andby an interviewer who fails to listen carefully. But ask we must, and listen we must,for it is vital to go out and meet the audiences we theorize about.

References

Ang, I. (1996). Living room wars: Rethinking media audiences for a postmodern world. London:Routledge.

Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. (2008). Qualitative interviewing and feminist research. InP. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social researchmethods (pp. 328–343). London: Sage.

Fiske, J. (1992). Audiencing: A cultural studies approach to watching television. Poetics, 21,345–359.

Gripsrud, J. (1995). Dynasty years: Hollywood television and critical media studies. London:Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system: A critique offunctionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.),Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson.

Hartley, J. (2006). ‘Read thy self ’: Text, audience, and method in cultural studies. InM. White & J. Schwoch (Eds.), Questions of method in cultural studies (pp. 71–104).Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hermes, J. (2006). Feminism and the politics of method. In M. White & J. Schwoch (Eds.),Questions of method in cultural studies (pp. 154–174). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hobson, D. (1982). Crossroads: The drama of a soap opera. London: Methuen.Hodge, R., & Tripp, D. (1986). Children and television: A semiotic approach. Cambridge, UK:

Polity.Hoijer, B. (2008). Ontological assumptions and generalizations in qualitative (audience)

research. European Journal of Communication, 23(3), 275–294.Johnson, R. (1986/1987). What is cultural studies anyway? Social Text, 16, 38–80.Jones, P. (2006). Thirty years of Sociology, 40(6), 1209–1215.Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1944). The controversy over detailed interviews—an offer for negotiation.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 8, 38–60.Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.Lewis, J. (1991). The ideological octopus: An exploration of television and its audience. London:

Routledge.Livingstone, S. (1998). Making sense of television (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television. London: Routledge.Modleski, T. (1982). Loving with a vengeance. New York: Methuen.Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences and cultural studies. London: Routledge.Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. The Communication Review,

9(2), 101–121.Oakley, A. (2005). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In The Ann Oakley Reader:

Gender, Women and Social Science (pp. 217–232). Bristol: Polity.



Press, A., & Livingstone, S. (2006). Taking audience research into the age of new media: Oldproblems and new challenges. In I. M. White & J. Schwoch (Eds.), The question of methodin cultural studies. (pp. 175–200). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Schrøder, K. (1988). The pleasure of ‘Dynasty’: The weekly reconstruction of self-confidence.

In P. Drummond & R. Paterson (Eds.), Television and its audience: International researchperspectives. London: British Film Institute.

Schrøder, K., Drotner, K., Kline, S., & Murray, C. (2003). Researching audiences. London:Arnold.

Simonson, P. (2009). The interview. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Conference of theInternational Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana.van Zoonen, L. (2001). Desire and resistance: Big Brother and the recognition of everyday

life. Media, Culture and Society, 23(5), 669–677.


Dando Voz a la Gente: El Rol Crítico de la Entrevista en la Historia de la Investigación de la Audiencia

Sonia Livingstone Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science,

London, UK

Resumen

Inspirado en el tema de la conferencia de ICA sobre las “Palabras Claves en la Comunicación, ’’ este artículo observa el rol fundamental jugado por ‘‘la entrevista, ’’ en la historia de la investigación de la audiencia. Aunque hacer entrevistas implica bi-direccionalidad, la investigación siguiendo Lazarsfeld construyó al entrevistador poderoso y al entrevistado obediente, una tradición desafiada por el cambio crítico en los estudios de recepción y su énfasis en el entrevistado experto. Esto permitió que la investigación ponga desafíos a la teoría de los medios y la comunicación dándole voz a la audiencia. Aún hoy, este desafío corre el riesgo de ser devaluada dado que los libros de texto enfatizan los métodos tradicionales, los nuevos medios reposicionan a las audiencias masivas como ‘‘pasivas, ’’ y los investigadores no parecen estar seguros de ir y hablar con el público.

给予人民话语权：受众研究历史中的访谈的重要作用 Sonia Livingstone

英国伦敦政治经济学院媒体与传播系

【摘要：】本文受到2009年ICA会议“传播关键词”这一主题的启发，探讨了“访谈”在受众研究历史中的关键作用。虽然访谈意味着双向性，但是继拉扎斯菲尔德之后的研究都建构了强大的采访者和柔弱的受访者这一关系，然而这种传统又受到受众研究中的批判转向及其对受访者专业知识的重视的挑战。同时，给予观众话语权使得对媒体和传播理论的研究构成极大挑战。然而这种挑战因当前教科书强调传统的方法而被破坏，新媒体重新将大众放在被动的地位，而研究者似乎并不愿意走出去与公众对话。

Donner une voix aux gens : du rôle critique de l’entretien dans l’histoire de la recherche sur les auditoires Sonia Livingstone Inspiré du thème « Mots clés de la communication » de la conférence 2009 de l’ICA, cet article examine le rôle crucial joué par « l’entretien » dans l’histoire de la recherche sur les auditoires. Bien que l’entretien suggère la bidirectionnalité, la recherche qui a suivi Lazarsfeld a construit l’image du puissant intervieweur et de l’interviewé obéissant. Cette tradition a été contestée par le tournant critique des études de la réception et l’importance qu’il accorde aux compétences des interviewés. Cette mise en question a permis à la recherche de soulever des enjeux cruciaux de la théorie de la communication et des médias en donnant une voix à l’auditoire. Or aujourd’hui, cette mission risque d’être ébranlée par les manuels qui insistent sur les méthodes traditionnelles, par les médias d’information qui repositionnent les auditoires de masse comme étant « passifs » et par les chercheurs qui semblent réticents à sortir parler au public.

Den Menschen eine Stimme geben: Zur kritischen Rolle des Interviews in der Geschichte der Publikumsforschung Sonia Livingstone Inspiriert durch das Konferenzthema „Schlüsselworte der Kommunikation“ der ICA-Jahrestagung 2009, befasst sich dieser Artikel mit der zentralen Rolle des „Interviews“ in der Geschichte der Publikumsforschung. Auch wenn Interviewführung grundsätzlich eine Bidirektionalität impliziert, konstruierte die Forschungstradition nach Lazarsfeld den mächtigen Interviewer und den gehorchenden Interviewten - eine Tradition, die im Zuge der kritischen Wende in der Rezeptionsforschung und der Betonung der Expertise des Interviewten in Frage gestellt wurde. Indem dem Publikum eine Stimme gegeben wurde, konnte die Forschung wesentliche Herausforderungen an die Medien- und Kommunikationstheorie herantragen. Allerdings laufen diese Herausforderungen heute Gefahr, unterminiert zu werden, da in den Lehrbüchern traditionelle Methoden betont werden, neue Medien die Massenpublika als „passiv“ repositionieren und Forscher zögern, hinauszugehen und mit der Öffentlichkeit zu sprechen.

7

시민들에게 목소리를 부여하기: 오디언스 연구의 역사에서 인터뷰의 주요 역할에 대한

소고

Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience

Research

Sonia Livingstone

Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political

Science, London WC2A

2AE, UK

2009년 ICA 학회의 커뮤니케이션 키워드 주제에 의해 자극받아. 본 논문은 오디언스

연구의 역사내에서 인터뷰에 의해 진행된 주요한 역할을 목격했다. 비록 인터뷰가

양방향성을 의미하는 것이라해도 라자스펠드를 따르는 연구들은 강력한 인터뷰실행자와

복종적인 인터뷰대상자를 구현한바, 이러한 전통은 수용자연구에 의해서 도전받아왔다.

이는 연구들이오디언스에게 목소리를 부여하는 것을 통하여 기존의 미디어와

커뮤니케이션 이론들을 도전한 것이다. 그러나 오늘날까지, 이러한 도전은 전통적인

방법론을 강조하는 교과서들에서는 별 대접을 받지 못하여 왔다.

Documents

Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience Research