The encoding/decoding model invites analysts to categorize readings as ‘dominant’, ‘negotiated’ or ‘oppositional’ . This set of three presupposes that the media text itself is a vehicle of dominant ideology and that it hegemonically strives to get readers to accept the existing social order, with all its inequalities and oppression of underprivileged social groups.Schrøder, Kim Christian. Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. European Journal of Cultural Studies 2000; 3; 233 Since the early days of cultural studies-oriented interest in processes of audience meaning-making, the scholarly discussion about ‘readings’ has leaned on two sets of polar opposites that have been invoked to explain the differences between the meaning supposedly encoded into and now residing in the media text and the meanings actualized by audiences from that text. One framework of explanation has attempted to position readings on an ideological scale from ‘dominant’ through ‘negotiated’, to ‘oppositional’ , while another has relied on the semiotic notion of ‘polysemy’ , frequently without identifying or even mentioning its logical ‘other’: the ‘monosemic’ reading. Often these two frameworks have been used within the same argument, with no attempt made to distinguish ‘polysemic’ from ‘oppositional’ readings: in the literature one often encounters formulations which imply that if a TV programme triggers a diversity of meanings in different audience groups, this programme can then be called ‘polysemic’ , and the actualized meanings ‘oppositional’ .Schrøder, Kim Christian. (2000). “Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception”. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 3:233 Audience analysis emphasizes the diversity of responses to a given popular culture artifact by examining as directly as possible how given audiences actually understand and use popular culture texts. Three kinds of research make up most audience research: ↵ 1) broad surveys and opinion polls (like the famous Nielsen ratings, but also those done by advertisers and by academic researchers) that cover a representative sample of many consumers. 2) small, representative focus groups brought in to react to and discuss a pop culture text. 3) in-depth ethnographic participant observation of a given audience, in which, for example, a researcher actually lives with and observes the TV viewing habits of a household over a substantial period of time, or travels on the road with a rock band. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes more than one approach is used as a check on the others. Audience analysis tries to isolate variables like region, race, ethnicity, age, gender, and income in an effort to see how different social groups tend to construct different meanings for the same text. The ‘ethnographic turn’ contributed to the maturing of the field as contexts of consumption are now recognized as having significant impact upon the processes of the interpretation of media. Sometimes characterized as the ‘active audience’ approach, this paradigm has attracted criticism for the apparent jettisoning of the influence of cultural power, diminishing the authority of the text while elevating the influence of context. Nevertheless, developments in this vein have deepened our understanding of the significant relationship between media texts and the production of identity. Repeatedly, audience studies and fan studies have recorded the ways in which media texts are utilized and often re-made in the creative production and reproduction of self-identity.Wood, Helen. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis, Media, Culture & Society 2007; 29; 75
The encoding/decoding model invites analysts to categorize readings as "dominant", "negotiated" or "oppositional" . This set of three presupposes that the media text itself is a vehicle of dominant ideology and that it hegemonically strives to get readers to accept the existing social order, with all its inequalities and oppression of underprivileged social groups.Schrøder, Kim Christian. Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. European Journal of Cultural Studies 2000; 3; 233 Since the early days of cultural studies-oriented interest in processes of audience meaning-making, the scholarly discussion about "readings" has leaned on two sets of polar opposites that have been invoked to explain the differences between the meaning supposedly encoded into and now residing in the media text and the meanings actualized by audiences from that text. One framework of explanation has attempted to position readings on an ideological scale from "dominant" through "negotiated", to "oppositional" , while another has relied on the semiotic notion of "polysemy" , frequently without identifying or even mentioning its logical "other": the "monosemic" reading. Often these two frameworks have been used within the same argument, with no attempt made to distinguish "polysemic" from "oppositional" readings: in the literature one often encounters formulations which imply that if a TV programme triggers a diversity of meanings in different audience groups, this programme can then be called "polysemic" , and the actualized meanings "oppositional" .Schrøder, Kim Christian. (2000). “Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception”. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 3:233 Audience analysis emphasizes the diversity of responses to a given popular culture artifact by examining as directly as possible how given audiences actually understand and use popular culture texts. Three kinds of research make up most audience research: 1) broad surveys and opinion polls (like the famous Nielsen ratings, but also those done by advertisers and by academic researchers) that cover a representative sample of many consumers. 2) small, representative focus groups brought in to react to and discuss a pop culture text. 3) in-depth ethnographic participant observation of a given audience, in which, for example, a researcher actually lives with and observes the TV viewing habits of a household over a substantial period of time, or travels on the road with a rock band. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes more than one approach is used as a check on the others. Audience analysis tries to isolate variables like region, race, ethnicity, age, gender, and income in an effort to see how different social groups tend to construct different meanings for the same text. The "ethnographic turn" contributed to the maturing of the field as contexts of consumption are now recognized as having significant impact upon the processes of the interpretation of media. Sometimes characterized as the "active audience" approach, this paradigm has attracted criticism for the apparent jettisoning of the influence of cultural power, diminishing the authority of the text while elevating the influence of context. Nevertheless, developments in this vein have deepened our understanding of the significant relationship between media texts and the production of identity. Repeatedly, audience studies and fan studies have recorded the ways in which media texts are utilized and often re-made in the creative production and reproduction of self-identity.Wood, Helen. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis, Media, Culture & Society 2007; 29; 75
R
‘dominant’, ‘negotiated’ or ‘oppositional’
"dominant", "negotiated" or "oppositional"
R
‘readings’
"readings"
R
‘dominant’ through ‘negotiated’, to ‘oppositional’
"dominant" through "negotiated", to "oppositional"
R
‘polysemy’
"polysemy"
R
‘other’: the ‘monosemic’
"other": the "monosemic"
R
‘polysemic’ from ‘oppositional’
"polysemic" from "oppositional"
R
‘polysemic’
"polysemic"
R
‘oppositional’
"oppositional"
D
↵
R
‘ethnographic turn’
"ethnographic turn"
R
‘active audience’
"active audience"