Mediated Communication

Philip M. Napoli

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9783110478648
• eBook ISBN: 9783110478686
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Media scholarship has responded to a rapidly evolving media environment that has challenged existing theories and methods while also giving rise to new theoretical and methodological approaches. This volume explores the state of contemporary media research. Focusing on Intellectual Foundations, Theoretical Perspectives, Methodological Approaches, Context, and Contemporary Issues, this volume is a valuable resource for media scholars and students.

Philip M. Napoli

1Introduction

Abstract: This introductory chapter seeks to accomplish two primary goals: 1) to provide the reader with a sense of the volume’s subject matter focus (through an overview of the process of deciding how best to title the volume; and 2) to provide the reader with a sense of the overall scope of the subject matter contained within the volume. As this Introduction indicates, the term Mediated Communication has come to be utilized as a replacement for terms such as broadcasting, mass communication, and mass media, which have come to be associated with a particular, now-passed, era in media history – and in the history of media scholarship. After discussing the specific dynamics that have provided the impetus for this shift, this chapter provides an overview of each of the sections that comprise the volume, and of the subject matter contained within each of these sections.

Keywords: mediated communication, broadcasting, mass communication, mass media, communication science

This volume is devoted to the history, theory, methods, key contexts, and contemporary issues in research focused on Mediated Communication. In an effort to effectively lay out the parameters of this field of focus, it might be useful to begin with a description of the initial stages in the formulation of this volume, in which the series editors and I discussed the very practical question of what the volume’s title should be. In some ways, the complex and evolving nature, and shifting boundaries, of the field are well reflected in the challenges associated with deciding how best to title the volume.

Initially, the series editors approached me to produce an edited volume tentatively focused on “Broadcasting.” I had a difficult time figuring out what a contemporary volume focused on scholarship on broadcasting could – or should – look like. The term broadcasting has very specific connotations, reflecting the one-to-many communication dynamic that we, to some extent, tend to associate with the notion of mass media (another term, and volume title candidate, that will be discussed a bit later).

However, the term broadcasting also has a very specific denotative meaning (at least for those working in areas such as media technology and media regulation and policy). The term broadcasting often refers specifically to mass media that rely on the broadcast spectrum (i.e., the airwaves) to deliver content. From this definitional standpoint, broadcasting comprises only terrestrial radio and television broadcast stations, along with spectrum-reliant satellite systems. In many countries (including the U.S.), broadcasting thus refers to a very specific sector of the media industry, that sometimes has its own distinctive regulatory framework, with this regulatory framework premised (rightly or wrongly) on the distinctive characteristics of broadcasting as a medium of communication (see Napoli, in press, Chapter 5). To the extent that some readers might approach this volume with this denotative meaning of the term broadcasting in mind, we decided that the term was a bit too limiting – a bit too “old media” – for a contemporary volume focusing on media-related scholarship.

In considering, then, how to better reflect the volume’s focus, the most obvious alternative that came to mind was Mass Communication. Mass Communication is a term that served for many years as a fairly well agreed-upon label for a field of research. However, this term has become somewhat problematic over time; and as a result has been somewhat marginalized. In understanding why, and why the term was ultimately rejected as the title for this volume, it is worth briefly revisiting the term’s origins and history.

While it is difficult to locate the definitive origins of the term “mass communication,” Chaffee and Rogers (1997) tentatively attribute its origins to Rockefeller Foundation official John Marshall, who, from the 1930s through the 1950s was instrumental in bringing together scholars from around the U.S. with an interest in communications research and funding a substantial amount of early research in the nascent field. Buxton (1994) similarly speculates that Marshall’s use of the term in a 1940 memorandum may have been the first use of the term as an analytical concept.

It is important to remember that the term developed to represent a nascent field of research focused on domestic and international opinion formation and influence, in response to events such as the two world wars and the Cold War (Gary, 1996; Peters, 1986). Its scope gradually broadened to include a focus on areas such as content and institutions, particularly as the effects-related research appeared to reach a point of diminishing returns (see Napoli, 2010).

While a review of all of the definitional approaches to the term mass communication is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is worth revisiting some early efforts. In 1953, sociologist Eliot Freidson outlined what he perceived as the predominant definition of mass communication, which included four distinguishing features of the mass audience: (1) it is heterogeneous in composition; (2) it is composed of individuals who do not know each other; (3) the members of the mass are spatially separated; and (4) the mass has no definite leadership and a very loose organization (1953: 313). An oft-cited definition by Wright (1960) emphasized the following three elements of mass communication: (a) content is directed toward large, heterogeneous, anonymous audiences; (b) content is transmitted publicly, and often reaches audiences simultaneously; and (c) the communicator tends to be, or operate within, a complex organization that may involve great expense.

By the 1970s, scholars began to question the applicability of such formulations of the concept of mass communication to the dynamics of a changing media environment, in which a greater proportion of the media system was composed of outlets serving relatively narrow segments of the audience (e.g. Maisel, 1973). In a 1977 article in the Journal of Communication, Robert Escarpit described the notion of the “mass” as “rapidly dissolving to be replaced by the puzzling yet far more workable image of an intricate network of communication channels” (1977: 47).

This impetus behind the decline of mass communication as an orienting term accelerated in the late 1980s and picked up increased momentum in the 1990s (Turow, 1990). During this time, the evolving media environment, with its ability to facilitate the targeting of small, homogeneous audience segments due to increased media fragmentation (particularly the growth of cable, the VCR and, later, the internet), and its ability to facilitate more interactive forms of communication, increasingly became one in which perceived traditional notions of mass communication, involving the one-to-many dissemination of content to a large, heterogeneous audience who simultaneously received the content, represented an increasingly rare form of communication (Chaffee an dMetzger, 2001; Neuman, 1991).

Such critiques affected the self-image of the field, as many academic departments renamed themselves, abandoning the mass communication label in favor of terms such as “media studies” or “telecommunications.” Some academic associations and journals even scrubbed the term from their titles (see Napoli, 2010). Clearly, the term mass communication has been on the wane.

One might be tempted to say that the field was a bit premature in casting the term mass communication aside, especially when we consider how contemporary concerns about the nature and effects of disinformation disseminated on social media reflect the same concerns about the production, flow, and impact of propaganda that gave rise to the field of mass communication in the first place; and the ways in which digital communications technologies have evolved to foreground a select few powerful gatekeepers (Facebook, Apple, Google), not unlike the mass media era (see Napoli, in press).

And so, while I would feel comfortable making the case that the concept of mass communication is as relevant now as it ever has been (though requiring some definitional adjustment; see Napoli, 2010), I also recognize that it connotes a certain type of communication dynamic that doesn’t capture the full range of phenomena being addressed in contemporary media-related scholarship. Ultimately, like Broadcasting, the “old media” connotations of the term Mass Communication make it inadequate for representing the scope of contemporary media-related scholarship. As Everette Dennis notes in his incredibly informative chapter on the origins of the field, “The ‘mass communication’ seized on by scholars as an object of study at the dawn of modern communication research in the 1940s is not the same phenomenon that we see in the twenty-first century.”

For similar, and additional, reasons, the term mass media was also briefly considered and rejected. The term mass media carries much of the same baggage as the term mass communication. However, it is additionally burdened by suggesting an emphasis on a particular set of technologies and associated institutions, and not the entirety of the communicative process.

Which brings us to the term Mediated Communication, the term which seems to best reflect our intentions to capture the contemporary iteration of what we would have once most likely called Mass Communication research. Mediated Communication is both a broader, and more neutral term. It encompasses traditional notions of mass communication research while also accommodating more contemporary approaches that focus on more individualistic forms of mediated communication (see, e.g., this volume’s chapter on Mobile Communication), and on ways in which newer media technologies and platforms facilitate more targeted and personalized one-to-many communication dynamics (see, e.g., this volume’s chapters on Algorithmic Filtering and Exposure Diversity).

Mediated Communication is a term that lacks (at least at this point) tensions between its denotative and connotative meaning that characterize terms such as broadcasting, mass communication, and mass media. The term mediated communication has yet to be subject to the type of concerns and questions about its contemporary relevance that have come to characterize these earlier terms. As Everette Dennis notes in his chapter, the term mediated communication “was developed as an alternative to mass communication, which was seen as antiquated or passé.” It is, at this point, perhaps too new of a term to have picked up much connotative baggage. That being said, it may be worth noting that my previous academic institution opted a few years back to abandon the term mediated communication as a descriptor for one of its areas of concentration in favor of the term media technology. And so the process of field definition and re-definition continues.

1Constraints

It is impossible for any one volume to do justice to an entire field. All one can hope to do is try to be as comprehensive as possible within the space and definitional constraints within which one is working. I mention definitional constraints not only in reference to the previous discussion, but also in reference to the fact that this volume is part of a book series titled Handbooks of Communication Science (emphasis added). In my effort to impose sufficient definitional constraints on the field – in order to fit within the practical space constraints of a single volume – it is important to acknowledge upfront that I allowed this series’ emphasis on “communication science” to impose upon me a fairly strong social science orientation in the construction of this volume.

The ramifications of this constraint within the context of media-related research are particularly profound. Perhaps more so than other areas of communication research, media research has strong and vital traditions in both the social sciences and the humanities. Indeed, going back once more to issues of terms and definitions, the term media studies has come to define more humanistic approaches to media research, whereas the term mediated communication has come to define more social scientific approaches. Thus, I readily acknowledge that a scholar seeking to use this volume as a comprehensive resource for more humanistic media studies scholarship will likely be dissatisfied. These omissions are not intended as, in any way, a value judgment on the relative merits of more humanistic media studies scholarship. Rather, they are a reflection of efforts to operate within – and properly reflect – the constraints inherent in a series with an articulated focus on communication science.

2Volume organization

With these various definitional and scope issues out of the way, it is time to provide an overview of how this volume is organized. In keeping with the organizational structure of the other volumes in this series, this volume begins with a section focusing on the field’s Intellectual Foundations. Generally, the goal in this section is to feature work examining the field’s origins and evolution. In this case, both topics are handled admirably in a chapter (already referenced above) by the esteemed Everette Dennis. Professor Dennis’s chapter does a wonderful job of charting the evolution of the field of mass communication into the field of mediated communication, and illustrating the various technological and institutional forces that have affected this process. I have tried not to steal too much of Professor Dennis’s thunder, so to speak, in this Introduction, as his chapter goes into far greater depth on some of the topics raised here.

The next section of this volume focuses on Theoretical Perspectives. One can not hope to capture the full range of the theoretical diversity of mediated communication within a single section of a single volume. As Michael Delli Carpini notes in his thought-provoking concluding chapter on the future of the field, when we look at the various theoretical perspectives discussed in this section, and the full range of theoretical perspectives brought to bear in the later section of the book that focuses on specific research Contexts, there are many theoretical perspectives brought to bear in the Contexts chapters that did not find their way into the Theoretical Perspectives chapters. This is certainly a reflection of the interdisciplinary nature of the field and the intellectual cosmopolitanism of the scholars working within it.

At the same time, the goal of this section is not to provide an exhaustive overview of relevant theoretical perspectives, but to identify a set of core topics, that help to define the field, around which theory development has tended to cluster. Thus, in this section we have chapters devoted to theoretical perspectives on Media Effects, Media Usage, Media Technology Adoption, Audience Behavior, Audience Reception, Content Creation, and Media Evolution. In each of these subject areas, there has been a fairly rich vein of theory development and refinement that continues to this day. And, as virtually all of the authors contributing to this section illustrate quite clearly, technological, behavioral, and institutional changes are all coming to bear in terms of if and how established theoretical perspectives need to be revised or replaced.

The next section of this volume focuses on Methodological Approaches. Here, the focus is on providing state-of-the-art overviews of the core methodological approaches that are employed in contemporary, social scientifically oriented, mediated communication research. Some of the chapters focus on well-established methodological approaches that are encountering new challenges (e.g., Survey Research, Ratings Analysis), and/or that are taking advantage of new technological developments to expand their applicability and scope (e.g., Experiments, Content Analysis, Ratings Analysis [again], Audience Reception Analysis). Some methodological approaches, such as Network Analysis, represent more recent additions to the mediated communication researchers’ methodological toolkit. Ultimately, though, each of these chapters provides a fairly detailed discussion of the challenges, opportunities, and contemporary applications, of each methodological approach.

The next section focuses on Contexts. This section is meant to facilitate deep dives into specific subject areas that have been core areas of focus ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Preface to Handbooks of Communication Science series
• Contents
• 1 Introduction
• Part I: Intellectual Foundations
• Part II: Theoretical Perspectives
• Part III: Methodological Approaches
• Part IV: Contexts
• Part V: Contemporary Issues
• Biographical Notes
• Index