imported economic practices, technologies, and media often create confusion because traditional systems are unable to support the required change-some analysts have shifted to non-economic explanations of development-the development of mass communication was portrayed as a universal, inevitable sequence of changes that traditional societies undergo in the transition of modernity The Research Traditions-first communication researchers were influence by the body of theory on the development process that had been built up in other fields – economics, political science, and sociology-also influences by the well-established traditions and orientation of social science research in the communication field Functionalism-began to take shape with the commercially oriented early mass communication research of the 1930’s and 1940’s in the United States
-reflected the marketing concerns of a consumer society – “administrative research”-US mass communication used to isolate specific media purposes, messages, or effects from the overall social process-A linear, one time analysis was typical of the early stages of research and still afflicts discipline today-Concentrated on collecting and classifying data in order to illuminate new forms of social control, persuasion, or attitude change -This trend continues with a focus on quantitative, empirical, behavioural science methods-Most early mass communication research studies were commissioned by broadcast networks, government agencies, foundations, or large advertising organizationsoAim was to deal primarily with specifically defined concerns about message effectiveness, wants to know what kind of political propaganda would produce desired effects-Interested in the influence of such things as votes, purchases, attitudes, or behaviour change of individuals-Studies in less-developed nations, mostly on male farmers – wanted hard data on the impact of particular messages-Following functionalism – researchers have tended to accept the system as a given and to implicitly endorse it by failing to examine how their understanding of communication could be enriched by questioning other basic characteristics of the system Structuralism-who communicates with whom and for what purposes-the real shaper of peripheral nations communication systems and the messages they produce is media from core nations-most peripheral nations don’t have the expertise or resources to establish domestic communication systems that reflect their history, needs, concerns, values, and culture – they rely on the transfer of core nation communication technology and software-most of the international communication industry is owned by giant core nations – mainly US, Japan, or Europe-many corporations are tied closely into a subtle and invisible network of core-based political, ideological, and economic elites – use the communication industry to perpetuate certain “needs”, tastes, values, and attitudes to increase profit -
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Winter '16
- Helen Hambly
- Sociology, peripheral nations