Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract Keywords
Audience research, this paper suggests, is an excellent field to test the claims of audiences
Media Studies 2.0. Moreover, 2.0 claims are a good means to review qualitative fans
audience research itself too. Working from a broad strokes analysis of the theory, civic research
politics and method of interpretative research with audiences, it is argued that the cultural studies
new media ecology demands new roles of researchers, and an open approach to Internet communities
‘audiencehood’ as practice and innovative research method. The paper ends with researcher roles
a case study of the co-creation project of a research team and a Moroccan-Dutch
Internet community-writing team working together on an Internet telenovela.
Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the
move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for
success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applica-
tions that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.
(This is what I’ve elsewhere called ‘harnessing collective intelligence.’)
(O’Reilly, blog, 2005, http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/
12/web_20_compact.html)
Web 2.0 is a whole new world: ‘of P2P music, film and TV; video-clips; home-
made mobile porn; customised avatars; graffiti, funwalls and superwalls;
tagging, texting, messaging, sheep-throwing, bitch-slapping and virtual pen-
guins that we’re struggling to keep up with.’
(Merrin 2008)
The fan is no longer a key figure here, nor is the social community that
allowed individual fans to produce fandom as a practice, instead we are
presented with empowered consumer-producers, and mediated networks.
Much like the shift in youth culture research, from ‘subculture’ to ‘scene’,
fandom is overlaid by a different type of cultural practice that has web-
sites as its nodal point. Like ‘scenes’ (Bennet and Kahn-Harris 2004;
Hesmondalgh 2005; Williams 2006), 2.0 media use is thematically organ-
ized. Sites are not something you necessarily belong to, instead they are a
place to visit, to attach to temporarily. They do not necessarily bestow an
identity, and if they do, it is likely to be fleeting, one among many other
identities which have been temporarily put on hold.
Neither Jenkins nor others would argue that site visitors, or even the new
figure of the former-audience-member-become-producer, as in the case of
beta testing or game development, is an economically or politically power-
ful figure (Humphreys 2008; Nieborg and Hermes 2008). It cannot be
argued either that the involvement of ‘new media user-producers’ leads to
a critical practice. Gamers, for example, tend to be highly involved, but
not interested in gaining a larger span of control. Academic fan research is
not much help in this regard either; it has hardly focused on the limits of
fandom as this leads to familiar negative representation of media use or
well-known worrying about young people and the media (but see Hills,
2004 for his argument on the ‘mainstream cult’). While I am sympathetic
to 2.0 scenarios that suggest we favour collective intelligence over indi-
vidual or elite-based authority, we need to think long and hard about the
retreat of contextualisation and critique, based as such abilities are in open
social networks that hold together over longer periods of time. Media
‘Audiencehood’ as sensibility
Audiencehood, then, is a practice that changes over time and according
to context. In 1992 Larry Grossberg suggested that we might want to
think of our attachment to specific texts or artists in terms of affective sen-
sibility: that term, and its theoretical underpinning, do seem to still hold.
Audiences, Grossberg states, make their own cultural environments from
the resources that are available to them, often quite aware of their own
implication in structures of power and domination, and of the ways in
which cultural messages (can) manipulate them (Grossberg 1992: 53).
Audiences do not passively accede to media texts. We might want to call
the relationship ‘that binds cultural forms and audiences, “a sensibility”.
A sensibility is a particular form of engagement or mode of operation’
(Grossberg 1992: 53). He then relates sensibility to ‘mood’ or ‘affect’.
(A)ffect is (…) organized; it operates within and, at the same time, produces
maps which direct our investments in and into the world; these maps tell us
where and how we can become absorbed – not into the self but into the world –
as potential locations for our self-identifications, and with what intensities.’
(Grossberg 1992: 57)
Note
I would like to thank Robert Adolfsson for feedback and thinking through and
developing civic research.
Suggested citation
Hermes, J. (2009), ‘Audience Studies 2.0. On the theory, politics and method
of qualitative audience research’, Interactions: Studies in Communication and
Culture 1: 1, pp. 111–127, doi: 10.1386/iscc.1.1.111/1
Contributor details
Joke Hermes is a professor of applied research in Media, Culture and Citizenship
at INHolland University, Netherlands and she teaches television studies at the
University of Amsterdam. As an audience researcher she published Rereading popu-
lar culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005) and Reading women’s magazines (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1995). She is also one of the three founding editors of the European
Journal of Cultural Studies.
E-mail: joke.hermes@inholland.nl
afl]dd][lbgmjfYdk ooo&afl]dd][lZggck&[ge