The Limitations of the Sociological

Approach: Alternatives f r o m
Italian Communications Research
by Roberto Grandi

A review of the critiques of communications research f r o m

the sociological, Marxist, and semiological perspectives
suggests that the crisis in research deriues in part
f r o m the current relation of the researcher to society.
In Italy, comrnunications problems are explicitly studied within only a
very few universities or institutes. However, certain organizations
founded during the late 1960s and 1970s have carried out comninnications studies, including the Italian Group of Socioliiiguistics (established in 1967), the Italian Association of Semiotic Studies (1970), the
International Semiotics Center in Urhino (1971), and the Interdisciplinary Center for Communication Sciences ( 1976).An increasing nnrnher of
Italian professors have also lieen teaching in disciplines related to
communications in the last ten years. Nevertheless, this activity has not
yielded very much research.
One reason for this relative dearth of research is that the cli&ctilties
faced by the entire Italian university system in the area of research are
intensified for the newer disciplines such as conimunications. The little
research that is conducted in the univt:rsities is strictly related to
instructional considerations. Further, nearly all research that is actually
completed depends upon the relationships established by individual
professors with those institutes and organizations, private or public, that
are willing to provide financing. These organizations include the National Research Center (Centro Nazionale Kicerche), the Italian public
broadcasting corporation RAI, the commercial TV networks, the advertising agencies, and some politically affiliated cultural associations.
National and international political interest in mass coniniunications
has led to a small increase in the amount of research in the past few
Roberto Grandi is Associate Professor of lla\s Conmrunication at the University of
Bologna.

53

Journal of Communication, Summer 1983

years. But the topics of funded research remain limited, since sponsoring
organizations seek studies that will help them increase productivity and
encourage the sort of bottom line topics that do not always lend
themselves to the advancement of scientific theory.
The research carried out in the face of these liniitations reflects
varying points of view. As is the case in most countries, researchers in
Italy approach communications problems through a heterogeneous
blend of theories, methodologies, and disciplines. The most common
approaches derive from semiotics, sociolinguistics, sociology, and Marxism. Currently, the point of general debate among Italian commnnications researchers and theorists concerns the value of the sociological,
primarily empirical, approach to communications research, especially
mass communications research (for an account of the origin of the
debate, see 7). This national debate reflects the international one; here I
relate the details of the former, taking the latter into account.

In general, the communications debate has focused on

three aspects of the sociological approach: the
limitations of content analysis; models of the development
of the mass media, including effects research; and the
structuralist-functionalist scope of most empirical study.
In defending the sociological approach, Bechelloni (1)notes that the
research projects under criticism have arrived at some significant and
important conclusions. First, he points out that only after such research
has been completed can its limits and potentialities be appraised.
Second, he suggests that research in communications effects has been
useful in explicating specific modes of access to and reception of
messages, citing the role of opinion leaders and opinion groups, aspects
of exposure, memorization, and selective perception, and the boomerang
effect as examples. The results of these research projects have allowed
the effective evaluation of theory on the rnanipulation and creation of
mass audiences. Finally, Bechelloni notes ( 3 ) ,although previous scientific work has indicated that studies on the content and effects of m a s s
culture cannot be the mainstay of mass communications research, by
eliminating many initial errors such studies are useful in developing
more general theories of communication.
Criticisms of research methodologies, according to Mauro Wolf (E),
are neither novel nor limited to the specific topic of m a s s communications. He alleges that discussion ofthe limitations of research techniques
is nowadays a formality, filled with rhetoric and adopted by anyone
proposing to study mass communications (12, pp. 31-47). Wolf suggests
that researchers use a sociolinguistic approach, focusing on (a) the
relationship between comprehension and verbalization; (13) the importance of the experimental situation and possible resulting distortions;
and (c) the representativeness of samples. In the last area, researchers

54

Alternatiaes f r o m Italian Communictitions Reseurch

should consider not only the limits of statistical validity of sampleforming criteria, but also such variables as li tiguistic comprehension and
linguistic functions, which previously have been largely ignored #(13).
Clearly, satisfactory alternatives to traditional sociological niethotlologies have not yet been developed. However, the limitations of these
methodologies must be investigated in order to understand the prevailing disagreements concerning the approach to communications problems.

Even though researchers in general agree that

communications research is in a state of crisis,
they differ in what they perceive to be the sources
of this crisis and the w a y i t should be resolced.
Italian scholars who lean toward the Marxist schools tend to
believe that the crisis in research results from inadeqiiacies of past
research models and questions. T h e y criticize researchers for being
content with the traditional model of commnnications and iinqiiestioningly accepting the lack of much change l(*5). They also criticize the
failure of mass communications to address socially relevant issues (8).
Even within the field, the Marxist critique cmntinues, researchers have
failed to study relevant topics appropriately, such as the relationship of
messages, communicators, and audiences to sociocultiiral contexts (4),
the organization and distribution of cultiii-e, a r i d how the prevailing

55

Journal of Communication, Summer 1983

distributions of property and power and the doininant principles of

control shape the structure of symbolic arrangenieiits. In the Marxist
view, understanding the form of mass media requires understanding of
the structure of its production and distribution institutions. It also
requires recognizing the historical roots and inherent contradictions of
these institutions. The goal of such considerations is the transformation
of mass comniunications systems in relation to the transformation of
society (11).
Sociologists who do not subscribe to the Marxist approaches believe
that concentration on the stage of microresearch, instead of an emphasis
on macrosociological aspects of mass communications based on theoretical reference points (2), has contributed to the crisis. According to some
sociologists, the prevalence of this research trend can be traced in part to
the early days of Italian communications studies, when imported North
American methodologies were uncritically and passively accepted.
These scholars also criticize researchers for not adapting to the new
exigencies, problems, or questions raised. For example, Rositi (9)
believes that the most significant catalyst for research has been the
increasing clash of interests within the culture industry itself. In particular, large areas of conflict have been observed in both the publishing and
journalistic sectors. This conflict has resulted in a new appraisal of the
entire domain of the culture industry, one that recognizes the importance of sectors connected with the communications processes. More
dynamic members of the research community have recognized the
demand for new knowledge created by this conflict; they believe that
this knowledge can be gained only with new conceptual and theoretical
approaches. The lack of adaptability of current approaches has, in this
view, contributed to the present research crisis (10).
A third type of explanation of the state of research, a s expressed in a
number of Italian scientific journals, uses seniiotic concepts to locate the
relevant causes for the crisis internally, within the theoretical practices
ofthe discipline (6).These scholars cite s o m e ofthe s a m e r e a s o n s for the
crisis as do researchers of other perspectives-reliance on the stimylusresponse model for studying audience reception, too little investigation
of broadcasting practices, arid overuse of simplistic content aiialysisbut also insist that even a broader sociology of mass communications
would still be limited. Instead, they advocate the utilization of the
contributions of semiotics and sociolinguistics.
Wolf, for example, employs sociolinguistic concepts to provide a
precise description of the cornmimications process based 011 various
levels of competence. Applied to broadcasting, for example, the

Wolfs analysis reflects the contribution of I>oth Italian and other European scholars.
Among the Italians are P. Fabbi-i anti P. G. Giglioli. Some of the other Eiu-opeans are S.
Hall, T. A. van Dijk, E. Bernstein, and W. Dressier.

56

Alternatices f r o m Italian Communications Research

ges understood or decoded h y audiences is no longer

attributed to the result of misunderstandings or nonhomogenous codes,
but rather to the messages having their own internal logic derived from
concepts of geiire, context, and pragmatics. Scholars using this approach,
then, stress the necessity of considering the complexities of text arid the
communicative situation in fiirthering the contributions of communications research.
Yet another factor has contributed to the, crisis, although it has been
either not mentioned or underestimated by Italian scholars. Communications research has failed to develop adeqnate theory, methodology,
and institutional support for the analysis of the role and implications of
the new communications technologies. This situation cannot be blamed
simply on researchers iinfiimiliarity with the technical aspects of the
technology. Rather, this neglect is suggestive of the current relationship
between researchers and society. Decisions on the introduction of new
technologies are made b y politicians in accord with the army and
corporate leaders. Researchers m a y investigate the social, political, and
only
economic impacts of the introduction of k t new technology-but
after the technology has h e n introduced. Rarely have researchers been
given the opportunity to explore the potential consequences of various
alternative policy nieasures before the decision is made. Such studies
could provide the public with some knowledge and potential inpiit into
the political decisions that affect their future and could provide research
with an important social role.

This analysis of the state of Italian communications

research highlights three areas of research priority:
what are the important questions, how should they be
approached, and what should be the scholars role in society?
First, research on topics related to the structures of the conmiunications media should be of the highest priority. These topics incliide the
socialization of broadcasters, the relationship between institutions and
their prevailing ideologies, and sources of information available to the
public. Such research, necessitated liy the ceiitrality of communications
technologies to social coi~ceriis,can also foster debate on the relationship between the type of research conducted in Italy and the source of
funding and political support. This relationship is complex: the conimunications indi.istry itself is situated in a ciiltural field that is divided into
commercial versus public-sponsored sectors, and this opposition creates
more than idt:ological tensions.
Second, researchers should acknowledge the existence ojf other
branches of study and recognize their relationship to and use i n
analyzing the communicative processes. New paradigms must be introduced in order to widen the scope ofresearch. Even scholars who do not

57

Journal of Cornmimication, Summer 1983

see the immediate relevance of theories from semiotics, sociolinguistics,

and textual grammar would do well to recognize their value in other
areas.
Finally, the development of new communications technologies
should be studied, not in terms of the conventional distinctions between
media that technological developments have superseded, but rather in
terms of the relationships between the different branches of the communications industry and how these relationships affect the development of
technology and policy. Although research and researchers cannot develop outside of society, a goal of this research (and research in general)
nevertheless should be to strive for autonomy from external influences.
Social research should receive public support for the exploration and
development of alternative technological and political choices. This
information, made publicly available, could in turn enable the public to
be involved in the decisions on their own future.
In the present situation, at least in Italy and possibly elsewhere, it
may seem naive to advocate this type of relationship between the
researcher and society. But rather than simply rejecting its possibility
out of hand, it.might be more fruitful to wonder why this social role of
research has been relegated to utopia.

REFERENCES
1. Bechelloni, G. La macchiraa culturule i n Italia. Bologna: I1 Mulino, 1974.
2. Bechelloni, G. Si fa ancora ricerca alla Rai-Tv? Problemi delllnformazione 1(4),
October-December 1976, pp. 675-680.
3. Bechelloni, G. Appunti per iina lettura critica dellattuale dibattito. Problemi dell
Informazione 2( l),January-March 1977, pp. 47-52.
4. Cesareo, G. La televisione sprecuta. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1974.
5. Cipriani, I. La televisione. Rome: Editori Rinniti, 1980.
6. Fabbri, P. Le comiinicazioni di inassa in Italia: sguardo semiotic0 e nialocchio della
sociologia. VS No. 5, 1973, pp. 7-21.
7. Interdisciplinary Center for Communications Science. Seminar on The Research on
Mass Communication in Italy, Florence, November 12-14, 1976. In La ricerca in
Italia sulle comunicazioni di ma.ssa. Bologna: Forni, 1978.
8. Livolsi, M. La comunicuzione di m m s u . Milan: Angeli, 1981.
9. Rositi, F. Informazione e complessitu sociale. Bari: De Donato, 1978.
10. Rositi, F. Sistema politico soggetti politici e sistema delle comunicazioni di massa.
In Comunicazioni cli mussa e sistema politico. Milan: Angeli, 1982, pp. 75-90.
11. Vacca, G. La ciiltura dei media nella sinistra italiana. In C . Richeri (Ed.) I 1 oideo
negli anni80. Bari: De Donato, 1981, pp. 3-24.
12. Wolf, M. Gli a p p a r a t i clelle comunicazioni di massa. Florence: Guaraldi, 1977.
13. Wolf, M .Sociologia dellu uitu quotitliana. Rome: Espresso Strumenti, 1979.

58