Alex Hedstrom Mass Comm & Individual Reading Response 1 1) In Perse (2007), why does the author talk

about reinforcement being understudied? What does that mean in terms of the dual-process theories like ELM? Does Perse mean that the act of reinforcement is understudied, or that the field is ignoring it? Understudied in relation to what? (He never seems to clarify that point.) 2) In Perse (2007), the issue of measuring media exposure, and whether exposure is directly related to impact (or even usage?) seems to be one that is fundamental to the study of mass communication, and hasnt yet been adequately dealt with? What are the best measurements we have? For a previous paper, I looked for a way to measure exposure to media, and could only find one method that had been validated and measured for precision (that of a survey). Do surveys differ from journals much? 3) In Perse (2007), talking about Drip vs. Drench and the superbowl nip-slip (471), it would seem that the situations were differing in respect to, not the audience number, but what the perceived audience number would be by any given individual. Reading a newspaper article, youre isolated and cannot conceptualize the circulation of the paper you are holding. Watching the superbowl (usually with others, and you know everyone else

is as well) would induce a larger scale sense of how many others are also being exposed to what youre being exposed to. Has this been studied? 4) In Potter and Riddle (2007), there is little cohesion in the use of theory in the field. From a 1st year masters students perspective, this seems to be due to a lack of central tenets of theory for the field. That is, take for example Physics wherein you have a set of well defined laws from which all theory springs. What are the central tenets of communication? Why are they not stressed as a basis for research? Should we not, as a field, be concerned about identifying those things we all hold to be true about our study, then building on those rather than simply letting everyone do their own thing? Is this too idealistic?

Response: Each of the papers seemed to be getting deeper into a question of, where is the field today? This question, for me, is quite important as Im coming from a background of physics and film production. Mass media effects, and especially the theories related to them, are relatively new topics that I am still struggling to get a grasp on, and the field does not seem to be making it any easier.

One of the major problems Ive noticed in my time learning this area of study, something hit on in the readings, is that there are no major definitions that every scholar subscribes to, rather they all come up with their own primitive definition and run with it. It is slightly different, but coming from physics, this simply wasnt the case. Learning at an undergrad level directly introduced the major theories and tenets of the field that would grow as more classes were taken until you were simply pushing the field vis a vis the methods and theory you were taught. Given, in mathematics, the form is abstract enough that we are essentially learning a language built on growth and expansion, I think the principle can be the same for Communication. As shown in Potter, 2011, there is a need for clear conceptualizations of ideas in the field. Beyond that, there is a strong need for clear conceptualizations of theories in the field. We can talk about wanting to expand and grow theory all day, but if we do not each have the same clear understanding about what constitutes a theory, well simply be spreading out research again without getting any deeper in understanding. As in Physics, I have seen theories that lay out a set of axioms of and theorems from which their ideas flow. This style of theory building seems best for our field as it allows for immediate testing and expansion. Moreover, this style of explanation would be a beautiful way for the field to come together over a set of central tenets.

My proposal would be to have, not just a definition, but a core group of axioms that everyone inside, and outside, the field can look to as a way to make sure they are following along with proper theory building. This set of axioms would include everything that people seem to take for granted, making sure that everyone is starting on the same page for understanding. Even if they are overly simplistic, we need to start somewhere. Much like Newtons Laws of Motion, we need to have a set of ideas we can begin to build Mass Communication on and move forward from. Coming to this field, I thought that after 90+ years of research there would be something like that, though I was wrong. I feel that the stagnation of theory in the field and lack of utilization is due to the fact that there is simply no core theory to look to in any easy way. When one has to decipher a manuscript to get a general feeling for a theory, not even a clear understanding, then there is a problem. In essence, making the core axioms of the field and of various theories easier to access and understand seems to be the key to a revitalization in the theory building in our field.