This article (which began life as a presentation to the closing CEDAR Conference in Lisbon, 2017) interrogates the state of the “field” of audience research, by looking back to Thomas Kuhn’s work on paradigms in science, and the institutional conditions necessary for their operation. It then looks forward to recent work in the sociology of expectations, to consider the role of future predictions. The article concludes that audience research is perhaps not a field or a discipline, although the aspiration to be so is not altogether a bad thing. The article suggests that the best destiny for the field is to be a rogue element within the broader media, communication, and cultural studies domain, demanding—and providing—empirical evidence in the face of normatively charged claims.
SarahAtkinsonKennedyHelen, eds. 2017. Live Cinema: Cultures, Economies, Aesthetics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
2.
AxelsonTomas.2008. “Movies and Meaning: Studying Audience, Fiction Film and Existential Matters.” Participations5 (1).
3.
BarkerMartin. 2011. A “Toxic Genre”: The Iraq War Films. London: Pluto Press.
4.
BarkerMartin. 2017. “Thinking and Theorising Disappointment: A Report from the World Hobbit Project.” Fafnir: Nordic Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy4 (3–4): 31–48.
5.
BauerRaymond A.1964. “The Obstinate Audience: The Influence Process from the Point of View of Social Communication.” American Psychologist19 (5): 319–28.
6.
BenzecryClaudio. 2011. The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BioccaFrank A.1988. “Opposing Conceptions of the Audience: The Active and Passive Hemispheres of Mass Communication Theory.” Annals of the International Communication Association11 (1): 51–80.
8.
BlumlerJayet al. 2003. “The Conduct of Exploratory Research into the Social Origins of Broadcasting Audiences.” Participations1 (1).
9.
BrownAlan. 2017. “Audience Research Gone Wild.” Participations14 (2): 53–62.
10.
BuckinghamDavid. 1993. Children Talking Television: The Making of Television Literacy. London: Taylor & Francis.
11.
BuckinghamDavid. 1996. Moving Images: Understanding Children’s Emotional Responses to Television. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
12.
CarletonGreg. 1995. “The Figure of the Mass Reader in Early Soviet Literature: Artificial Interpretive Communities and Critical Practice.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication12 (1): 1–22.
13.
CornerJohnRichardsonKay. 1990. Nuclear Reactions: Form and Response in Public Issue Television. Luton: University of Luton Press.
14.
CroninTheresa. 2009. “Media Effects and the Subjectification of Film Regulation.” Velvet Light Trap63:3–21.
15.
GabrielssonAlf. 2011. Strong Experiences with Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
HagenIngunn. 1999. “Slaves of the Ratings Tyranny? Media Images of the Audience.” In Rethinking the Media Audience, edited by AlasuutariPertti, 130–50. London: Sage.
17.
HallStuart. 1973. “Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse.” Occasional Papers. Birmingham: Birmingham Centre for Cultural Studies.
18.
HalloranJamesElliotPhilipMurdockGraham. 1970. Demonstrations and Communication: A Case Study. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
19.
HermesJokeBergAnnika van denMolMarloes. 2013. “Sleeping with the Enemy: Audience Studies and Critical Literacy.” International Journal of Cultural Studies16 (5): 457–73.
20.
KuhnThomas S. 1958. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
LivingstoneSoniaButschRichard. 2013. Meanings of Audience: Comparative Discourses. London: Routledge.
22.
LuntPeterLivingstoneSonia. 2016. “Is ‘Mediatization’ the New Paradigm for Our Field?” Media, Culture & Society38 (3): 462–70.
23.
MaltbyRichard. 1999. “Sticks, Hicks and Flaps: Classical Hollywood’s Generic Conception of Its Audiences.” In Identifying Hollywood’s Audiences: Cultural Identity and the Movies, edited by StokesMelvynMaltbyRichard, 23–41. London: British Film Institute.
24.
MarvinCarolyn. 1990. When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking about Electronic Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
MorleyDavid. 1974. “Reconceptualising the media audience: towards an ethnography of audiences”. Occasional Paper: Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.
26.
NellVictor. 1998. Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. East Lancing: Michigan State University Press.
Whitehouse-HartJo. 2014. Psycho-social Explorations of Film and Television Viewing. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
34.
WoodwardIanEmmisonMichaelSmithPhilip. 2000. “Consumerism, Postmodern Space and Human Disorientation: A Modest Test of an Immodest Theory.” British Journal of Sociology51 (2): 339–54.
