The article discusses and compares two European studies that investigate young recipients of commercial messages on alcohol. The studies spring out of very different science philosophical paradigms. Their comparison therefore brings certain ontological, epistemological and methodological questions to a head.
Data and Methods
A large amount of existing research and theorizing has been reviewed in order to frame the studies concerning the following aspects: their goals (genesis, purposes etc.); their view on the nature of reality (ontology); their view on how knowledge is created and expanded (epistemology) and, their view on the role of values in research and theory building (axiology).
Results
It is suggested that although the studies work in separate paradigms and are concerned with different phenomena, they could gain from a consolidation for complementary purposes.
Conclusions
The task of studying alcohol marketing audiences puts the alcohol research field's methodological capacities to the test. The field needs more interactive collaboration between different research traditions in order to produce credible research in this area.
AitkenP.P., & EadieD.R., & LeatharD.S., & McNeillR.E.J., & ScottA. C. (1988): Television Advertisements for Alcoholic Drinks Do Reinforce Under-age Drinking.British Journal of Addiction83: 1399–1419
2.
AlasuutariP. (2002): Three phases of reception studies. In: McQuailD. (ed.): Mc-Quail's reader in mass communication theory, pp. 325–333.London, Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE Publications
3.
AndersonP., & de BruijnA., & AngusK., & GordonR., & HastingsG. (2009): Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.Alcohol Alcoholism44(3): 229–243
4.
BaranS.J., & DavisD.K. (2009): Mass communication theory. Foundations, ferment and future. Sixth edition.USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
5.
BMA Board of Science (2009): Under the influence. The damaging effect of alcohol marketing on young people.UK: British medical Association
6.
de BruijnA. (2009): Research protocol, STAP – Dutch Institute for Alcohol Policy October 15 December 17, 2009
7.
BuckinghamD., & Sefton-GreenJ. (1994): Cultural studies goes to school: reading and teaching popular media.London: Taylor & Francis
8.
CampbellM.C., & KellerL. K. (2003): Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects.Journal of Consumer Research30(September): 292–304
9.
CasswellS., & Zhang,JF. (1998): Impact of liking for advertising and brand allegiance on drinking and alcohol-related aggression: a longitudinal study.Addiction93(8): 1209–1217
10.
ChenM.J., & GrubeJ.W., & BersaminM., & WaitersE., & Keefe,DB. (2005): Alcohol advertising: what makes it attractive to youth?Journal of Health Communication10(6): 553–565
11.
ChoC.-H., & CheonH.J. (2004): ‘Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?’Journal of Advertising33 (4): 89–97
12.
ClarkeP.N., & YarosP.S. (1988): Research blenders: commentary and response.Nursing Science Quarterly1: 147–49
13.
ConnollyG. M., & CasswellS., & ZhangJ.-F., & SilvaP.A. (1994): Alcohol in the mass media and drinking by adolescents: a longitudinal study.Addiction89(10): 1255–63
DemantJ. (2007): Youthful drinking with a purpose. Intersections of age and sex in teenage identity work.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs24(2): 149–176
19.
Fisherkeller,JE. (2000): “The writers are getting kind of desperate”: Young adolescents, television, and literacy.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy43(7): 596–606
20.
FiskeJ. (1990): Introduction to communication studies. 2nd Edition.London: Routledge
21.
HallS. (1980): Encoding and decoding the television discourse. In: HallS., & HobsonD., & LoweA., & WillisP. (eds.): Culture, Media, Language.London: Hutchinson
22.
HartleyJ. (1996): Popular reality: Journalism, modernity, popular culture.London: Arnold.
23.
HellmanM., & DemantJ., & BujalskiM., & GosseltJ. F., & PietruszkaM., & RolandoS., & RossettiS., & WothgeJ. (in review): Above the message and beyong reach: persuasion knowledge among a teenage European beer commercial audience
24.
HellmanM., & GosseltJ. F., & PietruszkaM., & RolandoS., & RossettiS., & WothgeJ. (2010): Interpretations of individualistic and collectivistic beer commercials by teenagers from five European countries.Cross Cultural Communication6(4): 29–46
25.
HellmanM., & KarlssonN. (work in progress): Struggles in multistakeholder alcohol policy in Finland. A small inquiry by the Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues (NVC), For more information: matilda.hellman@helsinki.fi
26.
HobbsR. (2007): Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English.New York: Teachers College Press
27.
HoweK. R. (1988): Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatability thesis, or, Dogmas die hard.Educational Researcher17(8): 10–16
28.
JensenB. K. (1987): Qualitative audience research: Toward an integrative approach to reception.Critical Studies in Mass Communication4: 21–36
JohnsonR. B., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004): Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.Educational Researcher33(7): 14–26
31.
KatzE. (1959): Mass communication research and the study of popular culture.Studies in public communication2: 1–6
32.
KellyK. J., & EdwardsR.W. (1998): Image Advertisements for Alcohol Products: Is Their Appeal Associated with Adolescents’ Intention to Consume Alcohol?Adolescence33(129): 47–59
33.
KraussS. E. (2005): Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer.The Qualitative Report10(4): 758–770
34.
LaugheyD. (2007): Key themes in media theory.Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press
35.
LawJ. (2004): After method. Mess in social science research.London and New York: Routledge
36.
LewisJ. (1991): The ideological octopus. An exploration of television & its audience.London & New York: Routledge
MolA. (1999): Onthological politics: A word and some questions. In: LawJ., & HassardJ. (eds.): Actor Network Theory and after.Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review
39.
MillerK. (2005): Communication theories: Perspectives, Processes and Contexts.New York: McGrawHill
40.
McCombsM.E., & ShawD. (1972): The agenda setting function of the mass media.Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176–87
41.
NashA.S., & PineK.J., & MesserD.J. (2009): Television alcohol advertising: Do children really mean what they say?British Journal of Developmental Psychology27: 85–104
42.
NewmanI., & RidenourC.S., & NewmanC. (2003): A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In: TashakkoriA., & TeddleC. (eds.): Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, pp167–188.California, UK, India: SAGE Publications
43.
PawsonR. (2006): Evidence-based Policy. A realist perspective.London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications
44.
RenckstorfK., & WesterF. (2004): The ‘media use as social action’ approach: Theory methodology and research evidence so far. In: RenckstorfK., & McQuailD., & RosenbaumJ. E., & SchaapG. (eds.): Action Theory and Communication Research: Recent Developments in Europe.Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter
45.
RoomR. (1996): Alcohol consumption and social harm: conceptual issues and historical perspectives.Contemporary Drug Problems23: 373–388
46.
RosenqvistP. (2010): Alcohol and drug research as a joint Nordic (ad)venture. Presentation held at Norwegian institute for alcohol and drug research (SIRUS) 4th of November 2010. Development and Prospects. Accessed at: http://www.sirus.no/filestore/Automatisk_opprettede_filer/PiaRosenqvist.pdf (20.10.2011)
47.
RumboJ.D. (2002): Consumer resistance in a world of advertising clutter: The case of Adbusters.Psychology and Marketing19(2): 127–48
48.
SaleJ.E.M., & LohfeldL.H., & BrazilK. (2002): Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research.Quality & Quantity36: 43–45
49.
SmithL.A., & FoxcroftD.R. (2009): The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies.BMC Public Health9: 51. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471–2458/9/51
SulkunenP., & EgererM. (2009): Reception Analytical Group Interview – A Short Introduction and Manual. Research Reports n.260.Helsingin Yliopisto: Sosiologian laitos
52.
SulkunenP., & TörrönenJ. (1997): The Production of Values: The Concept of Modality in Textual Discourse Analysis.Semiotica, Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies113(1/2): 43–69
53.
TigerstedtC. (ed.) (2007): Alkoholi ja nuoret [Alcohol and the young].Helsinki: Alkoholi- ja huumetutkijain seura & Nuorisotut-kimusseura. ISBN 978–952–92–1938–4.
54.
WaitersE.D., & TrenoA.J., & GrubeJ.W. (2001): Alcohol advertising and youth: a focus-group analysis of what young people find appealing in alcohol advertising.Contemporary Drug Problems28(4): 695–718
