Advertisement

From Cultural Studies to Impact Factor: Media and Communication Research in the United Kingdom

  • Caitriona NoonanEmail author
  • Christine Lohmeier
Chapter
Part of the Medien • Kultur • Kommunikation book series (MKK)

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel analysiert die Entwicklung der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft im Vereinigten Königreich. Im ersten Teil werden Hauptmerkmale der historischen Entwicklung der Kommunikationswissenschaft auf der Insel herausgearbeitet. Im folgenden Abschnitt wird die Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft in die stark neoliberal geprägte britische Wissenschaftslandschaft eingeordnet. Der politische Fokus auf Impactfaktoren und spezifische Evaluierungsformen wissenschaftlichen Erfolgs werden ebenfalls diskutiert. Der sogenannte „practice turn“ dient als Beispiel für die direkte Einflussnahme politischer Entscheidungen auf das Forschungsfeld. Die Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft im Vereinigten Königreich beschäftigte sich in ihren Anfängen mit wichtigen gesellschaftlichen Fragen. Die Veränderungen in der Hochschulpolitik der letzten Jahre erschweren es ForscherInnen mehr und mehr, innovative Projekte außerhalb der vorgegebenen Bahnen durchzuführen.

Abstract

This chapter addresses the development of media studies in the United Kingdom. While it is acknowledged that the UK is home to a highly diversified higher education landscape, some key markers in the historical development of media studies in the UK are highlighted in the first section of the chapter. The following section situates the field of media studies in the wider UK knowledge economy. The policy strategy dominant in the UK formed the basis of the rise of impact factors and certain forms of research assessment which are discussed in detail thereafter. The ‘practice turn’ is one example of how policies for research assessment has had a direct impact on the field of media studies and its institutions. In concluding we argue that media and communication studies started out by asking “big” societal questions. Recent developments in UK higher education policies are making it more and more challenging to create projects outside of the now common frame of assessment.

Bibliography

  1. Ashton, D. (2013). Industry practitioners in higher education: Values, identities and cultural work. In D. Ashton & C. Noonan (eds.), Cultural work and higher education (pp. 172–193). London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, D., & Noonan, C. (eds.). (2013). Cultural work and higher education. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bolas, T. (2009). Screen education: From film appreciation to media studies. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  4. Clews, D., & Mallinder, S. (2010). Looking out: Effective engagement with creative and cultural enterprise (Key Report). Brighton: University of Brighton: ADM-HEA.Google Scholar
  5. Collini, S. (2012). What are Universities for? London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  6. Couldry, N. (2010). Theorising media as practice. In B. Brauchler & J. Postill (eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 35–54). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  7. Couldry, N. (2011). Post-neoliberal academic values: Notes from the UK higher education sector. In B. Zelizer (ed.), Making the University matter (pp. 135–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Dahlgren, P. (2007). Internationalizing doctoral education: Problems and pitfalls. Global Media and Communication, 3(3), 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (1998). White paper: The future of our competitive future building the knowledge driven economy. www.dti.gov.uk/comp/competitive/pdfs/wh_pdf1.pdf (July 18, 2013).
  10. Durant, A. (1991). Noises offscreen: Could a crisis of confidence be good for media studies? Screen, 32(4), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elton, L. (2000). The UK research assessment exercise: Unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, P. (2014). What’s happening with media and film studies GCSE and GCE ‘A’ level. http://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/whats-happening-with-media-and-film-studies-gcse-and-gce-a-level/ (November 29, 2014).
  13. Geraghty, C. (2002). ‘Doing media studies’: Reflections on an unruly discipline. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. HEFCE. (2011). PhD study: Trends and profiles 1996/97 to 2009–10. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2011/201133/11_33.pdf (September 9, 2013).
  16. Hobart, M. (2010). What do we mean by ‘media practices’. In B. Brauchler & J. Postill (eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 55–75). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hoggart, R. (1970). Speaking to each other: Essays by Richard Hoggart (Vol. I): About Society. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, K. B., & Neuman, W. R. (2013). Evolving paradigms of communication research. International Journal of Communication, 7, 230–238.Google Scholar
  19. Kershaw, B. (2010). Practice as research: Transdisciplinary innovation in action. In B. Kershaw & H. Nicholson (eds.), Research methods in theatre and performance (pp. 63–85). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lang, A. (2013). Discipline in crisis? The shifting paradigm of mass communication research, Communication Theory, 23(1), 10–24.Google Scholar
  21. Livingstone, S. (2014). Media studies: where are we now? http://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/media-studies-where-are-we-now/ (November 29, 2014).
  22. Lodge, P. (2008). Towards an institutional and intellectual history of British communication studies. Paper presented at the ICA Annual Conference in Montreal, May 22–26.Google Scholar
  23. Marr, L., & Forsyth, R. (2011). Identity crisis: Working in higher education in the 21st century. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  24. MeCCSA. (2013). Conference Programme, http://www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/meccsa2013/programme/Meccsa_2013_Programme.pdf (August 30, 2013).
  25. Miah, A. (2013). What’s the worth of your media impact. http://ref2014.creativefutur.eu/?p=214 (August 14, 2013).
  26. Morrison, D. (1998). The search for a method: Focus groups and the development of mass communication research. Luton, Bedfordshire: University of Luton Press.Google Scholar
  27. Newman, M. (2007). Good or bad taste—it’s in the can. Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/208885.article (August 14, 2013).
  28. Nordenstreng, K. (2011). Lost in abundance? Reflections on disciplinarity. In B. Zelizer (ed.), Making the University matter (pp. 194–205). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Peters, J. D. (2008). Institutional opportunities for intellectual history in communication studies. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (eds.), The history of media and communication research. Contested memories (pp. 143–162). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Piccini, A., & Kershaw, B. (2003). Practice as research in performance: From epistemology to evaluation. Journal of Media Practice, 4(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pilkington H. (Chair) (1962) Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960, Cmd 1753, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Pooley, J., & Park, D. (2008). Introduction. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 1–15). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  33. Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: Theorising media and practice. In B. Brauchler, & J. Postill (eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 1–32). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  34. Redal, W. W. (2008). Making sense of social change: Studying media and culture in 1960s Britain In D. W. Park, & J. Pooley (eds.), The history of media and communication research. Contested memories (pp. 269–290) New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  35. REF. (2011). Decisions on assessing research impact. http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf (February 11, 2013).
  36. REF. (2012). Research excellence framework. http://www.ref.ac.uk/ (February 14, 2013).
  37. Shepherd, J. (2010). Stop funding Mickey Mouse degrees, says top scientist. ‘Funding must be channelled into science courses and research, not degrees in celebrity journalism’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/10/stop-funding-mickey-mouse-degrees (August 22, 2012).
  38. Sjoberg, J. (2012). Practice as research. http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/methods/practiceasresearch/ (August 14, 2013).
  39. Thornham, S., & O’Sullivan, T. (2004). Chasing the real: ‘Employability’ and the media studies curriculum. Media, Culture Society, 26(5), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Universities UK. (2010). Patterns of higher education institutions in the UK. Tenth report’. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2010/Patterns10.pdf (August 19, 2013).
  41. Webster, Frank. (2004). Cultural Studies and sociology at, and after, the closure of the Birmingham School. Cultural Studies, 18(6), 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willmott, H. (2003). ‘Commercialising higher education in the UK: The state, industry and peer review’. http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/associates/pdfs/willmott_commercialising_higher.pdf (August 19, 2013).

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CardiffUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.ZeMKIBremenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations