Participant observationA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWindividuals to exercise a form of informal control
over the state.
This tradition has, however, been subject
to much criticism for its failure to address the
narrow social base from which media profes-
sionals are often drawn, resulting in those from
working-class and/or ethnic backgrounds being
under-represented; and the degree to which
the political economy of media ownership, the
culture of media organizations, and the place
of these organizations in the political economy
of a society infl uence the content and reading of
media artefacts.
Th e Radical Democratic paradigm, according
to James Curran, off ers a synthesis between the
other two. Whilst this paradigm acknowledges
the links between the ownership and control of
media institutions and that of other key institu-
tions, and the fact that the free market tends to
be skewed in favour of the dominant class, it
does not perceive the links to be so close that the
media could be conceived as an arm of the ruling
class. Rather, the media is seen as ‘caught in the
crossfire’, providing ‘a battleground between
contending forces. Th e way in which the media
responds to and mediates this confl ict aff ects
the balance of social forces and, ultimately, the
distribution of rewards within society’.
Journalists and media professionals are viewed
as having day-to-day autonomy that allows them
to make a diff erence and opens up the possibil-
ity for the committed radical journalism which
would allow the media to act as a countervailing
force and to further the cause of the less power-
ful. It also recognizes that not all journalists and
media professionals work in media organiza-
tions which have one dominant owner, and
argues that those working in broadcasting
and in commercial media where ownership is
dispersed among a number of shareholders,
may enjoy considerable freedom to criticize the
powerful. Th e structure of the media, however, is
seen as being in need of reform if it is to achieve
its potential for providing diverse debate within
a democratic society. See democracy and
the media. See also topic guide under media
institutions.
Paralanguage See non-verbal vocaliza-
tions.
Parental Guidance (PG) See certification of
films.
Participant observation Some research
evidence is collected by the researcher becom-
ing a member of the group or social situation
under observation. Th e researcher participates
fully in the situation, and those being observedistics and distinctive features, so the syntagm is
determined by rules or conventions by which
the combination of paradigms is made – rules
of grammar and syntax or, in music, rules of
harmony. See paradigms of the media; semi-
ology/semiotics.
Paradigms of the media James Curran in
‘Rethinking the media as a public sphere’ in
Communication and Citizenship (Routledge,
1991), edited by Peter Dahlgren and Colin
Sparks, has identified three paradigms (see
previous entry) that seek to explain the relation-
ship between the mass media and the power
structure of societies in which they operate: the
Marxist or Neo-Marxist, the Liberal-Pluralist
and the Radical Democratic paradigms.
The Marxist or Neo-Marxist school argues
that it is those who own and control economic
capital who are at the heart of a society’s power
structure, and that such a position allows them
to exercise power over cultural institutions such
as the mass media in order to better pursue their
economic goals. Media professionals may view
themselves as autonomous but, it is argued, they
have been socialized into and have internalized
the norms and values of the dominant class.
Th us from this perspective, a key ideological
contribution made by the mass media is that
it provides the audience with frameworks for
interpreting messages which encourage it to
construct readings that are consistent with the
interests of the dominant class. Critics of this
tradition have argued, though, that it overlooks
the degree of leeway which does exist for jour-
nalists to ask awkward questions, as well as the
need to consider the audience and the audi-
ence’s role in constructing the meaning of mass
media messages.
A competing paradigm is that off ered by the
Liberal-Pluralist tradition of media research,
which argues that the mass media is and should
be composed of a number of competing groups
operating within a free market, though subject
to state intervention when this is deemed in the
public interest. Groups within the mass media
tend to be seen as in competition for power and
infl uence within society.
Media professionals, such as journalists, are
seen to enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy
over the production of media artefacts. Within
this tradition, some perceive the media to
have a responsibility within society to behave
as a watchdog whose role it is to provide an
arena for wide public debate about civil issues,
facilitating the articulation of a plurality of views
and values and, in so doing, to allow private