July 05, 2012

Television vs Research

I had a conversation with a colleague a few months back that really stuck in my mind. She argued that in the media decisions that would never, ever be considered ethical in the academic world are taken on an everday basis. I believe the conversation revolved largely around the activities of journalists working in print media, but I found myself thinking about the relationship between media and research once again whilst watching a couple of reality television programmes this week.

The first of these was Make Bradford British, a somewhat controversial two-part Channel 4 show from last year. The idea was to bring together individuals from across Bradford's culturally and racially segregated neighbourhoods, so they could learn more about one another's lives and make a series of spurious claims about what it might mean to be British.

Much of the programme was quite contrived, but there were some powerful moments: reactions to the casual, unthinking racism of a white former police officer; the journey of a mixed-race landlady who came to recognise her own prejudices; the young working class white man who learned so much from living with a devout Muslim fellow several years his senior that he decided to turn his life around, cut down on drinking a make a better for his daughter.

All very moving, but I couldn't help but remain somewhat cynical despite enjoying both the programme and many of its messages. Just how did the producers think it was okay to cherry-pick eight people from an area full of cultural tension, and throw them into a house Big-Brother style for a few days before sending individuals to live with one another just to show what happened? Why did no-one seem to intervene when a participant was being verbally abused and then sexually assaulted by racists and Islamophobes on-camera? And did they not predict that fascist blogs would pick up on the show afterwards and attempt to use it to inflame tension?

I'd like to think that most researchers would never allow themselves to get into such a pickle, knowing that gaining consent from human participants is not enough. I've read enough dodgy studies to know that this isn't true, but I feel that we at least have a culture in which ethical considerations are taken very seriously indeed.

The second programme was episode three of Cherry Healey's How to Get a Life. I'm not going to lie: I watched this because a couple of my friends appeared in it, bearing their armpit hair for all the nation to see. However, I found myself once again thinking about the relationship between media and research during this show. Like Make Bradford British, it was powerful, engaging television, with deep personal revelations and a surprisingly serious interrogation of social norms. In addition, I felt it stood on considerably firmer moral ground, with a greater appreciation of what not to film and an approach (and subject matter!) that minimised the potential for harm.

into the pit

This time around, I began thinking more about the differing truths told by research and the media. The issues at hand - feminism, bodily autonomy, tattoos, subcultures - were deeply familiar because they variously concern myself and/or my fellow PhD students in the sociology department. But where we might interview or survey many in order to examine themes of meaning or societal trends or, the show concentrated on individual experience.

Does this makes its conclusions less valid? I think not. There was a story to be told here, the truth of which complements the truths told by researchers. The same can be said of Make Bradford British. I feel that the real issue comes instead with the ethical decisions taken in the "uncovering" of truth, and this is perhaps an area where the media could learn from our world.


- 4 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Tomi Oladepo

    Very well said, Ruth!

    One huge factor that distinguishes “TV research” from “research research” (the latter being our world by the way) is the less obvious need to be commercial.

    TV entertainment needs big hits and ratings to sell and hits go hand-in-hand with ‘controversy’. The mere fact that people are talking about it, good or bad, is transforming to cool £££ somewhere. Ethical considerations would naturally take the back-seat here, albeit not a justification.

    Surely, the media could learn from our world – i agree.

    05 Jul 2012, 10:31

  2. Ruth Pearce

    Interestingly, both the BBC (who screened How to Get a Life) and Channel 4 receive public funding – so in theory, at least, it shouldn’t all be about the money!

    05 Jul 2012, 15:38

  3. Pravin Jeyaraj

    I comment on ‘How to Get a Life’ as I didn’t see it.

    Yes, I was annoyed at the claim that it was trying to find out what made people British. But that was the point. As far back as I can remember, there has always been a debate about what is British, English, Asian, etc; but this programme demonstrated how, among all the difference and the opposition, there was also much similarity.

    What I saw was different people, from different backgrounds with different, often long-held views, coming together and being challenged. Yes, some of the communication may have crossed the line into racism, there were uncomfortable moments, but if the producers had censored them, it would have undermined the very nature of the programme. I do, however, think there was a moment when everyone seemed to gang up on the Muslim girl, which perhaps could have been restrained.

    On the other hand, what we saw on TV would have been a fraction of the actual footage. The flaw with this programme was that a number of days were compressed into two. But then, that is a problem that is not unique to this programme. The ethical decision is not so much with the uncovering of truth but the presentation of truth and it is a decision that broadcast and print and online media have to take. But, I would argue that it is also a decision that academic researchers have to take as well; after all, we still select (in a neutral sense) the data that appears in the presentation of research.

    06 Jul 2012, 11:06

  4. Tomi Oladepo

    Even with public funding, you still have to be sort of “popular” with the audience (to justify the funds perhaps). In theory though, yeah, it shouldn’t be all about the money, but…. :)

    09 Jul 2012, 08:53


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Trackbacks

Subscribe by email

Enter your email address:

Would you like to blog here about your experiences? email researchexchange@warwick.ac.uk

Search this blog

Tired of lonely, monastic research? Here's what the Research Exchange can do for you:

The Wolfson Research Exchange

Read our sister blogs




Tags

Most recent comments

  • Hahaha @ Mum. While reading, my mind could not help re–title this piece – "The Dancing Minds of the … by Tomi Oladepo on this entry
  • Hi Jen, great post! As for the SCONUL card I am with you on that, I know all about it. Because I liv… by Tomi Oladepo on this entry
  • I feel like we need to make a formal disclosure that I (the Wolfson Research Exchange Coordinator) d… by Peter Murphy on this entry
  • Love this post. We try to make a point of running everything in the physical spaces (Postgraduate Hu… by Peter Murphy on this entry
  • This is a great piece of work in my opinion by James on this entry

Join us on Facebook

Tweet Tweet

Blog archive

Loading…

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIV