Communication Institute for Online Scholarship
Communication Institute for Online
Scholarship Continous online service and innovation
since 1986
Site index
 
ComAbstracts Visual Communication Concept Explorer Tables of Contents Electronic Journal of Communication ComVista

"The Domestic Paradigm": Researching the Use of Communication and Information Technologies in the Home
EJC logo
The Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication
***** SINCLAIR *********EJC/REC Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 1993 ****

"THE DOMESTIC PARADIGM": RESEARCHING THE USE OF
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE HOME


John Sinclair
Victoria University of Technology


        Abstract.  In recent years, a new research
     paradigm has gained ground in which audiences are
     seen to be "active" in their use of media and in
     their interpretations of the meaning of media
     content.  This same perspective is extended to
     consumer goods other than traditional "mass
     media", including communication and information
     technologies (CITs).  Research attention has been
     given to how CITs are incorporated into the
     relationships of gender and generation, the
     organization of space and time, and the positions
     occupied by households within the wider social
     structure and cultural system.  New qualitative
     research methods, particularly direct
     "ethnographic" studies of audiences in natural
     settings like the home, have been adopted.

        This paper outlines the theoretical and
     methodological genesis of the emergent paradigm,
     and reports upon the results of a pilot study
     which, augmented with quantitative procedures,
     sought to incorporate such an approach in research
     on the use of CITs in households in the western
     suburbs of Melbourne.

                   The Domestic Paradigm

     The body of theory and research encompassed by the
label, "the domestic paradigm", has been published in a
series of works through which its evolution can be traced.
_The "Nationwide" Audience_ (1980) and _Family Television_
(1986) by David Morley are the definitive earlier titles;
the next stage of development was marked by Morley's
collaboration with Roger Silverstone and others, centered
until recently at Brunel University in West London, and
funded under the British Economic and Social Research
Council's Programme on Information and Communication
Technologies.  This has produced a number of published
reports and journal articles, in which the domestic paradigm
finds its fullest theoretical rationale in Morley (1989) and
Silverstone (1990, 1991), while Silverstone, Hirsch and
Morley (1991) provides the most detailed methodological
exposition.  A useful overview is Morley and Silverstone
(1990).  A series of essays in which Morley reflects on the
development of all this work has recently been published
(1992), as has an edited collection of articles on the
theory, method and application of the paradigm over a wide
range of CITs (Silverstone & Hirsch, 1992).  However, it
should be noted that the term "domestic paradigm" has been
coined in this article for the convenience of descriptive
brevity.  It carries no analytic weight, and is not a label
characteristically used by the actual researchers who have
developed the paradigm.

     Insofar as there is a single term with which these
researchers do refer to their own work, it would be
"ethnographic".  This term, borrowed from anthropology but
given a cultural studies twist, is intended to signify the
qualitative empirical observation of everyday life in family
households which characterizes the methodology of these
researchers:

          Audiences are not simply or only watchers of
     television or listeners to radio:  they are
     members of families, households, communities and
     nations; they are gendered, aged and members of
     social classes; they are skilled and unskilled,
     educated and uneducated; and they watch television
     while doing other things and in competition with
     other things, at times and in places, alone and
     with others, in ways that mark their activity as
     powerfully mediated by the social, economic,
     political and technological systems and structures
     of everyday life (Silverstone, 1991, pp. 136-137).

     The domestic paradigm makes what is perhaps its most
distinctive theoretical contribution in the linkage it
asserts between the micro world of the household and the
macro context of institutional structure, conceived at both
levels in terms of space and time.  At the micro level, the
use of television in the home is the entry point for its
analysis of how all CITs are related to the organization of
domestic space and to the temporal routines and social
rituals and relations in the household.  The macro aspect is
even more striking for its bold conception which draws
together various observations about how communications media
have rationalized the use of both "calendrical" and
"quotidian" time in households across the space of the
nation.  The advent of "mass" media has given rise to the
social construction of citizenship and a sense of membership
of the nation, binding individuals in their households into
what Benedict Anderson calls the "imagined community" of the
nation (1983).  The domestic paradigm researchers formulate
this insight in these terms:  "Television has to be seen as
embedded within a technical and consumer culture that is
both domestic and national (and international), a culture
that is at once both private and public" (Morley and
Silverstone 1990, p. 32).

     This quotation raises two further aspects of the
theoretical underpinnings of the domestic paradigm:  its
conception of the household and the special place which
television occupies within its scheme.  They speak of the
"moral economy" of the household, by which is meant the
cultural means by which a household asserts its sense of
itself and its place in the world, "what makes a house a
home".  Household members use CITs to establish boundaries
within and around the household, that is, assert their
collective and individual statuses and identities through
their styles of consumption and social use of CITs, relative
to time and space as well as to the moral economy
(Silverstone, 1991).

     The final conceptual component of the domestic paradigm
which deserves mention here is the "double articulation
thesis" which they apply to television, which provides the
rationale for taking television as the model for the
analysis of all CITs.  In essence, the double articulation
thesis is that television is not just a transmitter of
meaningful message content, that is of information,
entertainment and advertisements, but it is also meaningful
in itself.  In the domestic paradigm, television's meaning
as an object is seen to be analogous to the meaning of its
messages.  The consumption of both objects and messages is a
process of constructing meanings, but not just any meanings:
"one is not able to treat the individual viewer as if he or
she were a free or rational consumer in a cultural
supermarket" (Morley, 1989, p. 36).  One chooses goods or
meanings from what others make available, and in terms of
one's given cultural and material resources.

       Research Applications of the Domestic Paradigm

     This section of the article will examine the design and
implementation of the actual research carried out under the
domestic paradigm, as well as raise some limitations which
invite other modes of investigation.  Silverstone
acknowledges that the domestic paradigm is "a reformulation
of the classic enquiry into the power of the media" (1991,
p. 150).  However, it is also important to see how far there
has been an expansion of scope beyond the particular medium
of television to include other CITs, notably the telephone
and the computer, in addition to new television-based
technologies as the VCR.  To this extent, the theoretical
development and the methodological lessons gained from
decades of television studies might be applied to advance
research into the social significance of technologies which
are much newer or which have been neglected in the past, the
telephone in particular.

     Because television has been "constructed as domestic",
Silverstone calls it the household's "leading object".
However, he recognizes that although each domestic CIT has
its own intrinsic mode of use and significance, television
should not now be studied in isolation, but in the context
of the "domestic socio-technical system" as a whole, which
includes telecommunications, audio reproduction (CD, tape
players and radios) and photovisual "objects" (still and
video cameras) as well as the household's television set(s)
and attendant remote control and VCR (1991, pp. 140-141).
It follows that audiences should not be studied in isolation
either, least of all in the traditional mould as broadcast
audiences.

     The perception that the television screen has become
the medium of successive new forms of domestic CIT hardware
(the VCR), software (videogames) and service (teletext,
subscription TV) is a commonplace rather than a particular
insight of the domestic paradigm.  However, what the
domestic paradigm does offer in the context of such new
technologies is a theoretical rationale in which to
conceptualize their social impact, and closely related
empirical methods with which to implement actual research,
not so much on the "social effects of television", as on the
use and significance of the whole socio-technical system or
"techno- culture" of the household.

     At this point we are ready to look more closely at the
actual implementation of this British research in its most
recent phase.  The unit of investigation which was taken was
not the household in general, but that of the nuclear
family, which, in Britain as in Australia, is still the most
common form of household as well as the one which occupies a
central ideological position as the preferred social ideal.
For the practical and investigative purposes of the Brunel
project the twenty families selected were affluent enough to
own three out of four "core" CITs (television, telephone,
computer and video), had school-age children, spoke English
and were mainly white.

     The first stage of the study used a time-use diary as
well as "participant observation" and a family interview.
However, the participant observation method was not found to
be adequate to the research questions, and when the (woman)
field researcher left the study (to be replaced by a man,
for reasons not reported), the research on the remaining
sixteen families was carried out with a new design, and over
periods of up to ten months.  This design was composed of a
"raft" of several methods of data generation, so that data
derived from one method could be triangulated against
others.

     These were as follows:  a preliminary family interview;
incidental participant observation over several visits; a
time-use diary; household maps; network diagrams;  family
photograph albums or home videos; a check-list of domestic
technologies; a "personal construct" psychological
interview; incidental observation of media use, combined
with interviews; information on household patterns of
income, expenditure and budget; and a final interview with
the principal researcher, focussing on questions of family
identity, the future, consumption behaviour, home
aesthetics, media use and reflections on involvement in the
study (Silverstone, Hirsch, & Morley, 1991, pp. 208-221).

     It is evident that, on the basis of experience in the
first phase, the research made a shift away from a fairly
open-ended conception of ethnography as a form of
participant observation, and towards a series of research
tools which not only were tailored to the project's quite
specific purposes, but also served as a means of checking
and comparing one kind of data against another.  This
adaptation has no doubt produced a more rigorous and
structured form of ethnography.  As well, they claim, it has
built in a reflexive factor, both for the researchers and
the researched.  To a great extent, this more purpose-built
yet malleable application of ethnographic method answers
various reservations which have been expressed about it.

     Some other shifts are also apparent.  Earlier work
under this paradigm was motivated by a concern with the
social distribution of cultural competence, that is, with
the socially structured access to the "codes" of cultural
knowledge which audiences brought to bear in interpreting
media messages, conceived very much in class terms.
Subsequent research in this respect shifted attention
towards gender.  In the Brunel phase, this has been
accompanied by a parallel move which has reprioritized the
whole question of media interpretations by audiences,
apparent at the level of research design in the diminished
position which inquiries into media use have within the raft
of methods.  What has been lost in terms of understanding
the broader class-based distribution of cultural competence
in the society at large, however, is compensated by a more
intensive approach to social reproduction as it is
manifested in the "gendering" of CITs by the domestic
division of labour:  for example, the question of who knows
how to use which technology, how the skills and knowledge
are learned, and for what purposes they are applied.

     However, a final observation on how the domestic
paradigm has developed in the course of being applied in
research has to do with the implications which qualitative,
reflexive, ethnographic research can have for the number of
households which can be studied and reported on in this
manner, and for their representativeness.  At this point in
time, the actual published work from the project, including
papers published by Brunel and the ESRC/PICT, reports on no
more than four of the twenty families which have been so
exhaustively studied.  In terms of the paradigm's own norms,
this small number is not a problem, because the point of the
method is to observe each household in its particularity,
not to extrapolate and generalise from it as a "case study".

     Nevertheless, if this method is to gain credibility
amongst policymakers and others who have more pragmatic
expectations of research findings, and who are schooled in
more orthodox social science procedures, there needs to be
some built-in measure through which a judgement can be made
about the social location of the households being studied.
This is not to demand that the households be "typical" in
some way, but rather, to ensure that they can be identified
within a set of meaningful sociological indicators.

                Cultural Studies Meets dBase

     It was with this concern about social location in mind
that a two-phase research design was devised in the study
reported here.  The first phase sought to select households
suitable for ethnographic investigation in the second phase,
but did so on the basis of quantitative information elicited
about each household's socioeconomic and cultural
characteristics, and their gross patterns of CIT ownership
and use.  This article reports on this first phase:  how a
sample of households was selected, and how the quantitative
information was collected from them.

     The research was conceived as an exploratory study
towards a much broader and long-term project which would
investigate a range of social factors in the use of CITs,
both within and between different types of nuclear family
household in suburban Australia.  The project hypothesises
that such households are "interpretive communities" which
each have their certain skills, cultural codes and attitudes
relevant to CIT use, but also that these are determined by
the social location of the household within the unequal
patterns in which these skills, codes and attitudes are
distributed through the society.  Furthermore, just as
differences between families in socioeconomic status,
ethnolinguistic origin and education are identified as the
decisive variables to be investigated in such social
distribution, it is also hypothesised that within families
there will be found differences in patterns of use and
attitudes towards CITs determined by gender and age.

     While it was considered desirable that there be a broad
comparative alignment of this project with the Brunel work
which inspired it, the pilot study at least has had to make
adaptations of a practical nature.  Thus, unlike the Brunel
study's focus on families with school-age children, some
families with adult children and others with pre-school
children were included in the pilot study under report here.
Again, while the Brunel study required families to possess
three out of four "core" CITs, _a priori_ this one did not,
although most families in the sample turned out to "qualify"
in this respect.  As to linguistic and ethnic homogeneity,
quite a different process and purpose applied than in the
Brunel work, in that families of non-English speaking
background (NESB) were not excluded.  However, because NESB
families tended to be uncertain and suspicious towards the
research, they rendered a low rate of return.  Thus, 85% of
the sample achieved were from English-speaking households.

     The use of a questionnaire as a research instrument in
this study marks a fundamental difference from the Brunel
team's triangulated raft of methods.  The questionnaire was
chosen as a means of rapidly eliciting descriptive but
quantifiable data from a workable sample of families across
a selected suburban region, given the limitations of how
many families could have been interviewed and for how long
by a single researcher, working unaided in a short time-
frame.  In addition to the collection of broad descriptive
data for a reasonable number of households, the
questionnaire approach was selected with the intention of
identifying families who would be eligible and willing to
engage themselves in an interview with the researcher in the
ethnographic second phase.

     Another important variation from the Brunel approach
was the intention that the families in the sample would be,
if not "representative" of, at least selected from, a
substantial and identifiable social stratum of suburban
Melbourne.  Thus, a two-stage sampling procedure was applied
in which five suburbs were chosen across the breadth and
depth of the western region of Melbourne.  The study thus
sought to select families in the broad socioeconomic zone
between the "middle" and working class, or the "lower-
middle" and "upper-working" categories, if these terms have
any objective meaning.

     The second and more focused stage of selection was to
find a cluster of households formed by adjacent streets
within each of the chosen suburbs.  Questionnaires were
placed in thirty households in each of the five clusters by
the researcher, who would first ask to establish whether a
nuclear family lived in the house, and if they would be
willing to answer the questionnaire.  If so, the
questionnaire was left with the householder on the
understanding that it would be answered as required by each
member of the family, and collected by the researcher on a
nominated day in the following week.  If the questionnaire
was not completed when the researcher called back, or if
there was no-one home, a reply-paid envelope was left with a
letter to remind the household to complete and post in their
questionnaire.

     Of the 150 questionnaires which were placed throughout
the five clusters, 44 completed responses were recovered by
the researcher in person, and a further 17 returned by mail,
a total of 61.  There was little difference in the 40%
average rate of return across all the clusters.  The 61
useable questionnaires had their data coded and entered for
retrieval on dBase III Plus.  Both families with adult
children and those with young children were represented, but
more so the former.  The parents' average age was 40.5
years.  There was a statistical average of a little over one
female and one male offspring per household.  This compares
to the national average of two children in "couple families
with dependent children" in the 1986 Census (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 1989, p. 6).  The Census also advises
that "the typical Australian home was a 3 bedroom
free-standing house" (1989, p. 33), in which respect the
sampled houses were quite typical.

     Of the 45 households which answered the question on
gross family income, the majority were receiving annual
family incomes in a range which compared to the 53% of all
Australian households which were in the medium income
category in the 1986 Census (1989, p. 32).  In terms of
occupation, most households had just one major breadwinner.
When the full-time occupations stated were coded into the
Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO),
there were seven Managers and Administrators, 12
Professionals, three Para-professionals, 13 Tradespersons,
seven Clerks, six Salespersons and Personal Service Workers,
11 Plant and Machine Operators and Drivers, and seven
Labourers and Related Workers.  The ASCO system is based on
type of work rather than socioeconomic status, but it is
reasonable to infer from this distribution that the profile
of the sample is quite broad in that regard, rather more
towards the "middle class" than received stereotypes of the
western suburbs would suggest.  Thus, in this and other
respects, the sampled households were fairly within the
social stratum which the study had sought.

     The questionnaire called for general household
information bearing on CIT ownership and use, and more
specific responses from each individual member of the
family.  Questions covered occupation and education; income
and expenditure on information and entertainment products;
language use; family rituals and rules; and individual
telephone and media access, use and preferences.  In
addition to these questions, which derive from the domestic
paradigm, the opportunity was taken to ask broader questions
about the recession, and communication issues then current
in Australia.  A copy of the entire questionnaire is
published in the complete report of this study (Sinclair,
1992).

     The questions on CIT ownership also sought to cover
access, and so asked about which CITs the household had in
family areas of the home.  All but one household had a
phone, and all had a television, consistent with national
norms.  There were 56, or 92% of sampled homes with video,
rather higher than the national figure of over 70% (George
Patterson Advertising, 1991).  There were stereos in the
family areas of 50 homes, 19 had computers, and 21 had
videogames units.  All Australian homes have at least one
radio, and in this sample, 89% kept a radio in family areas.
Note that these measures exclude telephones, televisions and
radios kept in bedrooms.  These were asked about in the
individual parts of the questionnaire, however, and it can
be reported that 29 sets of parents had a telephone in their
bedroom, compared to two amongst all the children.  On the
other hand, six pairs of parents had a television in their
bedroom, compared to 36, or just less than 25% of all
children.  Radios were in 18 parental bedrooms, and in 56
children's.  No-one had a video in their bedroom.  Video in
most households (37) was mainly used for time-shifting
programs recorded off-air; only in 17 was it mainly used for
watching hired tapes.

     In terms of the social use of space and time within the
home, it can be hypothesised from this sample that video is
the most versatile domestic technology, instrumental to the
moral economy of the household in that it allows the family
members to accommodate each other's different demands upon
the "leading object" of the television.  However, the
presence of television sets in the private space of the
bedroom in some homes might indicate that they have a more
individualised and less family-oriented moral economy.  In
this way, the questionnaire results are suggestive for lines
of investigation to be taken in the subsequent ethnographic
investigation.  Radio appears to be a medium adapted to both
family and individual use.

     On questions of CIT use, the households reported an
average of 6.7 hours for how long the television was on each
day, and 2.6 for radio.  These figures need to be compared
to the responses to questions put to individual members of
the household, asking them how long they actually sat down
and watched television or listened to the radio.  Parents
watched an average of 3.05 hours and children 3.3 hours of
television, less than half the time the set is on.  For
radio, parents at least were more attentive:  the figures
were 2.0 and 1.0 respectively.  More than half of the
households with computers reported that they were mainly
used for children's games, less than a quarter for school
work.  The children estimated that they used the computers
for an average of one hour per week.

     Questions on telephone use were also asked of
individuals.  Parents spoke for an average of 27 minutes per
day on the telephone, calls being divided evenly between
business and personal (five of each).  Note that nine homes
maintained a telephone for the purpose of a home business.
Parents averaged one long distance call each week, but there
was less than one overseas call.  With children there was
considerable variation, with an average range of 10-39
minutes per day, spent over 4-8 personal calls and one or
two business calls, none long distance or overseas.
Clearly, first-hand research is needed to explore just how
the telephone is used to maintain social networks,
facilitate family business and otherwise mediate between the
family members and the world outside the home.

     In an attempt to gain some quantitative sense of the
social boundaries and rituals which families develop around
their CITs, households were asked about the rules governing
the children's television watching.  Bearing in mind that
almost half these families have at least one child 18 or
over, it is not surprising that a minority of households,
just over a third in fact, said they thought they had
"strict rules".  However, when this response was checked
against the responses of individual children, an even
smaller proportion of children thought so.  Ethnographic
observation should be able to reveal the degree to which
this difference is one of perception or actual practice.

     Families were also asked if they usually ate their
meals together, and 85% of them said they did, but in a
clear majority of cases, it was with the television on in
the same room.  It would appear that this practice is one
form in which a major public medium of communication
commonly intersects with a private domestic ritual, but
again, ethnographic observation is needed to see just how it
is negotiated in different households.

     In order to see if the recession was having much impact
upon CIT expenditure, respondents were asked if they had
been forced to have the phone disconnected.  Only two
replied that they had, and another two said that they had
sold their video.  There were also questions asked to gauge
expenditure on certain entertainment goods, namely
videotapes and audiotapes or compact discs.  Households with
video spent an average of $4 per week on hiring tapes - one
per week in effect.  Asked about cassettes and CDs, just
over 25% of the children advised they had bought some in the
previous year, most saying less than five.  One other media
expenditure item was more notional:  how much the household
would be prepared to spend on pay-TV, as a weekly average.
A majority was "not interested" (37), while 17 would pay up
to $10.  Only three would pay more than that.

     There was another question of contemporary policy
relevance which concerned the regulation of Australian
content on television.  At a time when the future structure
and scope of broadcast regulation in Australia was in play,
it was instructive to discover the solid popular support, at
least amongst this sample of families, in favour of the
principle of transmission quotas for Australian programs.
Amongst parents, 95% affirmed their agreement with a summary
statement of this principle, while 100 out of the 137
children, or 73%, also agreed.  Furthermore, over 70% of
parents and an only slightly smaller percentage of children
named Australian programs amongst their favourites, and when
asked if they liked them because they were Australian or
because they were "good programs", from 85% to 100% of those
respondents in each category answered the latter.  Several
made a point by ticking both boxes:  questionnaires are not
necessarily as restrictive as they are reputed to be.

     Finally, there was the crucial question intended to
enable the selection of interviewee families for the second,
"ethnographic" stage of the project:  would the family be
willing to talk to the researcher at length about all these
things?  Of the 61 questionnaire families, only four said
that they would.  One of these was not appropriate, being a
couple with a nine-month old baby, and when the other three
were approached by letter with a view to making an
appointment, only one responded.  This family co-operated in
an extended interview which is detailed in the full report
(Sinclair, 1992, pp. 20-25).

                         Conclusion

     The main point to be made in conclusion is that
although the clustered sampling and administration of the
household questionnaire was designed principally as a means
of selecting families for ethnographic interview and of
generating supporting descriptive data, that data has gone
beyond expectations in the degree of its representativenes
and in the detail of patterns of CIT ownership and use it
delineates.  In regard to family size and type, income and
housing, the sample can be taken as representative of middle
Australia, or at least, the urban, English-speaking sector
of it, which is still a majority of the population.  It
should also be said that in addition to the gross ownership
and use data, the questionnaire has been able to produce
information on attitudes to current policy issues; to
document certain aspects of CIT-related behaviour, such as
the difference between the hours spent attending to
television and radio, and the hours the sets are on; and
even to reveal attitudinal differences in how family members
relate to CITs, seen in the difference between parents and
children on the question of strict rules.

     Clearly, it is necessary to use means other than
doorstepping to find families willing to be intensively
interviewed in the manner which the ethnographic domestic
paradigm requires.  In this regard, the strategy used in the
Brunel study of approaching prospective families through
schools would seem to be a more effective and accessible
option.  It lends the research a legitimacy which a doorstep
approach could never expect to achieve.  The subsequent
interview can then draw out the complexities of behaviour
and attitudes which a questionnaire can only indicate in
relatively crude categories.

     This is to raise the prospect of how the triangulation
of ethnographic interviews with more widely-gathered
questionnaire data might bring the domestic paradigm to a
new stage, one in which it is possible to single out
particular social factors for investigation.  This would not
be done in the sense or spirit in which positivist science
isolates dependent and independent variables, runs control
groups and tests specific hypotheses.  That entire mode of
investigation is alien and inappropriate to what is being
suggested here.  Rather, the prospect arises for the
exploration of differences in CIT use between families
defined by selected contrasting social characteristics.

     For example, research could look for patterns of
difference associated with language used at home between
families in the same neighbourhood and of similar structure
and socioeconomic status.  Researchers could select an area
in which there was known to be a large number of speakers of
a certain language, say, Spanish.  Household questionnaires
could then be administered to selected clusters of homes,
while families for interview were recruited through the
local school.  Such a design could yield both extensive,
quantitative and intensive, qualitative data of a
comparative nature on both English-speaking and Spanish-
speaking families.  It is not difficult to imagine how other
such contrasts could be set up:  high-income versus low-
income; well-educated versus poorly-educated; younger versus
older families; even at a later stage, nuclear versus other
family types.  A similar prospect exists for the
investigation of not just CIT use in general, but of
particular technologies.  As well as their considerable
interest for academic social scientists, the findings from
such research would be valuable to actual and potential
service providers, and also bear significant social and
communication policy implications.

     Furthermore, the questionnaire has yielded more data
and possibilities for its analysis than have been covered in
this article.  There is more information of a quantitative,
descriptive kind which could be extracted from the database,
such as differences between younger and older families, but
the size of the sample and the rudimentary nature of the
database used neither justify nor permit much more
statistical analysis than has been presented.  There is also
a good deal about the communication behaviour and attitudes
of individual families which could be gathered from working
across the individual household questionnaires from each
family, comparing husbands' and wives' or parents' and
children's responses to similar questions for example.  Yet
there has been enough seen here to encourage further
development of the household questionnaire method.  The
availability of the 1991 Australian Census data at the end
of 1993 should enable closer comparison of local
characteristics to national indicators, while further
research can proceed with confidence to use larger samples
and more sophisticated means of data retrieval and analysis.

                            Note

[1]  This paper reports research undertaken by the author
     while on leave as Visiting Research Fellow at the
     Centre for International Research on Communication and
     Information Technologies (CIRCIT) in Melbourne in
     1991-1992.  The support of both CIRCIT and the VUT are
     gratefully acknowledged.  A full report of the research
     has been published by CIRCIT (Sinclair, 1992), and is
     available from CIRCIT, 4 Riverside Quay, South
     Melbourne, 3205, phone 61 3 616 8888.


                            References

Anderson, B. (1983).  Imagined communities:  Reflections on
     the origins and spread of nationalism.  London:  Verso.

Australian Bureau of Statistics.  (1989).  Census 86 -
     Australian families and households.  Canberra:
     Commonwealth of Australia.

George Patterson Advertising.  (1991).  Status of the media
     1991.  Sydney:  Author.

Morley, D. (1980) The "nationwide" audience.  London:
     British Film Institute.

Morley, D. (1986).  Family television:  Cultural power and
     domestic leisure.  London:  Comedia.

Morley, D. (1989).  Changing paradigms in audience studies.
     In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E-M. Warth
     (Eds.), Remote control:  Television, audiences and
     cultural power (pp. 16-43).  London & New York:
     Routledge.

Morley, D. (1992) Television, audiences & cultural studies,
     London & New York:  Routledge.

Morley, D. & Silverstone, R. (1990).  Domestic
     communication:  Technologies and meanings.  Media,
     Culture and Society, 12(1), 31-55.

Silverstone, R. (1990).  Television and everyday life:
     towards an anthropology of the television audience.  In
     M. Ferguson (Ed.), Public communication:  The new
     imperatives (pp. 173-189).  London:  Sage.

Silverstone, R. (1991).  From audiences to consumers:  The
     household and the consumption of communication and
     information technologies.  European Journal of
     Communication, 6(2), 135-154.

Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1991).  Listening
     to a long conversation:  An ethnographic approach to
     the study of information and communication technologies
     in the Home.  Cultural Studies, 5(2), 204-227.

Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (Eds.).  (1992).  Consuming
     technologies:  Media and information in domestic
     spaces.  London & New York:  Routledge.

Sinclair, J. (1992).  "Just like normal people":  Towards
     the investigation of the significance of communication
     and information technologies in the household (Working
     Paper 1992/1).  Melbourne:  Centre for International
     Research on Communication and Information Technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------

Correspondence:  Dr. John Sinclair
                 Associate Professor
                 Department of Humanities
                 Faculty of Arts
                 Victoria University of Technology
                 PO Box 14428
                 Melbourne Mail Centre
                 Melbourne, Vic, 3000.
                 John=Sinclair@vut.edu.au
                 Phone 03 688 4048
                 Fax   03 688 4805
------------------------------------------------------------
                      Copyright 1993
   Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

     This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced
without written permission of the Communication Institute
for Online Scholarship, P.O.  Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY
12150 USA (phone:  518-887-2443).