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

Article from ejc/rec Electronic Journal of Communication
EJC logo
The Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication


Volume 9 Numbers 2, 3, 4 1999

Reader Information Needs

BRIDGING GAPS BETWEEN AUDIENCE AND MEDIA:
A SENSE-MAKING COMPARISON OF READER INFORMATION NEEDS
IN LIFE-FACING VERSUS NEWSPAPER READING CONTEXTS
 
 

Melissa M. Spirek
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio USA
mspirek@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Brenda Dervin
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio USA
dervin.1@osu.edu

Michael Nilan
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York USA
mnilan@syr.edu

Molly Martin
The Seattle Times
Seattle, Washington USA
mmartin@seattletimes.com



 

Abstract.  This article presents a comparison of two approaches to conceptualizing the media-audience relationship in audience research: audience-inside-the-media versus audience-inside-life-as-it-is-lived. Two Sense-Making studies of audience leisure time information needs and seeking success were conducted: one focusing on audience needs in actual life situations; the other on needs while reading newspaper coverage. As predicted, differences were highly significant between the two conditions. Discussion proposes that conceptualizations of the audience are a major contributor to gaps between media and audiences, between media practitioners and researchers, and between media practices today versus those required in a cyberspaced future. Recommendations are offered for media practices from both studies. Sense-Making Methodology is proposed as a useful alternative approach to media audience research.
The Research Problem

This study attempts to position itself at the intersection of some formidable gaps faced both by media researchers and media practitioners. The argument presented is seen as relevant to all media although the specific exemplar application is that of newspapers. In brief overview, the gaps are these:

Between media research and media practice. A divide is apparent between media research and practice such that practitioners express dissatisfaction with research no matter what its source. On the one hand, academic research seems both too theoretic and too sophisticated while at the same time accounting for too little variability in audience behavior and seeming to show few advances over decades of effort. On the other, proprietary research produced by media research departments disappoints both because of a lack of sophistication and because its conclusions are directed primarily to marketing interests rather than substantive aspects of media design and practice. This divide between research and practice is, of course, one of long-standing recognition and at the same time increased recent concern. 1

Between media practice today and media practice in a cyberspaced future. The impact of the move of media practice to cyberspace is one that even casual observation can not miss. As one author (Mings, 1997) put it, the movement of newspapers online is proceeding at a "dizzying pace." 2 Yet, curiously, media, particularly newspapers, seem among the most reluctant innovators in cyberspace. 3 Observers from the arts and humanities speak of a fundamental transformation in concepts of what is accepted narrative practice, or even "good writing." They speak as well of a period of innovation analogous to the first fifty years following the advent of the Gutenberg Press in the 1450s. Yet, ironically evidence shows that both journalism practitioners and educator-researchers have paid relatively little recognition to events that may have revolutionary impacts on their practices. Research examining newspaper online web sites, for example, found only the most rudimentary of differences between printed newspapers and online versions. And, commentary from within journalism institutions, both academic and media, indicate a fear of abandoning centuries of agreed-upon standards and professional norms. 4

Between audiences and media. The entire concept of what is an audience has, in the midst of the changes in media markets resulting from electronic globalization, destabilized. 5 A tension emerges in that there is the increasing commodification of the audience by the forces of marketing which evidence shows serve increasingly as the defining hegemony for media outlets as control shifts to fewer and fewer transnational interests. 6 Alternatively, there is the increasing variety of ways in which audiences can meet their media use needs. In this context, evidence shows that the traditional concept of a stable audience is less and less applicable. No media is more impacted by these changes than newspapers which evidence shows have diminished from their previously prominent places in American lifestyles in the face of decreases in circulation, rising costs, and formidable competition. 7

In the midst of these divides there is not unexpectedly recent calls for understanding audiences. Such calls have themselves been a long-time song in media research. 8 But it is fair to say that the turn toward audience-oriented media research is more vigorous today than it has ever been. Within quantitative studies of media, for example, there is the robust tradition of uses and gratifications, which has traditionally been based on the call to understand what "people do with the media" rather than what "media do to people" (Katz, 1959). 9 Another example is the agenda-setting research genre focusing on the importance audiences place on, for example, public affairs topics and how these emphases change in evolving media environments. 10 Another example is the innovative and theoretically sophisticated work of Carter who has applied his research technique "Cognigraphics" to audience studies. 11 Further, one generally finds increases in the application of various cognitive approaches to studying media use. 12

The more robust attention to audience-oriented audience studies has been, without doubt, the qualitative audience research tradition. This rich and growing genre focuses on studying media use as it is socially and contextually embedded in the on-going lives of media users, what Lindlof terms "accounting for the actual unfolding of everyday interactions with the media" (Lindlof, 1987, p. x). Characteristic of the qualitative tradition is its conjoint attention to both media production and media use, focusing on understanding the ways in which media institutions, structures and practices constrain and limit audiences. Further, this tradition has typically executed deep holistic digs into audience interpretative activities in specific embedded social contexts (e.g. family life, interest groups). 13

The present study is usefully informed by both of these avenues of increased attention to audience-oriented research. Both, in essence, point to a need to understand audience decoding of media products albeit in very different ways. We submit, however, that neither avenue is serving well the building of the bridge between research and practice. The quantitative turn toward audience research puts its primary emphasis on the media. Audiences are examined in terms of how they position themselves vis-a-vis media usually defined as channels (e.g. newspapers or television or online newspapers) and audience behavior is conceptualized as habitual with enduring characteristics across time-space.

In contrast, the qualitative turn toward audience research provides an extraordinarily rich portrait of audience decoding but does so by placing its primary focus on audience lives in specific contexts in ways that do not seem to generalize easily to media practice. Further, in the context of media environments the lack of quantitative presentation in most qualitative work is unfortunately construed as lack of systemization. Fair or not, quantification is a mandated form of discourse in most media board rooms and newsrooms.

There are, of course, layers of contest and argument regarding philosophic and methodological questions that separate quantitative and qualitative approaches to media audience studies. 14 It is beyond our purpose here to review these. Suffice it to say that we see the polarization as artificial and submit that understanding any phenomena -- in this case the phenomena of interest -- audience decoding -- will ultimately be strengthened by bringing to bear a multiplicity of approaches.

We grant to the quantitative tradition its explicit attention to issues of sampling and systematic analyses and its ongoing, albeit thwarted, concern for finding ways to understand audiences in order to impact media practices. In a similar vein, we grant to the qualitative tradition its explicit attention to the conditions under which we are more likely to find audience decoding behaviors displayed in ways that provide explanatory potential, and its capacity to carry into method its assumptions regarding the active meaning-making audience.

Among the many differences between the traditions upon which we could elaborate, the one we have selected as most important for our study presented here is the issue of how the audience is positioned vis-a-vis the media in audience studies. For quantitative studies, it is fair to say the audience is portrayed inside-the-media. For qualitative studies, it is fair to say the audience is portrayed inside-life-as-it-is-lived.

We highlight this particular difference for attention because we see it as a difference that in many ways undergirds the gaps which we detailed in our opening paragraphs above. It is our assumption that the inattention of traditional media researchers to understanding audience-in-life-as-it-is-lived has much to do with the disappointing achievements of that tradition and with the increasing fickleness of audiences and journalistic fears of the future in cyberspace. Further, it is our assumption that a major reason why research has not informed practice is because most of that research has been too far removed from points of practice -- i.e. that moment when a member of the audience-in-life-as-it-is-lived engages in practices of decoding a media product. This is the moment when the product manifestations of media practices as exhibited in the structure, design, and content of the media product meets the interpreting practices of the audience.

It is at this juncture that we position the study presented here. We propose our study as an exemplar of an audience-oriented approach to studying newspaper readers which at the same time provides relevant links to practice. Further, we propose an explicit comparison of the impact of researching the audience-inside-the-media versus researching the audience-inside-life-as-it-is-lived.

Methodological Approach

To implement the general purposes stated above we propose to use the Sense-Making Methodology as a particularly useful intervention. Sense-Making as a methodology has been under development by Dervin and colleagues since the early 1970s and has been explicitly designed for the specific mandate of researching audiences (by any other name: users, patrons, patients, readers, and so on) in such a way that the resulting research serves media/communication/information system design and practice. The intent has been not so much to understand audiences as to understand audiences in such a way that the understandings can be used directly in practice and design. 15

Sense-Making is built upon an elaborate metatheoretic and methodological rationale, which will not be reviewed here. The important aspects for the purposes at hand are:

1) Studying audience members as anchored in specific moments in time-space and as potentially fluid and changeable across time-space. >From a Sense-Making perspective, it is in the realm of decoding that audiences have the play to exert freedoms otherwise disallowed in externally observable behaviors. Thus, while audience behaviors that are externally observed may have a habitual character, those that are not observable are far less habitual. Sense-Making studies, to date, have documented that the predictors and explanatory factors most used in media research -- personality, demography, literacies, culture -- rarely predict audience decoding. The reason for this is that they all assume constancy of audience behavior across time-space. In Sense-Making terms, these typical measures are imposed as social markers on respondents and are thus not close enough to life-as-it-is-lived to capture either the ways constraints might actually be operating or freedoms might be exercised. The result is research that makes audience member behavior look chaotic. Sense-Making does not assume that structural conditions do not impact audience interpretations. Nor does it assume that audience members do not sometimes behave habitually. Rather, it assumes that research must frame questions in such a way that both habitual as well as non-habitual behavior emerges.

2) Studying audiences in the contexts of their own lives. Sense-Making mandates that studies of sense-making in any domain be contextualized because it is assumed that sense-making and sense-unmaking occurs in context. To study sense-making out of context is to invite imposition by researcher framings and/or general societal framings and to miss, often entirely, the framings which sense-makers do in life-as-it-is-lived. One difficulty with such highly contextualized studies, of course, is that they lack generalizability and have been accused of inviting solipsism. Sense-Making addresses this directly by, borrowing from Carter 16, conceptualizing humans as constantly moving through time-space. In this way, then, Sense-Making's conceptual analytics focus on what Dervin (1993, 1999a) calls "verbings" -- aspects of sense-making and sense-unmaking that pertain to bridging gaps in an assumed to be elusive and constantly evolving reality. In essence, Sense-Making introduces into contextualizing research the idea of human universals based not on the traditional categories of demography, abilities, and personality but on alternative categories based on moments of situation-facing and gap-bridging. Sense-Making assumes that while across time-space perspectives (such as demographic and personality framings) will point to habitual behaviors, it will be verbing framings that will point to patterns in that aspect of sense-making which is a strength of the human species -- the capacity to alter and invent in response to changing situations. Further, Sense-Making assumes that there is pattern to be found in these micro-moments of human sense-making that evolve and change as people move across time-space.

3) Studying audiences with a respect that positions members of the audience as theorists and informed observers. This move is derived from a fundamental challenge in Sense-Making to the idea that information is an absolute. Information in Sense-Making is conceptualized as that which informs at specific moments in time-space, sometimes useful at other moments in time-space, but never sufficient for gap-bridging, and always humbled by the impacts of change and multiple interpretations. In the framework of such assumptions, audience members are reconceptualized necessarily as research colleagues and partners. Their expertise is their lived experience. It is their gift to offer and Sense-Making assumes that under appropriate conditions of research dialogue, audience members will offer the gift.

4) Interfacing with audience members using interviewing approaches designed explicitly to implement the above methodological mandates. A variety of Sense-Making interviewing approaches has been developed. None are recipes or techniques as such. Rather they are in essence theories of how to interview in such a way that the interviewees are invited to share their lives-as-lived and interviewers are mandated to silence their minds and tongues insofar as possible.

5) Finally, Sense-Making has been designed as a general methodological framework useful in both quantitative as well as qualitative studies -- i.e. to implement qualitative sensibilities and at the same time to be amenable to quantitative systematization.

Execution of the Study

In this section, we review in turn the research question, questionnaire design, sampling, fielding, units of analysis, variable definitions and operationalizations, and data analysis approaches.

This study would have been impossible without the involvement and support of the Seattle Times. 17 At the time of the study, the Times was interested in examining and improving its leisure time related coverage (i.e. sports, arts and entertainment, and travel). Leisure time situations and leisure time newspaper coverage became, thus, the substantive focus of the sense-making studied.

Research Question

As stated above, our purpose was to: 1) execute an exemplar of an audience-oriented approach to studying newspaper readers which at the same time provides relevant links to practice; and 2) provide a comparison of the impact of researching the audience-inside-the-media versus researching the audience-inside-life-as-it-is-lived. The second purpose provided the focus for the study's design. The assumption, of course, was that the audience as displayed using an audience-inside-the-media approach would be a very different audience from that displayed using an audience-inside-life-as-it-is-lived approach. The mandate of the study design, then, was to compare audience decoding in two different contexts.

As a research approach, Sense-Making has been developed as a generalizable methodology for studying sense-making and sense-unmaking (Dervin, 1999a). In a specific study, the particular sense-making phenomena is delineated in terms of a particular research discourse. For this study, the selected criterion focus was information needs and information seeking success. Thus, it was decided to examine audience information needs and information seeking success in the two contexts -- one while facing real life leisure time situations, the other while intersecting with newspaper coverage relating to leisure time issues. In the presentation below when we refer to sense-making we are referring to this particular operationalization -- information needs, and information seeking success. When we refer to Sense-Making we are referring to the methodology.

Sense-Making as a methodology has been applied in a long tradition of studies focusing on information needs, seeking, use, and success. 18 It was selected as the criterion focus here because the results of prior research provided a host of already developed approaches both to data collection and analysis. More importantly, however, information needs and successes were selected as the criterion focus because Sense-Making provided an already-developed conceptual template for defining the information need situation. The Sense-Making approach to studying information needs, seeking, and use mandates at a minimum conceptualizing the information need as a convergence of sense-maker attentions to their past, present, and future horizons. Thus, the most used analytic tool from Sense-Making is the Sense-Making Triangle which in the case of studying information needs mandates attention to the situation the actor sees self as in, gaps the actor sees self as facing, bridges over the gap the actor is attempting to construct, and hoped for outcomes on the future horizon. This is not meant to posit all information seeking as rational or linear or purposive. Rather, it is a phenomenological triangulation mandating the interviewer to set aside any imposed maps and listen instead to how an actor constructs a sense-making journey. In this study, three concepts from a 2-sided slice of the Sense-Making Triangle were used: the gap (questions asked), the bridge (question-answering success), and the helps expected (ways in which the actor hoped the answer would help). The operationalizations of these concepts are described below as specifically applied in this study.

Questionnaire Designs

The research questions called for two different data collection situations -- one focused on audience sense-making during actual life situations. For purposes of this study, this meant during actual leisure time situations. The second data collection required focusing on sense-making while reading leisure time newspaper coverage.

Data collection methods for both studies were developed using tested Sense-Making approaches. For the study of Sense-Making during actual leisure time situations, a modification of the Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview was used. This interviewing approach asks respondents to reconstruct recent life situations. For this study, respondents were asked to reconstruct two recent leisure time situations -- their most recent participation in leisure time activities and another recent participation that involved many questions or confusions. Respondents were asked to detail questions they had while participating in these activities and the ways in which they hoped answers to their questions would help them. Respondents were also asked whether they got complete, partial, or no answers to their questions at any time during the situation. The top section of Figure 1 reports the portions of the data record from one such interview for one respondent.

=====================================================================

Figure 1. Illustration from one respondent's data record of the two data collection approaches.

=====================================================================

For the study of Sense-Making while reading newspaper coverage, another Sense-Making data collection method was used -- Message Q/ing. 19 In this method, respondents were asked to stop in the process of reading newspaper coverage at each point that they had questions. For each question they had, they were asked to indicate the nature of the question and the ways in which they hoped answers would help. Finally, after completely reading a given article in the paper, respondents were asked whether they got a complete, partial, or no answers to each question. The bottom section of Figure 1 presents portions of the data record for one respondent showing the results of this respondent's Message Q/ing for one small section of one article in the newspaper.

Sampling

The costs of collecting the data using the two data collection methods described above had to be taken into account when deciding the sampling design for this study. The questionnaire tapping Sense-Making during actual leisure time situations could be administered over the phone in interviews averaging about 10-15 minutes. The Message Q/ing analysis, on the other hand, involved the respondent actually reading all articles in the selected leisure time coverage and describing as indicated above all questions raised in the process. This process (to be described in more detail later) took an average of about 5-6 hours. It was feasible, thus, to draw a random general population sample for the analysis of actual situations. For the analysis of information needs and seeking success while reading coverage, however, a sample consisting of communications undergraduates in an introductory research class was obtained. The actual situation questionnaire was completed for both the general population and student samples. The Message Q/ing was completed by only the student sample.

This sampling approach allowed both of the research questions framed above to be addressed. For the focus on Sense-Making in actual leisure time situations, the general population adult sample was compared with the intact student sample. For the comparison of Sense-Making in actual leisure time situations to Sense-Making while reading newspaper coverage, only the intact student sample was used.

The general population sample consisted of 384 adults drawn using systematic random procedures from the Seattle metropolitan area phone book. Adults answering the selected phone numbers were interviewed, yielding a sample, which compared well in terms of sex, education, age, and occupation distributions with Seattle census data. The student respondents consisted of 51 students in an introductory communications research course. This intact sample was 86% female and 14% male. Most (86%) of the student respondents were, as would be expected, in the youngest age group (27 years or less).

Fielding

The study was fielded as a communications research class project. The 51 students who served as respondents, as indicated above, also served as interviewers and coders for the project. The actual leisure time situation questionnaires were self-administered to the student sample and then administered by phone to the general population respondents. The Message Q/ing analyses were self-administered by the student sample. Message Q/ing was completed on one week's worth of Sunday paper leisure time coverage by the Seattle Times. Students were given copies of the four relevant sections (Arts and Entertainment, Tempo, Travel, and Sports) and asked to complete Message Q/ing analyses on all articles.

Units of Analysis

The units of analysis for this study, as for many Sense-Making studies, was the question-asking instance. Results of the sampling and fielding processes described above yielded 1097 questions asked during actual leisure time situations by the 384 general population adults and 360 asked by the 51 students. For the Message Q/ing results, the procedures yielded 1587 questions asked by the 51 students in the process of reading the four newspaper sections.

Variable Definitions and Operationalizations

Three different dimensions commonly assessed in Sense-Making studies of information needs, seeking, and use were specified by the processes above as the focus of this study: 1) nature of questions asked; 2) helps expected from answers (i.e. uses to which respondents expected to put answers); and, 3) question answering success.

The data collection methods yielded verbal answers for all but the latter measure. This meant that most of the data analysis involved extensive use of content analysis. The specific schemes used for this study were ones developed and tested in prior Sense-Making studies. In all cases, standard content analysis procedures were used with results tested using the conservative Scott's (1955) measure of interjudge coding reliability which adjusts for chance agreement between coders. Reliability measures were all above 90%. The specific definitions and operationalizations are described below.

Nature of questions asked. The first class of measures tapped the nature of the questions respondents asked while involved in sense-making in either study context. Three different content analytic templates were applied, all assumed to measure different aspects of the kind of pictures people need in constructing sense as they move through time and space. The three templates included:

Time focus of question: This measure coded each question asked in terms of whether it focused on a point of time prior to involvement in the leisure time activity (past), at the time of the activity (present), or after the activity (future). When the template was applied to questions asked during newspaper reading, the definitions focused on times prior to, during, and after reading.

5W focus of question: This measure coded each question in terms of whether it focused on identifying a who, what, why, how, when, or where.

Descriptive focus of question. This template encompassed aspects of both the templates above but involved a much more descriptive analysis of the kinds of questions it is assumed individuals need to answer as they move through situations. The scheme involved coding each question in terms of which of the following eight categories it focused on.

Timing - focusing on when things start or stop, how long they last, and whether time is available.

Locating - focusing on where things are located geographically, in terms of possession, or in the media.

Causes - focusing on why things happen and why self and others think, feel, act as they do.

Connecting - focusing on knowing who is involved and whether and how self or others can connect with particular people or people in general.

Others - focusing on identifying the characteristics, states of being, or qualifications of other people.

Self - focusing on identifying the characteristics, states of being, or qualifications of self.

Objects-events - focusing on describing and comparing objects, processes, and events -- their existence, elements, evaluations, surrounding conditions, and ease of dealing with.

Outcomes - focusing on identifying and evaluating outcomes, impacts, effects and consequences.

Terms - focusing on identifying the meanings of specific vocabulary terms or a set of phrases or instructions.

Helps Expected from Answers. In past Sense-Making studies, a scheme was developed for coding the helps respondents expected or got from answers to their questions or the ways in which they saw themselves using answers to facilitate their movement through time-space. This scheme was applied in this study, coding each help into one of 11 categories in terms of whether it indicated that the respondent saw answers to their questions as facilitating:
Getting pictures -- getting ideas and understanding, satisfying curiosity.

Planning, finding directions -- finding of directions to travel, being able to decide or make judgments.

Getting skills -- acquiring skills, being able to perform better, being able to do something requiring skills.

Getting started, keeping going -- being able to get motivated, start something, try again, and continue on the road.

Getting control -- finding things going smoother, getting out of a bad situation, getting things under control.

Reaching goal -- arriving at a desired goal, accomplishing something, being able to go on to other things.

Avoiding bad situation -- seeing a bad situation ahead and avoiding it, not making errors, not being bored.

Relieving worry, anxiety -- easing fear, worry, anxiety, guilt, being able to forget or take mind off things, accepting a bad situation as it is.

Getting pleasure -- getting pleasure, interest, joy, happiness.

Getting support -- becoming confident of self or hopeful for the future, being reassured or supported by others.

Getting connected -- being able to talk, know, share, or relate to others.

Question Answering Success. The final measure used in this study tapped whether the respondent saw each question asked as getting a complete, partial, or no answer during the leisure time situation (for the actual situation data) or during the process of reading the leisure time article (for the reading data).

Data Analysis Approaches

Coded data were analyzed by computer. The statistical test used for this report was the t-test for independent proportions (McNemar, 1962). It should be noted that in the comparison of sense-making in actual situations to sense-making while reading, no control was introduced for respondent variance even though both bodies of data came from the same 51 respondents. Reason for this was the fact that the question and not the respondent was the unit of analysis. Other Sense-Making studies have documented the utility both theoretically and statistically of using a unit of analysis smaller than the person. In fact, this use -- the idea of conceptualizing a unit which is a moment of sense-making practice -- is central to Sense-Making's metatheoretic framing.

Results

Results are presented below focusing first on the comparison of general population sample versus student sample sense-making in actual leisure time situations; and then on the comparison of sense-making by students in actual situations versus while reading newspaper coverage.

Table 1 reports the results for the comparison of sense-making by the general population versus student samples in actual leisure time situations.

=====================================================================

Table 1. A comparison of sense-making (information needs and information seeking success) by the general population versus student samples in actual leisure time situations.

=====================================================================

Results showed that the two samples differed significantly on eight of the 33 criterion measures with most of these differences being small. Across all 33 measures, the average percentage difference was only 3.1%. Only two of the measures showed differences greater than 9%. The results were as follows:

* In terms of the nature of questions, the student versus general population respondents asked in leisure time situations, results showed that students were more likely to focus on the future (74.9% of student questions versus 65.3% of general population questions). In addition, students were more likely to ask what questions (32.6% versus 26.9%) while general population respondents were more likely to ask why (10.3% versus 6.5%) and where questions (10.6% versus 6.5%).

* In terms of helps expected from answers, results showed that the students put significantly more emphasis on planning (the help expected for 46.1% of student questions compared to only 31.4% of general population questions), and significantly less emphasis on getting skills (3.3% versus 7.0%).

* In terms of question answering success, there were no significant differences between the two samples.

The comparison of student sense-making in actual leisure time situations versus during reading newspaper leisure time coverage is presented in Table 2.

=====================================================================

Table 2. A comparison of sense-making (information needs and information seeking success) by the student sample in actual leisure time situations versus when reading newspaper leisure time coverage.

=====================================================================

Results showed that the two conditions differed significantly on 31 of the 33 measures, with the average percentage difference across all measures being 17.0%. The specific results were as follows:

* In terms of the time focus of questions asked, results showed that actual situation sense-making was significantly more likely to focus on the future than reading sense-making (74.9% of all questions in actual situations versus 13.4% of those raised while reading). In contrast, actual situation sense-making was significantly less likely to focus on past questions (3.9% versus 17.9%) and present questions (21.2% versus 68.7%).

* In terms of the 5W focus of questions asked, results showed that actual situation questions focused more on how (32.0% versus 5.5%), when (12.4% versus 2.3%), and where (6.5% versus 3.5%). Reading questions focused more on who (23.6% versus 10.1%), what (45.2% versus 32.5%), and why (19.9% versus 6.5%).

* In terms of the descriptive focus nature of questions asked, results showed that reading questions focused significantly more often on three classes of questions -- causes (18.9% of all reading questions versus 6.1% of all actual situation questions), others (22.1% versus 9.2%), and terms (21.7% versus 0.7%). All other question classes were more emphasized in actual situations --timing, locating, connecting, self, objects-events, and outcomes. While all the differences were significant, the large differences showed that actual situation questions were more likely to focus on timing (13.1% versus 2.6% for reading questions), and self (22.6% versus 2.4%).

* In terms of helps expected from answers, results showed that respondents saw reading questions as being significantly more likely to lead to one kind of help while all other differences showed greater emphasis on helps by actual situation questions. The greater emphasis for reading questions was "getting pictures" reported for 67.8% of all reading questions compared to only 12.8% of all actual situation questions. Most of the other differences, while significant, were small. Three, however, involved differences between the two sense-making conditions of 10% or more. The largest was planning, where 46.1% of the questions asked in actual situations focused on this expected help compared to only 13.9% of questions raised while reading. Reaching goals also showed a sizable difference -- 12.5% of questions oriented toward this help in actual situations compared to only 0.1% in reading situations. Avoiding bad situations showed a similar difference -- named as an expected help for 9.4% of actual situation questions compared to only 0.6% in reading situations. It is also telling that if one sums across a number of the expected helps that would usually be termed more "emotional" (e.g. getting started, getting control, relieving worry, getting pleasure, getting support), 22.0% of questions asked in actual situations were oriented toward these helps expected compared to only 5.8% of questions asked while reading coverage.

* In terms of question answering success, results showed that reading questions were significantly less likely to be reported as being completely answered than actual situation questions (27.5% versus 62.0%) and significantly more likely to be not answered at all (54.5% versus 15.4%).

Conclusions

In terms of the guiding research questions specified for this study at the outset, results showed support. There were few and generally small differences found in sense-making reported by the general population versus student samples in actual leisure time situations. This was as expected based on Sense-Making assumptions, which posit that observable demographic differences between people account for little of internal sense-making, particularly in situations where structural constraints can be hypothesized as less constraining. Thus, while certainly leisure research shows that income and education have a marked impact on what leisure time activities people choose  20, Sense-Making would posit that it would have relatively minimal impact on how people made sense of the actual activities they engaged in when that sense-making is conceptualized in terms of movement through time-space and life-facing.

Results did show many and large differences between the sense-making reported by students in actual leisure time situations and that reported while reading leisure time related newspaper coverage. Again, this was as expected based on past research, which has shown that sense-making in hypothetical situations is markedly different from that in actual situations.

The marked difference between actual situation and reading sense-making provides evidence of the impact of viewing audiences through different lenses. The audience-inside-the-media approach, represented by the study of sense-making while reading imposed media coverage, produced a very different audience than the audience-in-life-as-it-is-lived approach.

Further, the nature of the differences found between actual situation and reading sense-making provide possible guidance for media design. Two major classes of findings emerged. One showed that while only about 15% of questions raised in actual leisure time were reported as not being answered even partially, slightly over half of questions raised while reading fell into this category. This particular study provides only tangential evidence of what kinds of questions are most likely to remain unanswered during leisure time newspaper use. The data leads one to expect that many of these questions involved vocabulary definitions and the identifications of people and places. If this is true, then one possible design strategy would be to utilize well-placed vocabulary/ identification boxes as part of the newspaper format. In the cyberspace context adding such a tool as a hyperlink is easy to conceptualize.

The importance of this finding, however, rests very much on understanding that the results of a Sense-Making study of audiences is intended to change media institutions, not audiences. Findings which show that audience members do not understand media content are plentiful. 21 In traditional media research approaches, the concern often derived from such findings has been to somehow find ways to get audience members to change. Unfortunately, there is now a battery of evidence supporting the folly of such an aim. 22 As a methodology, Sense-Making makes refocusing an explicit mandate: research results are better used to reconceptualize and redesign the media mission and approach.

A second major class of findings with implications for media design dealt with the qualitative differences between actual situation versus reading sense-making. There was much higher emphasis in actual situation sense-making on asking questions about the future, hows, whens, and wheres. Questions were more focused on self and directed more toward planning and reaching goals, avoiding bad situations, and, garnering emotional helps. Reading sense-making, on the other hand, showed much higher emphasis on the present, whos, whats, and whys. The questions looked more at causes, other people, and terms and vocabulary. By far, most of the reading questions were aimed simply at getting pictures and ideas.

The portrait that emerges then was one of actual situation sense-making focusing on movement through time-space while reading sense-making was removed from that movement. The sheer magnitude of the differences suggests that leisure time newspaper coverage could well be directed more toward assisting readers to link coverage with movements in their own lives.

It is, of course, reasonable to suggest that the differences would not have been so large between actual and reading sense-making if respondents had read newspaper coverage directly relevant to their own life situations. This is a research question which needs a direct test. Such a test might hypothesize, for example, that sense-making while reading articles of high importance to readers would be more like actual situation sense-making.

It is expected that such a test would receive data support. It is also assumed, however, that the ways in which media now design their coverage is, indeed, so removed from everyday movement through time-space that even sense-making when reading important articles will be highly discrepant from actual situation sense-making. If this conclusion is supported in future studies, the implications for media design are profound.

It would be premature to accept the conclusion per se. What is more important for purposes of this study is the potential shown in these results for use of approaches to audience research focusing on audience-in-life-as-it-is-lived. Sense-Making has been presented as a particularly appropriate exemplar approach because, since its inception it has been developed as a research tool oriented toward improvements or change in media/ communication/ information system design and practice. Results here show potential in two ways. The first is the consistency shown with past Sense-Making research and with the theoretic premises that guide the research. The second is the guidance the results offer for practice.

In this study, then, there is evidence of both theoretic and applied utility which is the very kind of gain one would hope to find when the model guiding research about practice becomes useful for practice. In the long run, this may be the largest gain from this study -- that it provides evidence that the gap between research and practice that has plagued the communication fields can itself be bridged. This study is seen as contributing in a modest way to the making of a bridge.

Endnotes

1.  For studies documenting the dissatisfaction of practitioners with media research, see for example: Layton, 1999; Halvari & White, 1997. For criticisms of proprietary media research, see for example: Singleton & Straits, 1999; Wimmer & Dominick, 1994. For criticisms and assessments of academic media research, see for example: Wartella & Reeves, 1985; Williams, Rice & Rogers, 1988. Social Approaches to Communication (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995) is an example of a call for bridging the gap between research and practice. Evidence of this recently being a concern for those in the field of media is shown by the fact that print and electronic media industries are funding fellowships and workshops to serve as a catalyst for dialogue between professional and academic groups. Two examples are the annual International Radio and Television Society Faculty/Industry Seminar and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Fellowships of the American Society of Newspaper Editors Institute for Journalism Excellence.

2.  In August 1997 the number of online newspapers was estimated at 1733 worldwide rising at exponential rates from 100 in 1995 (Mings, 1997). As of September 27, 1998, Eric K. Meyer (1999) reported in American Journalism Review NewsLink that a tentative total of newspapers online globally was 4,925.

3.  This review of media positioning vis-a-vis cyberspace as compared to that of arts and the humanities comes from Huesca et al., 1999. For related works, see: Peng, Tham, & Xiaoming, 1999; Weispfenning, 1999.

4.  See, in particular: Garrison, 1996, 1997; Huesca et. al, 1999; Ross, 1998, Weispfenning, 1998.

5.  See, for example: Schlagheck, 1998; Shultz & Voakes, 1999.

6.  For a recent discussion, see: Bass, 1999; Sampedro, 1998.

7.  See, for example: Bogart, 1989; Denton, 1993; Mings, 1997.

8.  There have been repeated calls for better audience research over the decades. In 1964, for example, Bauer called for reconceptualizing the "obstinate audience"; in 1979, Schwartz and Moore described newspaper research as "on the rocks" while calling for an alternative, more audience-oriented research approach.

9.  For examples of recent uses and gratifications studies, see: Kim & Rubin, 1997; Mings, 1997; Rubin, 1994; Schlagheck, 1998; Vincent & Basil, 1997.

10.  Examples of recent agenda setting studies include: Iyengar & Simon, 1994; Schweitzer & Smith, 1991; Wanta, 1992; Wanta & Roy, 1995.

11.  See, for example: Carter, Stamm, & Heintz-Knowles, 1992; Carter & Stamm, 1994.

12.  See for example, Kosicki, 1993; Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997; Shah, Domke & Wackman, 1996.

13.  Among the classic writings on qualitative approaches to media uses and effects research are Lindlof, 1987; Lindlof & Shatzer, 1998 and Moore, 1990.

14.  For examples of the debates and underlying issues in the traditional polarization between qualitative and quantitative studies of media audiences in particular and communication processes generally, see, as examples: Evans, 1990; Fejes, 1984; Fink & Gantz, 1996; Jensen & Rosengren, 1990; Lindlof, 1987; Lindlof, 1991; Livingstone, 1993; Reimer, 1998; Morley, 1993; Webster, 1998.

15.  For recent articles focusing on the metatheoretic and methodological premises of Sense-Making, see: Dervin, 1999a, 1999b, 1998, 1993; for comprehensive overviews, see: Dervin, 1992, 1989; for recent empirical studies, see: Dervin & Shields, 1999; Shields, Dervin, Soller, & Richter, 1993.

16.  Carter 1990, 1991; Carter & Stamm, 1994; Carter et al., 1973, 1992.

17.  This study was fielded in 1983 in Seattle, Washington. The data has not previously been published and there is no reason to expect given the focus on audience-driven sense-making that the passing time has made the data any less relevant. The authors are especially grateful to Michael Fancher of the Seattle Times for his assistance. The presentation of the study here is set in the context of current discourses which show that the data is more relevant today than it was when first collected.

18.  See, in particular: Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1999a.

19.  Message Q/ing is an adaptation of Carter's signaled stopping technique to sense-making. See: Carter et al., 1973.

20.  It is been beyond the purpose of this article to engage specifically the literature on information seeking and use in the leisure research and tourism research fields. There appear to be relatively few studies focusing on information needs, seeking, and use for leisure time activities, although one sees a burgeoning interest in these fields. For recent examples, see: Fodness & Murray, 1997; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Vogt & Stewart, 1998.

21.  See, for example: Becker, Kosicki & Jones, 1992; Gladney, 1996; Rouner, Slater & Buddenbaum, 1999.

22.  For example, the literature on public communication campaigns has documented that public education efforts via media campaigns are both costly and for the most part fail. See, for example: Rice & Atkin, 1989; Rimal et al, 1997.

References

Bass, J. (October 5-11, 1999). E pluribus unum. American Journalism Review NewsLink. [On-line]. Available: http://ajr.newslink.org/special/part13.html.

Bauer, R. A. (1964). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 19, 319-328.

Becker, L. B., Kosicki, G. M., Jones, F. (1992). Racial differences in evaluations of the mass media. Journalism Quarterly, 69(1), 124-134.

Bogart, L. (1989). Press and public: Who reads what, when, where, and why in American newspapers. (Second ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carter, R. F. (1991). Comparative analysis, theory, and cross-cultural communication. Communication Theory, 1 (May), 151-158.

Carter, R. F. (1990). Our future research agenda -- confronting challenges - or our dying grasp. Journalism Quarterly, 67 (2), 282-285.

Carter, R. F., Ruggels, W. L., Jackson, K. M., & Heffner, M. B. (1973). Application of signalled stopping technique to communication research. In P. Clarke, (Ed.). New models for mass communication research (pp. 15-44). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Carter, R. F. & Stamm, K. (1994). The 1992 presidential campaign and debates: A cognitive view. Communication Research, 21 (3, June), 1994, 380-395.

Carter, R. F., Stamm, K.R., & Heintz-Knowles, K. (1992). Agenda-setting and consequentially. Journalism Quarterly, 69 (4), Winter), 868-877.

Denton, F. (1993). Old newspapers and new realities: The promise of the marketing of journalism. In F. Denton & H. Kurtz (Eds.), Reinventing the news: Essays. (pp. 3-58). New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.

Dervin, B. (1999a, in press). On studying information needs and seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory and method. Information Processing and Management.

Dervin, B. (1999b). Chaos, order, and Sense-Making: A proposed theory for information design. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design. (pp. 35-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-Making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2 (2), 36-36.

Dervin, B. (1993). Verbing communication: Mandate for disciplinary invention. Journal of Communication (3), 45-54.

Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: The Sense-Making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Dervin, B. (1989). Audience as listener and learner, teacher and confidante: The Sense-Making approach. In R. Rice & C. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (2nd edition) (pp. 67-86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses: A conceptual and methodological review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 21, 3-33.

Dervin, B., & Shields, P. (1999). Adding the missing user to policy discourse: An exemplar study focusing on telephone privacy. Telecommunications Policy, 403-435.

Evans, W. E. (1990). The interpretive turn in media research: Innovation, iteration, or illusion? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 147-168.

Facorro, L. B., & DeFleur, M. L. (1993). A cross-cultural experiment of how well audiences remember news stories from newspaper, computer, television and radio sources. Journalism Quarterly, 70(3), 585-601.

Fejes, F. (1984). Critical mass communications research and media effects: The problems of the disappearing audience. Media , Culture, and Society, 6 (3, July), 219-232.

Fink, E. J., & Gantz, W. (1996). A content analysis of three mass communication research traditions: Social science, interpretive studies, and critical analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 114-134.

Fodness, D. & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (3), 503-523.

Garrison, B. (1996). Successful strategies for computer-assisted reporting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garrison, B. (1997). Online services: Internet in 1995 newsrooms. Newspaper Research Journal, 18 (3-4), 79-93.

Gladney, G. A. (1996). How editors and readers rank and rate the importance of eighteen traditional standards of newspaper excellence. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 319-331.

Halvari, H., & White, C. (1997). Effects of reading motivation on the belief in and consumption of newspapers among youth. Psychological Reports, 81, 899-914.

Huesca, R., Dervin, B., Burwell, J., Drake, D., Nirenberg, R., Smith, R. & Yeager, N. (1999). Inverted pyramids versus hypertexts: A qualitative study of readers' responses to competing narrative forms. Paper presented at annual convention of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, New Orleans, August 4-7. [copy available from senior author: rhuesca@trinity.edu].

Iyengar, S. & Simon, A. (1994). Newscoverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming and framing. In W. L. Bennett & D. Paletz (Eds.). Taken by story (pp. 167-185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jensen, K. B. & Rosengren, K. E. (1990). Five traditions in search of the audience. European Journal of Communication, 5 (2-3, June), 207-238.

Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture: An editorial note on a possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6.

Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24(2), 107-135.

Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100-127.

Layton, C. (October 5-11, 1999). What do readers want? American Journalism Review Newslink. [On-line]. Available:http://ajr.newslink.org/special/part9.html.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (Ed). (1995). Social approaches to communication. New York: Guilford Press.

Lindlof, T. R. (1987). Natural audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Lindlof, T. R. (1991). The qualitative study of media audiences. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35 (1), 23-42.

Lindlof, T. R., & Shatzer, M. J. (1998). Media ethnography in virtual space: Strategies, limit, and possibilities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42 (2), 170-189.

Livingstone, S. M. (1993). The rise and fall of audience research: An old story with a new ending. Journal of Communication, 43 (4, Autumn), 5-12.

McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley.

Meyer, E. L. (October 5-11, 1999). An unexpectedly wider web for the world's newspapers. American Journalism Review NewsLink. [On-line]. Available: http://ajr.newslink.org/.

Mings, S. M. (1997). Uses and gratifications of online newspapers: A preliminary study. Electronic Journal of Communication, 7(3). URL: http://www.cios.org/getfile\mings_V7N397.

Moore, S. (1990). Texts, readers and contexts of reading: Developments in the study of media audiences. Media, Culture, and Society, 12 (1), 9-29.

Morley, D. (1993). Active audience theory: Pendulums and pitfalls. Journal of Communication, 43 (4, Autumn), 13-19.

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-76.

Peng, F., Tham, N. I., Xiaoming, H. (1999). Trends in online newspapers: A look at the US web. Newspaper Research Journal, 20(2), 52-63.

Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses, Communication Research, 24(5), 481-506.

Reimer, B. (1998). Crisis? What crisis? Analyzing audience studies. Nordicom Review, 19 (1, June), 135-142.

Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C.K. (Eds.). (1989). Public communication campaigns. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rimal, R. N., Ratzan, S. C., Arntson, P., & Freimuth, V.S. (1997). Reconceptualizing the "patient": Health care promotion as increasing citizens' decision-making competencies. Health Communication, 9(1), 61-74.

Ross, S. S. (1998). Journalists' use of on-line technology and sources. In D. Borden & K. Harvey (Eds.), The electronic grapevine: Rumor, reputation, and reporting in the new on-line environment. (pp. 143-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rouner, D., Slater, M. D., & Buddenbaum, J. M. (1999). How perceptions of news bias in news sources relate to beliefs about media bias. Newspaper Research Journal, 20(2)
41-51.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 417-436). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Russow, M. D., & Dunwoody, S. (1991). Inclusion of "useful" detail in newspaper coverage of a high-level nuclear waste siting controversy. Journalism Quarterly, 68(1), 87-100.

Sampedro, V. (1998). Grounding the displaced local media reception in a transnational context. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 125-143.

Schlagheck, C. A. (1998). Newspaper reading choices by college students. Newspaper Research Journal, 19(2), 74-87.

Schultz, T., & Voakes, P. S. (1999). Prophets of gloom: Why do newspaper journalists have so little faith in the future of newspapers? Newspaper Research Journal, 20(2)m 23-40.

Schwartz, S. H., & Moore, R. L. (1979). Newspaper research on the rocks: An argument in the use of Q-methodology in readership studies. Operant Subjectivity, 2 (4, July), 124-134.

Schweitzer, J. C.,, & Smith, B. L. (1991). Community pressures on agenda-setting: How west Texas newspapers covered the nuclear waste-dump site selection process. Newspaper Research Journal, 12(3) 46-62

Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability in content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.

Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). "To thine own self be true": Values, framing and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 509-560.

Shields, P., Dervin, B., Soller, R. R., & Richter, C. (1993). Who needs "POTs-plus" services? A comparison of residential user needs along the rural-urban continuum. Telecommunication Policy, 17 (8, November), 563-587.

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students' news gratifications, media use, and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 380-392. ,

Vogt, C. A. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search model . Annuals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551-558.

Vogt, C. A., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). Affective and cognitive effects of information use over the course of a vacation. Journal of Leisure Research, 30 (4), 498-520.

Wanta, W. (1992). The influence of the president on the news media and public agendas. Mass Communication Review, 19(3), 14-21.

Wanta, W., & Gao, D. (1994). Young readers and the newspaper: Information recall and perceived enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 926-936.

Wanta, W., & Roy, M. J. (1995). Memory decay and the agenda-setting effect: An examination of three news media. Paper presented to the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D.C.

Wartella, E., & Reeves, B. (1985). Historical trends in research on children and the media: 1900-1960. Journal of Communication, 35, 118-133.

Webster, J. G. (1998). The audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 190-207.

Weispfenning, J. (1999). Ethics and online journalists: Identifying the ethical challenges. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Southeast Colloquium, Lexington, KY.

Weispfenning, J. (1998). Context in online newspapers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Central States Communication Association, Chicago.

Williams, F., Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new media. New York: Free Press.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Zerbinos, E. (1990). Information seeking and information processing: Newspapers versus videotext. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 920-929.
 


Copyright 1999 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).