This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
EDITORIAL NOTE: These two book reviews and replies represent significant contributions to our understanding of some of the issues that exist in a-v communication research and emphasize the differences of opinion (as well as points of agreement) beld by protagonists of conflicting points of view. The Hoban-van Ormer Report has been recognized as the only comprebensive treatment of film research extant and deserves the penetrating critical review that Dr. Lumsdaine has given it. The authors, bowever, take issue with the reviewer and analyze the bases of his objections. The review and the reply together raise questions that will certainly need further clarification. For example, the editor would like to see a more complete discussion on: (a) the alleged inadequacy of early a-v research, (b) the comparison of the effectiveness of the various media, (c) the use of appropriate alternative instructional activities in a-v communication research, (d) the problem of generalization from the data, (e) the problem of statistical reliability of results, (f) Hoban and van Ormer’s “principles of film influence,” (g) the appropriateness of the concept “audience involvement,” and (b) the bypothesis of “relevant cues” to learning. It is hoped that this review and reply will result in the more detailed airing of some of the intricacies of communication research, thus furnishing the reader with new perspectives on both the results of the research and the methodologies involved. The reply of Dr. Gibson to Dr. Norberg’s review of bis book and to an earlier article in this journal points up an entirely different kind of problem. Here we find two men representing two opposing theories of visual perception. The chasm separating these differing viewpoints appears to be much more serious and fundamental than the differences of opinion voiced in the first review. They appear to be irreconcilable. Because of this conflict and because of the importance of visual perception in a-v communication, further debate on the problem is definitely in order, and such further comments will be solicited by the editor. The editor is convinced that such exchange of opinion as is taking place in these reviews and comments represents a sign of maturity and professionalization of the a-v communication field, and the policy of simultaneous publication of controversial and critical articles with comments by competent respondents will be continued. —WHA
The opinions expressed in this review are those of the reviewer, and do not represent official view of the U.S. Air Force.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lumsdaine, A.A., Hoban, C.F., Van Ormer, E.B. et al. Book reviews. ETR&D 1, 175–196 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02713255
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02713255