Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Political Economy of Communications Research

  • Chapter
Information and Communication in Economics

Part of the book series: Recent Economic Thought Series ((RETH,volume 32))

Abstract

As Paul Lazarsfeld recounted the early history of mass communications research:

I remember one day, a friend of mine, in 1937 or so, introduced me to a group of colleagues and said, “this is a European colleague who is an utmost authority on communication research,” and he saw that no-one was especially impressed, so he wanted to press the point and said “as a matter of fact, he is the only one who works in this field.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. David Morrison, “The Beginning of Modern Mass Communication Research,” Archives of European Sociology,XIX, (1978):347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. This work included Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Radio and the Printed Page (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1940);Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Helen Gaudet, The People’s Choice (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pierce, 1944)Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Frank Stanton (eds.) Radio Research, 1941 (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1941); Radio Research, 1942–43(New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pierce, 1944); Communications Research, 1948–49, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949); Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Harry Field The People Look at Radio (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1949; Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Patricia KendallRadio Listening in America: The People Look at Radio-Again (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lazarsfeld and Stanton, Communications Research, 1948–49: xiv, quoted in Willard D. Rowland, The Politics of TV Violence (Newbury Park, CA: Sage):70.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lazarsfeld and Kendall,Radio Listening in America; Lymon Bryson (ed.)The Communication of Ideas (New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 1948); Wilbur Schramm (ed.), Communications in Modern Society (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1949); Mass Communications (Urbana: University of Illinois Press); Joseph KlapperThe Effects of Mass Media (New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, 1950) In the introduction to the influential anthology that he edited in 1949, Wilbur Schramm dedicated the volume “to Paul Lazarsfeld who has done perhaps more than any other man toward bringing the social sciences to bear on the problems of communications”, quoted in Emile McAnany, “Wilbur Schramm, 1907–1987: Roots of the Past, Seeds of the PresentJournal of Communications 38, 4, 1988:113.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Elihu Katz, “Communication Research and the Image of Society: Convergence of Two Traditions.” American Journal of Sociology 65, 8, (1960):435–440; Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence (New York: Free Press, 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard Berelson, “The State of Communication Research,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, (1959):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shearon Lowery and Melvin L. DeFleur, Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects, 2nd edn (New York: Longman, 1983): chs. 4 and 7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. George Stocking, “On the Limits of ‘Presentism’ and ‘Historicism’ in the Historiography of the Behavioral Sciences,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1965:211–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Todd Gitlin, “Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm,” Theory and Society, 6, 1976:205–253.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid., 207.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Robert Alun Jones, “New History of Sociology,” in Ralph H. Turner (ed.), Annual Review of Sociology, v.9 (Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc., 1983); Charles Camic, “The Utilitarians Revisited,” American Journal of Sociology 85, (1979):516–50.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Morrison, “Beginnings of Modern Mass Communications Research,” Jesse Delia, “Communication Research: A History.” in Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (Sage: Beverly Hills, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morrison, “Beginnings of Mass Communications Research,”: 354.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Delia, “Communication Research,”: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Delia, “Communication Research.”

    Google Scholar 

  18. William J. Buxton, Talcott Parsons and the Capitalist Nation-State: Political Sociology as a Strategic Vocation(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985); William J. and David Rehorick, “The Sociology of Knowledge: Toward Redemption of a Failed Promise.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 2(1), Fall, 1988:66–80; William J. Buxton, “The Marshall Lectures and Social-Scientific Practice, Sociological Inquiry,February, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rowland, Politics of TV Violence: 16.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Christopher H. Sterling and John M. Kittross, Stay Tuned: A Concise History of American Broadcasting(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1978): ch. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A better case could be made to consider the golden age of radio in more literal terms, as the profitability and power of radio industry was creating at around the same time as the Princeton Radio Research project had its modest beginnings. The May, 1938 edition of Fortune provides a vivid account of how lucrative the business community had found the radio industry. The issue featured no less than four major articles on radio; three of which were given titles capturing the monetary value of the subject in question: “a $140,000,000 art,” “a $45,000,000 talent bill; ”a $537,000,000 set business.“ As the editors of Fortune glowingly described it, ”Radio is a hot subject for more than the simple reason that it is big business. It is a very special kind of big business, combining art, show business, and science—and exists on the sufferance of a government bureau“ (Fortune, May, 1938).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carroll Atkinson, Broadcasting to the Classroom by Universities and Colleges (Boston: Meador, 1942); S. E. Frost, Education’s Own Stations(New York: Arno Press and the New York Times [1937] 1971, originally published by the University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  23. This was reflected in Bruce Lannes Smith, Harold D. Lasswell, and Ralph D. Casey. Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion: A Comprehensive Reference Guide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946). One searches in vain for any reference to ownership or control of the media. However, there is plenty of discussion of media effects, media content, and propaganda.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tracy F. Tyler, (ed.), Radio as A Cultural Agency: Proceedings of National Conference on The Use of Radio as a Cultural Agency in a Democracy (Washington: The National Committee on Education by Radio, 1934), James Rorty, Order in the Air! (New York: John Day, 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eric Barnouw, The Golden Web: A History of Broadcasting in the United States. Volume II- 1933 to 1953 (New York: Oxford University Press): 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Charles Siepmann, Radio, Television, and Society (New York: Oxford, 1950):4–5; Eric Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States. Volume I- to 1933 (New York: Oxford University Press: 68–72).

    Google Scholar 

  27. This demand was largely filled by a conglomerate of General Electric (GE), Radio Corporation of America (RCA), American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), and Westinghouse. Formed within 8 months of the first broadcast at KDKA, these allied companies had joined forces to control the anticipated broadcasting boom. As Barnouw describes the GE-RCA-AT&T-Westinghouse agreements, The making of receivers and parts would be done by GE and Westinghouse; the marketing of these receivers and parts would be done through RCA under RCA trademarks. RCA would assign 60 percent of all manufacturing to GE, 40 percent to Westinghouse. The sale of transmitters would be mainly an AT&T concern (Barnouw, Tower of Babel 81).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Frost, Education’s Own Stations: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tyler, Radio as a Cultural Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Robert J. Blakely, To Serve the Public Interest: Educational Broadcasting in the United States (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1979:57–59); Barnouw, Golden Web: 23–27).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Quoted in Rowland, Politics of TV Violence: 54.

    Google Scholar 

  32. “The Humanities Program of the Rockefeller Foundation: A Review of the Period 1934 to 1939.” Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 3. Series 911. Box 2. Folder 11:15. Rockefeller Archive Center, Pocantico Hills, New York (hereafter RAC).

    Google Scholar 

  33. For a more detailed account of Marshall and the Humanities Division, see William J. Buxton and Charles R. Acland, “Reaching Men’s Minds,” (manuscript in progress).

    Google Scholar 

  34. John Marshall officer’s diary, January 23, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation Archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Founded in 1930, the Council took a moderate position in relation to the dispute about Broadcasting. It had received its funding support from both the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation, which could explain why Marshall relied on Tyson’s judgment.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marshall diary, January 23, 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  38. John Marshall, officer’s diary, February 7, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  39. John Marshall, officer’s diary, January 31, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  40. John Marshall, officer’s diary, February 8, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  41. John Marshall, officer’s diary, February 2, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  42. John Marshall, officer’s diary, March 19, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  44. John Marshall, officer’s diary, March 7, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  45. John Marshall, officer’s diary, May 6–8, 1935 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  46. NACRE, however, was becoming less sanguine about the prospects of commercial and educational radio reconciling their interests. This was evident in a study it released in 1937 in which it “denounced cooperation between educators and commercial broadcasters as unworkable and failed.” Robert McChesney, “The Payne Fund and Radio Broadcasting, 1928–1935,” (chapter submitted to proposed book on the Payne Fund, Garth Jowett et al. eds.); 34.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Marshall diary, May 15–16, 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  48. John Marshall, Statement on Radio. June, 1936. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 3.1. Series 911. Box 5. Folder 51:1. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid., 4. Among those for whom the Foundation provided a training fellowship at NBC was Allen Miller, of the University Broadcasting Commission [UBC] in Chicago. Judith Waller of NBC noted that “Miller and UBC would profit substantially from Miller’s having a chance to gain a direct acquaintance with commercial methods.” Moreover, “she… would definitely prefer M[iller]’s studying commercial methods in this country… he could in this way consolidate his relations with the chains to which he must look for outlets for his programs.” John Marshall, officer’s diary, December 8, 1936 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  51. John Marshall, “Statement on Radio,”: 9–10. The First National Conference on Educational Broadcasting, (organized by FREC) held in Washington from December 10–12, 1936, gave Marshall further reason to believe that circumstances were propitious for a research project on broadcasting. The conference discussions were particularly successful because representatives from the industry were present in unprecedented numbers. Marshall concluded from the conference that only through some kind of collaboration between industry and education in the study of common problems could greater cooperation be realized. In particular, “collaboration in studies of the actual effects of present broadcasting and its opportunities to extend its public service, thus seem to promise a knowledge of present conditions which forecasts better understanding of the real issues on both sides.” (John Marshall, officer’s diary, December 10–12, 1936, 905 MAR RAC.)

    Google Scholar 

  52. John Marshall, officer’s diary, October 9, 1936. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  53. John Marshall, officer’s diary, October 16, 1936 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC. Tyson’s views echoed those of Edward R. Murrow, director of talks at CBS, who had met with Marshall on August 11, 1936. As Marshall noted in his diary, M[urrow] is also much interested in the critical appraisal of the effects of educational broadcasting. In a recent conference with Studebaker he stressed the urgency of work of this kind, as contrasted with other sponsored by the Studebaker Committee of the FCC, and is recommending to CBS that it cooperate in financing only this phase of the Committee’s plans… Murrow feels that the Technical Subcommittee under Cantril’s chairmanship can be looked to for significant research. (John Marshall, officer’s diary, August 11, 1936 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives, 905 MAR. RAC.)

    Google Scholar 

  54. John Marshall, officer’s diary, October 19, 1936 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  55. John Marshall, officer’s diary, December 21, 1936 entry. Rockefeller Foundation archives. 905 MAR. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  56. This was to be a study of the effect of radio-listening upon children, modelled on a similar study of movies and children supported by the Payne Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hadley Cantril to John Marshall, 31 December, 1936. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 1.1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3233:4–5. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  58. John Marshall to Hadley Cantril, 9 January, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 1.1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. W. Studebaker, “Report of Progress of Federal Radio Education Committee.” Address delivered at Second National Conference on Educational Broadcasting, Chicago. November 30, 1937. General Education Board. GEB Advisory Committee. Series 1, Sub-series 2. Box 359. Folder 3706:2. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rockefeller Foundation Program in Broadcasting, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG. 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234:1–2. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hadley Cantril to John Marshall, 2 February, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rockefeller Foundation, “Hotlist”, April 28, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hadley Cantril, “Project I”. May, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RG 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hadley Cantril, Letter to John Marshall, 11 May, 1937. Rockefeller Foundation archives, RG 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3233.

    Google Scholar 

  65. John Marshall, “Memorandum on Cantril’s Proposal,” May, 1937:8–9. Rockefeller Foundation Archives. RG 1–1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3234:1. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ibid., 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Memorandum of May 21, 1937 approving grant to School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. Rockefeller Foundation archives. RO 1.1. Series 200. Box 271. Folder 3233. RAC.

    Google Scholar 

  68. For a discussion of this concept in relation to discussions of the capitalist state, see Bob Jessop, The Capitalist State: Marxist Theories and Methods (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. William J. Buxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Robert E. Babe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buxton, W.J. (1994). The Political Economy of Communications Research. In: Babe, R.E. (eds) Information and Communication in Economics. Recent Economic Thought Series, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2204-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2204-7_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4977-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2204-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation