Riding the Fence
Today's question:
Many consider Williams's Television to be the definitive book on television in modern society. However, in a negative review of Television written for the American Journal of Sociology in the late 1970s, W. Russell Neuman wrote that "scholars...will be forced to continue their search for a definite review of...television in modern society" because Williams's "critique lacks the sophistication and focus necessary to have a constructive influence on the design and execution of research on television." Neuman attributes this to, "Williams's uneasiness with...the whole notion of gathering data to test ideas." What is your opinion of this critique? Explain.
Response:
While I don’t agree fully with Neuman’s statement that Williams’ book “lacks the sophistication and focus necessary to have a constructive influence…” I do empathize with some of Neuman’s frustrations with this work.
While the general method William uses in the book does not inherently necessitate the “gathering of data to test ideas,” it is perhaps his effort at data collection in chapter 4 which is most unsettling to those of us with a more quantitative sensibility. While his documentation is quite thorough in one sense, in his effort to classify program distribution he openly admits that “there is some overlap” (78) between his categories, without providing a way to determine how these categories were divided in cases of overlap. Later Williams’ attempt at ‘content analysis’ falls quite short, and instead more closely resembles a detailed textual analysis. While this is an equally valid form of research, it seems to require a bit more explanation and defense to make the method more defensible.
These criticisms (or personal frustrations) aside Williams is redeemed by his frequent disclosure of the inconclusiveness of his data collection. Before even presenting the tables with the program distribution numbers Williams writes “The figures as a whole are significant not so much for exact allocations as for purposes of general discussion and comparison” (81). Williams aim does not seem to be to disclose the “facts” about television, but instead prompt discussion and a big picture approach to technology research. So, while his book may not be “the definitive review of…television” it does raise some relevant and interesting questions with which to have a great influence on subsequent research.