Administrative Research versus the Critical Theory

Development of Administrative Research and the Critical Theory

Amid the 1930s, a group of German philosophers at the Goethe University of Frankfurt fled Nazi Germany to the United States together (Katz & Katz, 2016). These German philosophers, primarily Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, are the pioneers of the critical theory (Katz & Katz, 2016). Their latest exponent is Jurgen Habermas (Katz &Katz, 2016). As soon as they arrived to the United States, they were invited by Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Lynd to join Columbia University in New York (Katz &Katz, 2016). They challenged and criticized the American social science’s then-dominant positivism, and they created a framework that is still highly significant today (Katz &Katz, 2016). Both as a group and separately, including associates such as Siegfried Kracauer and Walter Benjamin, they were able to achieve remarkable renown in just few years (Katz &Katz, 2016).

The Frankfurters’ critical theory is explicitly neo-Marxist that is mixed with philosophy and psychoanalysis (Katz & Katz, 2016). In short, these philosophers dedicated themselves to revealing “false consciousness” (Katz & Katz, 2016). “False consciousness” is primarily the self’s misperception as autonomous (Katz & Katz, 2016). On top of the domination’s capitalist agents such as technology and factories, they found a hegemonic power in culture that resided in something they referred to as “culture industry” (Katz & Katz, 2016). The “culture industry” is fundamentally the transformation of creativity into commodity (Katz & Katz, 2016). Contrary to Marx, the Frankfurters treated culture like an active agent rather than a product (Katz & Katz, 2016). Their mission was to advance enlightenment that could lead to revolution, and thus, change (Kellner, 2001). They generated their thought due to their enormous fear and erudition for the future (Kellner, 2001). The “culture industry”, as a term, contains dialectical dichotomy that is similar to the critical theory (Kellner, 2001). As traditionally valorized, culture is expected to be expressive of creativity and opposed to industry through providing a source of humanist values (Kellner, 2001). Nevertheless, instead of functioning as a mode of emancipation or humanization, the culture industries have functioned as modes of ideological domination (Kellner, 2001).

Similar to the rest of the Frankfurters, Paul Lazarsfeld also migrated to the United States, but he did take a different path (Katz & Katza, 2016). Lazarsfeld was a mathematician, social researcher, social psychologist, socialist sympathizer, political sophisticate, and an amateur violist (Katz & Katz, 2016). In 1933, he was awarded a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to go to the United States; after that, he chose to stay there (Katz & Katz, 2016). Lazarsfeld was not like the elitist Frankfurters, he immediately found supporters and allies such Hadley Cantril and Frank Stanton (Jahoda et al., 2002). He was soon leading a research project for Rockefeller on the impacts of radio which later became one of the major focuses of the institutes that he established in Newark then at Columbia (Jahoda et al., 2002). After that, some members of Vienna’s institute joined him in New York (Jahoda et al., 2002). Those include his collaborators on the unemployment in Marienthal study (Jahoda et al., 2002). Lazarsfeld and the collaborators helped one another to integrate in the United States and to find positions the same way Horkheimer pushed Adorno to work with Lazarsfeld on his Princeton Radio Project (Jahoda et al., 2002).

The response of listeners to radio music played a major role in the Princeton Radio project (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). As both a social philosopher and a musicologist, Lazarsfeld was eager that Adorno would implement his scholarship into studying broadcasting (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). After Adorno agreed to take Lazarsfeld’s offer in 1938, they labelled it is as the benevolent administrative research (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). Ultimately, Adorno came to condemn the nature of this assignment (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). He believed that one cannot define what good music is without identifying it, studying who and why decides it is good music, and monitoring the social situation of the listeners rather than their likes and dislikes (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). Moreover, Adorno wondered whether the radio is the suitable medium to transmit ‘actual’ music (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). A little later, it was discovered that the majority of classical music listeners on the radio socialize at home, whereas novitiates tend to listen to such music as form of assimilation to reach the upward mobility they aspire (Suchman, 1941).

After he was aware of the structural development that led to what is considered good music in the West, Adorno concluded that the popular genres were cliché (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). This standardization usually has a fixed length, limited range, unsurprising surprises, simple harmonies, and anticipated experience (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). Adorno thought that such predictable structure induced conformity and escapism (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). Additionally, he barely saw any hope for classical music on the radio (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). He believed that classical music was wasted on audience who was not able to value its construction and not prepared to keep up with its intricacy (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). Similar to popular music, Adorno believed that radio packed classical music to attract audience to celebrity performances and performers, while it does not add a change to the consciousness nor to the attitude to life (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). He stressed that the real difference between serious and popular is not of low versus high, simple versus complex, or naïve versus sophisticated (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). The real difference is that each detail inherits its unique musical sense from the piece that is created by the harmony of details, but never through the enforcement of a particular musical scheme (Adorno & Simpson, 1941). In brief, the audience’s experience with serious music is through following its expansion each time anew (Adorno & Simpson, 1941).

Adorno tried answering all of Lazarsfeld’s questions; however, his highbrow rhetoric, his irksome personality, and his elitism did not satisfy his colleagues (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). It is highly possible that Lazarsfeld did not admire Adorno’s answers, but it was not the primary reason behind the end of the project (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). The reasons that ended the project were twofold: 1) the disdain of Adorno for the implied appraisal of the consumerist judgement, and 2) the disdain of Adorno for the studies that focused on the audience (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). Adorno considered these two as entirely inappropriate (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). Moreover, the two theorists, Adorno and Lazarsfeld, conflicted over Adorno’s conclusion (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). The problem of Adorno with popular music came as a result of the means of production that were created to satisfy both the audience and the political interest (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). He argued that even Jazz, which is considered free and individualistic, was reflecting the daily routines of the working class (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). Hence, the audience was willingly surrendering themselves to these dominations at night (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). Adorno believed that for classical music, only Schoenberg is able to awaken the audience from their false consciousness and the repressive system (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941).

Lazarsfeld and Adorno had similar cultivated tastes of music (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). Additionally, knowing that Lazarsfeld understood Adorno, he might have accepted his conclusions about the formulaic music’s pacifying effects if they were able to ground in certain forms of research (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). The fundamental differences that separated them were epistemological, contextual, and ideological (Katz, 2001; Lazarsfeld, 1941). After this happened, Lazarsfeld decided to act American in order to save the research (Katz, 2001). He knew the American capitalist structure, and he knew its commodities, consumers, and competition at core (Katz, 2001). However, the study eventually failed because of all these differences regardless of Lazarsfeld’s efforts (Katz, 2001).

Administrative Research vs. Critical Theory

After the failure of this project, a strong debate took place between administrative research and the critical theory (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Lazarsfeld tried his best to explain the difference between these two, and to give his approval to the critical theory along with the administrative research (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Lazarsfeld was indeed completely aware that theorizing this went far beyond his primary preoccupation with media’s role in short-run decision making (Lazarsfeld, 1941). He clarified that administrative research is fundamentally the investigation of problems that are delimited by aiming to improve its functioning, sponsoring agency, and applied within scientifically accepted methods (Lazarsfeld, 1941). On the other hand, critical research invokes the wider context where problems are situated (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Its purpose is to expose the domination forms and the initiating agencies’ interests that could be involved (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Administrative research is able to answer questions about the kinds of TV shows people prefer to watch because it views the audience’s feedback at face value, while critical research is able to include the ego and ids of the audience in the problem in order to psychoanalyze the responses (Lazarsfeld, 1941).

The contradiction that arose from the confrontation of Adorno and Lazarsfeld still appears today (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Although the debate’s two sides have passionate supporters, there are still good reasons to take their reconciliation’s desirability into consideration (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Although the essay of Lazarsfeld that offers both sides a stance on radio research is somewhat a ‘peace-making’ overture, there is still room to doubt the idea of separation (Lazarsfeld, 1941). Lazarsfeld has two studies that tried to overcome this dichotomy. One is the study of the audiences of soap operas (Herzog, 1941), and the second is the studies on cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976).

The study of Herzog was published in 1941 alongside Adorno’s and Lazarsfeld’s studies (Herzog, 1941). Shortly after she arrived from Vienna for the purpose of rejoining the team of Lazarsfeld, Herzog started studying soap operas (Herzog, 1941). The paper she wrote, “On Borrowed Experience”, is considered a pioneer study for media research (Herzog, 1941). Through bending the content of media to their interests and needs, the audience was assigned creative power (Massing, 1986; Herzog, 1941). However, critical theorists would disagree with the work of Herzog because they view it as false consciousness (Massing, 1986; Herzog, 1941). Eventually, soap opera stories are formulaic because they provoke some housewifely emotions through the fluctuation of the daily struggles of the characters, and they do not portray the correct image of the lower/middle class housewife (Massing; 1986; Herzog, 1941). Herzog (1941) does report the gratifications and uses of the respondents that come from this genre; but as one rereads her essay, they figure she might actually be a critical theorist. Tamar Liebes (2003) shows in her book, Canonic Texts in Media Research, how Herzog applies psychoanalytic analysis on the same data she has, and she supports her claim through showing that these ideas do not operate properly with their self-interest. Equivalent to Liebes, Ien Ang (1989) highlights in her book, Watching Dallas, the contradictory conclusions. Additionally, in their paper that was published in 2003, Peter Simonson and Gabriel Weismann make the same conclusion Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton (1957) did in their foundational paper.

Gerbner and Gross, critical theory supporters, accomplish in their study that was published in 1976 different kinds of compromise between these two traditions. Moreover, they present how empirical research can go hand-in-hand with the critical theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Although they stopped at convincing the audience that their findings are valid, the study’s overall design proves that it can be accomplished (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). They started their work together on counting the episodes that included violence on TV, and on administratively reporting the changing rate (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). After that, they critically hypothesized that the exposure to violence on TV highly affects the audience’s behavior and emotions (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). Furthermore, they studied whether the depiction of the world on TV is able to distort the audience’s vision of the actual world (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). In order to test their hypotheses, they divided their audience into two groups, light audience and heavy audience (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). They assumed that light audience spend more time outside, while heavy audience are TV addicts who spend more time at home (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). Then, they chose several indicators of ‘reality’, e.g., they checked official statistics to see the percentage of murders (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). After that, they went back to their violence measures to see the number of murders enacted on TV and compare it with the results they received from both light and heavy audiences (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). Results showed that heavy audience chooses to stay at home because of the TV gratifications and their fear to go outside (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980). Gerbner and Gross assume that the police and politicians want this to happen to all of us (Hirsch, 1981; Hirsch, 1980).

At the end of this conflict, Adorno moved from New York to California where he witnessed relief, but was not entirely satisfied (Katz & Katz, 2016). Along with Horkheimer, Adorno decided to go back to Germany after they finished the Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (Katz & Katz, 2016). After that, Adorno coauthored in an empirical study entitled as The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and brought up the Fascist-scale of authoritarianism (Katz & Katz, 2016). Positivism has been eliminated which renders us with the critical theory that is still taking over.

References

Ang, I. (1989). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Psychology Press.

Adorno, T. W. (1945). A social critique of radio music. The Kenyon Review, 7(2), 208–217.

Adorno, T. W., & Simpson, G. (1941). On popular music. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 9(1), 17–48.

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brenswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Verso Books.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of communication, 26(2), 172–199.

Herzog, H. (1941). On borrowed experience: An analysis of listening to daytime sketches. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 9(1), 65–95.

Hirsch, P. M. (1981). On not learning from one’s own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et ally’s findings on cultivation analysis part II. Communication Research, 8(1), 3–37.

Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication research, 7(4), 403–456.

Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. W., & Noeri, G. (1944). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press.

Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (2002). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community. Transaction Publishers.

Katz, E. (2001). Lazarsfeld’s map of media effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(3), 270–279.

Katz, E., & Katz, R. (2016). Revisiting the origin of the administrative versus critical research debate. Journal of Information Policy, 6(1), 4–12.

Kellner, D. (2001). TW Adorno and the Dialectics of Mass Culture.

Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1941). Remarks on administrative and critical communications research. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 9(1), 2–16.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1948). Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action (pp. 95–118). Bobbs-Merrill, College Division.

Liebes, T. (2003). Herzog’s “On Borrowed Experience”: Its Place in the Debate over the Active Audience’. Canonic texts in media research: Are there any, 39–53.

Massing, H. H. (1986). Decoding “Dallas”. Society, 24(1), 74–77.

Simonson, P., & Weimann, G. (2003). Critical Research at Columbia: Lazarsfeld‘s and Merton‘s ‚Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action. Canonic texts in media research: Are there any, 12–38.

Suchman Edward, A. (1941). An Invitation to Music. Lazarsfeld–Stanton (eds.), Radio Research.