Difference between pages "TCF440540/BordwellThompson/Cinematography (Discussion)" and "Television Studies: An Overview (Discussion)"
ScreenAdmin (talk | contribs) m (8 revisions imported) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | ==Mass-comm methods vs. television-studies methods== | |
− | + | To understand the difference between empirical and critical methods, we need to look at their basic principles and presumptions. The class will be divided into mass-comm researchers and television-studies theorists for this first exercise. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | = | + | <table border="0"> |
− | ''' | + | <tr> |
+ | <td>'''Mass Comm Research'''</td> | ||
+ | <td>'''Television Studies'''</td> | ||
+ | </tr> | ||
+ | <tr> | ||
+ | <td><p>'''Group 4'''<br /> | ||
+ | Explain presumptions 1-3 of the MC method. Provide examples to illustrate your points.</p> | ||
+ | <p>'''Group 2'''<br /> | ||
+ | Explain presumptions 4-6 of the MC method. Provide examples to illustrate your points.</p></td> | ||
+ | <td><p>'''Group 1'''<br /> | ||
+ | Explain point-by-point how the TS method differs from presumptions 1-3 of the MC method. Provide examples to illustrate your points.</p> | ||
+ | <p>'''Group 3'''<br /> | ||
+ | Explain point-by-point how the TS method differs from presumptions 4-6 of the MC method. Provide examples to illustrate your points.</p></td> | ||
+ | </tr> | ||
+ | </table> | ||
− | + | Design a research project of ''South Park''. | |
− | [ | + | ==Criteria for evaluating critical work== |
− | + | All groups will discuss Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck's criteria for evaluating critical work--looking at one specific criterion. Apply your criterion to Kristen Warner, [http://flowtv.org/2011/08/who-gon-check-me-boo/ "'Who Gon Check Me Boo': Reality TV as a Haven For Black Women’s Affect,"] ''Flow'' (August 18, 2011). How well does this essay fit your criterion? | |
− | + | ||
− | + | '''Group 1''' | |
+ | #Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by '''internal consistency'''. | ||
+ | '''Group 2''' | ||
+ | #Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by '''evidence'''. | ||
+ | '''Group 3''' | ||
+ | #Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by '''cultural, critical, theoretical and practical significance'''. | ||
+ | '''Group 4''' | ||
+ | #Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by '''reasonableness''' for a critical interpretation. | ||
== Bibliography == | == Bibliography == | ||
− | # | + | #Butler, Jeremy G. ''Television: Critical Methods and Applications''. NY: Routledge, 2011. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | [[Category: | + | [[Category:TCF311]] |
+ | [[Category:TCF311 Discussion]] |
Revision as of 19:34, 22 September 2011
Mass-comm methods vs. television-studies methods
To understand the difference between empirical and critical methods, we need to look at their basic principles and presumptions. The class will be divided into mass-comm researchers and television-studies theorists for this first exercise.
Mass Comm Research | Television Studies |
Group 4 Group 2 |
Group 1 Group 3 |
Design a research project of South Park.
Criteria for evaluating critical work
All groups will discuss Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck's criteria for evaluating critical work--looking at one specific criterion. Apply your criterion to Kristen Warner, "'Who Gon Check Me Boo': Reality TV as a Haven For Black Women’s Affect," Flow (August 18, 2011). How well does this essay fit your criterion?
Group 1
- Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by internal consistency.
Group 2
- Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by evidence.
Group 3
- Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by cultural, critical, theoretical and practical significance.
Group 4
- Explain what Vande Berg, Wenner and Gronbeck mean by reasonableness for a critical interpretation.
Bibliography
- Butler, Jeremy G. Television: Critical Methods and Applications. NY: Routledge, 2011.