The study of real readers

The study of ‘real’ reader response is based on the assumption that to understand reading practices, research needs to study real readers. This has been done through two methodological approaches: empirical and naturalistic. In my research, I take an empirical approach to the study of reader response. Therefore, I will first discuss naturalistic approaches to reader response theory to outline this field of study and identify problems with this field in terms of the study of online news media. I will then outline the field of empirical reader response theory, identify criticism this field has received and argue for its use in the current study.

2.2.2.1 Naturalistic studies of real readers

Peplow and Carter (2014: 441-2) use the term ‘naturalistic study of reading’ to encompass qualitative studies of readers who are discussing reading in a natural environment. This approach to the study of reading grew from criticism of an empirical approach to reader

NEWS MEDIA & READER RESPONSE RESEARCH

27 response studies, as it was argued that empirical studies provided no insight into naturalistic reading (Allington & Swann 2009; Hall 2009). Currently, this field of research also includes the study of readers’ online book reviews (Whiteley 2010; Nuttall 2017), online book and fan-fiction forums (Thomas 2007; Thomas & Round 2016), news website reader comments (Neurauter- Kessels 2011) as well as other forms of online reader interaction such as blogs, fanfiction and chatrooms (see ‘Researching Readers Online’ project by Thomas & Round 2017).

Naturalistic reader response research focuses on analysing ‘the-reader-in-talk’ (Benwell 2009; Hall 2009; Myers 2009), meaning the ways in which the reader, the reading experience and the text are constructed in discussions about reading. Through the study of ‘natural conversations around fiction’ (Eriksson Barajas 2015: 5), the researcher can analyse how readers co-construct an interpretation of their reading experience (Hall 2009: 335). This style of reader response theory relies on the assumption that reading is an inherently ‘social activity’ (Thomas & Round 2016: 242) as it studies how reading is constructed in groups. This method of analysing reader response is often praised for its limited influence of the researcher on the data (Allington & Swann 2009; Peplow & Carter 2014; Nuttall 2017), however it has also prompted two main forms of criticism.

Firstly, studying reading-in-talk provides no understanding of the act of reading itself, in its ‘originary moment’ (Benwell 2009: 300). Naturalistic studies of reading analyse data that is produced after the reading has taken place. This is not a concern for my research however, as my study is not aimed at investigating the act of reading itself but the influence of texts on readers. Secondly, when studying reading-in-talk, the researcher is led by the participants’ concerns with the text, not aspects of the text as selected by the researcher (Nuttall 2017). While this is invaluable research, it can transpire that the research becomes increasingly concerned with communities of practice, and the construction of a group identity (Benwell 2009; Peplow 2011). As readers of news do not naturally come together to discuss specific news texts similarly to book groups, and online news comments do not accurately represent

NEWS MEDIA & READER RESPONSE RESEARCH

28 the news texts’ audiences (Steensen 2014: 1203), there are few natural settings which can be used for a naturalistic reader response study in news media.

For these reasons, the following section will discuss how empirical methods have been used to study reader response and provide arguments for why this method is applicable to the current research.

2.2.2.2 Empirical studies of real readers

Empirical research into reader response began to develop in the late 1970s as a response to the more theoretical approach to reader response studies. Researchers were aware of possible effects of texts through text analysis, and became interested in studying those effects in readers. While they acknowledged that the initial response to reading was internal (Klemenz-Belgardt 1981: 360), they argued that ‘expressed response’ (Cooper 1976) provided enough information about effects on readers to warrant further study.

Klemenz-Belgardt (1981: 361) divided this ‘expressed response’ into seven categories. The initial four were aimed at responses to literary texts, while the last three could be applied to any text.

(1) ‘Engagement and inner involvement’ – this category included many reading effects studied today: emotional reaction, evaluation of the text, identifying with the text and applying the text to other experiences.

(2) ‘Perception and analysis’ – this category referred to the reader’s ability to comprehend and explain the text, with a specific focus on the explanation of literariness of the text (3) ‘Interpretation’ – this category referred to the reader’s interpretation of the meaning of

the text

(4) ‘Evaluation’ – this category seemed to overlap with the first category of engagement as it is concerned with the valuation of the text: to what extent the text represents a ‘literary experience’

NEWS MEDIA & READER RESPONSE RESEARCH

29 (5) ‘Pattern of preference’ – consistently applied evaluations

(6) ‘Pattern of response’ – consistently applied responses

(7) ‘Variety of response’ – indicating the reader’s ability to interact with the text on different levels

Each of these categories interacted to form the reader’s expressed response, which was considered to be most interesting for researchers of literary response (Klemenz-Belgardt 1981: 360). These types of behaviour and utterances were studied in experimental settings where participants were asked to read extracts of stories (Van Peer 1983) or short stories (Miall & Kuiken 1994), and were consequently prompted for evaluations of the text.

In a recent overview of the state of literary empirical work, Miall (2006) found that this method of reader response continues to take place in controlled and monitored circumstances. In literary empirical research, the texts tend to be specifically selected for the purpose of the research and different reading conditions can be compared. These types of experiments are concerned with investigating the effects of ‘specific aspects of the reading process, such as the influence of features of literary style, the effects of empathy in reading narrative, or the impact of significant reading experiences on a reader’s memory and self-concept’ (Miall 2006: 292). This style of research is mainly quantitative as it investigates effects of reading on groups of participants (Peplow & Carter 2014).

While most empirical research as described above takes place within literary studies, the current research aims to investigate news media reader response. By pre-selecting news texts for readers, withholding the purpose of the study and using semi-structured interview techniques, the effects of different news formats can be studied and compared.