Diversity in Mass Communication Theory Courses

Abstract

Since race, ethnicity and other diversity variables often are included in mass communication studies, one might assume that mass communication can tell us much about diversity-related aspects of the processes and effects of mass communication. However, as Bramlett-Solomon and Liebler1 noted in their work on race, many studies have examined media and race concerns and have included race variables, few of these studies are based. Compounding the problem, they said, is the slowness of media texts to include substantive discussions of media and race. While Bramlett-Solomon and Liebler were speaking about racial diversity only, it is likely that the same conclusions could be drawn about other aspects of diversity beyond race. What are these other aspects of diversity? There is no easy answer. As Hon, Weingold and Chance2 observed, is no single standard for what constitutes but there is some agreement about the major elements. Their survey respondents identified the following characteristics as indicative of diversity generally: age, disability status, ethnicity, gender, political ideology, race, region of origin, religion and sexual orientation. They also identified other characteristics that would be relevant specifically to the hiring of a diverse faculty (e.g., amount of professional experience, of scholarship, type of terminal degree): Other researchers3 have included other characteristics (e.g., income, class or parental status) and broadened others (e.g., physical abilities/characteristics). Thus, while there is no definitive list of diversity-- related characteristics, nonetheless it is possible to address at least the major characteristics most commonly identified by researchers. The assertion that much mass communication research involving diversity-related characteristics is not theory-based is a serious charge. The goal of science is to explain things and to make predictions about them. This is accomplished through theory. Research that merely describes things may be useful in its own right and it may become an important first step in constructing theory, but descriptions per se do not explain or predict anything. For example, cultivation is based on the important assumption that the TV world and the real world differ systematically in important ways. One of these is that certain social groups are over- or underrepresented on television and that these groups are predominantly portrayed in particular ways (e.g., as perpetrators or victims). Thus, an important initial step in advancing cultivation was to describe how the real world and TV world differed in these terms.4 However, many other mass communication studies have described media content for its own sake, without connecting these descriptions to theory. For example, studies have shown that newsrooms are not diverse racially or ethnically. If they stop there, these studies are merely describing what is. A would propose what factors lead to newsroom diversity, or what effects occur as a result of newsroom diversity, or make some other explanation or prediction related to newsroom diversity. If we are to understand the relevance of diversity to mass communication, we need not just descriptions but theories. Bramlett-Solomon and Liebler's5 assertion that theory is rather elusive in this scholarship area has been supported by others.6 While it does seem to be the case that mass communication theories do not deal directly and specifically with diversity issues, these theories nonetheless are applicable to such concerns. In other words, while the theories themselves may not have been framed in diversity-related terms, they can be used to address important diversity issues. The purpose of this paper is to show how prominent mass communication theories can be employed to further our knowledge about diversity-related issues. The relevance of these theories to diversity issues is suggested and examples are given to show how diversity-related issues can be addressed in mass communication courses. …