Essays/Research

TV STUDIES 


WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN MALE AND FEMALE REPRESENTATION ON TV SITCOM AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE AUDIENCE PLEASURES WHEN WATCHING “THE BIG BANG THEORY”

Sitcoms and television audiences have been thoroughly researched over the years. Starting from the effects of cultural and racial differences down to gender differences. My text “the big bang theory” is one of the most popular and successful sitcoms in American comedy. To answer my research question, I would have to research academic topics that are related to TV and also understand my media text furthermore, to gain more understanding I would research about Sitcom genre, which would help me develop the gender differences in TV sitcom and also the gender differences while watching TV.  I have to also understand that a media text will not be subjected to one, static and articulate meaning however it can be exposed to diverse understandings by different audiences. In carrying out audience research there are different areas to be considered, like gender, social class and racial differences but I would concentrate solely on gender differences for my research topic. Furthermore, I would explain the differences between male and female pleasure derived while watching “The big bang theory” using especially focus group in order to have a greater understanding on how the audience react to my chosen text. 

For more in-depth understanding, I would make use of secondary sources and considering the fact that my research question has various aspects to it, I would have to answer it step by step starting from differences in the feminine and masculine genres in terms of TV sitcoms and then TV audience pleasure.

Keith Selby and Ron Cowdery (1995) are important media scholars that have done various TV sitcom researches they are of the opinion that TV sitcoms has various structures to it, I would therefore use and explore their description of comedy sitcom genre (Cowdery R and Selby K 1995: p121) explains the narrative structure in comedy sitcom which I believe is applicable to my chosen text. Furthermore, Kidd and Parshall (2000 p 293) suggest that focus group members relate their diverse skills and responses between supposed peers that they share a common reference with. Kidd and Parshall (2000) points out the need of conducting a successful focus group and also the need to get the members involved and active. Although this is not related to my research topic however, it was very useful to me when I was constructing my focus group question, areas of debate and audience study.

Vincent Mosco (2006) in his article defined an audience as a receiver that makes use of what the media produces. An audience can get carried away with the genre of the movie or sitcom on TV and this helps he or she understand the character and the structure of the text shown and through the means of identification, the audience would be able to interpret the text from within as if the events where happening to them. Cohen (2001). Contrary to the definition of an audience by Vincent Mosco, debates about TV audience and various questions are been asked on if there is really an audience.  Television audience is not to be seen or classified as a social category like class or gender as people can change depending on the show on TV. For example, one would expect an audience that just watched a football match to react in this same way while watching the A team but this cannot be so because of the text’s different content, its genre and effect on the viewer. The term “viewer” is an exemplary that involves individuals and television. John Fiske (1989 p 56).

“Genre can be defined as a cultural practice that forms an order into a number of texts and meanings which evolves into a culture for both the audiences and the producers” (Fiske 1987). To understand sitcom genre and its audiences, one should understand that an audience’s pleasure is directed towards the genre of the text, by producing acknowledgment to the already known set of responses, in other words genres are just a means of transporting information (Hartley 1987). Genre in a typical American TV sitcom has been an essential since it commenced. This has helped the characters and the story of the text to connect with its viewers and it has also helped in making TV sitcoms very popular and successful. Explaining further, the generic structures of a TV sitcom Putternam (1995) listed a number of categories using different other sitcoms like [1].“Family in the suburbs”, (father knows best, leave it to beaver). [2] “Show biz celebrity” (make room for daddy) and finally “adventure at the workplace (I love Lucy). Although, these sitcoms vary from TBBT, one can link the generic structures to the want of the opposite sex, as can be seen in episode one when Leonard met Penny.

Talking about masculine and feminine genre differences while watching TV sitcoms, Morley (1992 p 134) talked about “decoding to viewing context” which I will use as my foundation joining it with rhetorical and textual analysis to explain the transition of women as can be seen in my text as “dumb” yet “smart” and working in good science companies also acquiring the best education in the big bang theory. To establish this point, Lee (1991 p3) talked about “women in the television age” women’s identity as women. Their gender identity and the parts they are expected to play in the society. The roles of women in the society have been an issue of debate over the past century. These roles have been studied in attempt to be determined through literature, humanities and social sciences. Stephen Wagg (1998 p 65) examines the gender issues in British comedy. There is different range of comic stereotyping in the roles played by women in comic sitcoms. They either play the role of a dumb blonde or they are seen as complaining harridans on the other hand, they can also be ugly hags. It can be suggested that many female comic representations are funny when compared to their opposites as can be seen in TBBT with Penny being portrayed as the “dumb blonde” who the boys ridicule when she fails to answer simple questions. However, women are also represented as smart and driven on TV sitcoms, Kaplan E.A (1983) in her book suggests the evolution of females as smart and strong willed which can be seen in TBBT season 4 as Bernadette announce her PHD offer and huge salary increase, she left her boyfriend Howard who at the time had only a masters degree feeling inferior. Relatively similar to the feminine study, men are also represented on television sitcom, using a thesis conducted by Georgetown University on “The creation and circulation of the male idiotic character type” I would launch my argument on the fact that men are also portrayed as “dumb” and “clueless” as can be seen in episode 19 season 4 when Penny helped the all knowing Dr. Sheldon recover his stolen goods from a hacker. The thesis further explores the two ways in which men are represented in sitcom genres. Firstly as a heterosexual male character who can be seen as intelligent and yet an unintelligent sex machine that does not want commitment. Secondly, a homosexual male character that is seen as the friend and emotional character that comes to the aid of women.

In Stephen Wagg’s book, Laraine Porter raised various questions about TV audience, which is applicable to my text TBBT. The question on if comedy can be understood in terms of gender differences at the point when it is produced or when viewed? Does the male and female audiences have the same humor? Do they create their own comedy and laugh at diverse jokes? These questions and my methodology would help me generate and explore audience pleasure. It cannot be denied that male and female audiences as a group is formed differently in popular culture and modern society. There have been various debates by theorists suggesting that a female viewer can be active (realistic and selective) or passive (gullible, confused and vulnerable). Laura Mulvey an important theorist believes that television is a world of sexual differences. She established how the male viewer identifies with the male protagonist shown on screen. Mulvey further explains the issue of “female spectatorship and pleasure in film viewing”. In comparism to male viewers, Hollywood has nothing to offer women except their objectification. Furthermore, she concludes that American movies portray a relationship from which women are excluded. Supporting Mulvey’s theory, Youna Kim’s “Women, television and everyday life in Korea” explores an in depth research carried out on women. Female viewers suggested that all they want from watching TV is pleasure, they do not want to think, they want to forget their problems and live in the world portrayed on the screen. This therefore suggests the female viewer as a passive audience, who has lost her sense of decoding texts seen on screen and has rather chosen to be gullible and believe whatever she watches. When watching a romantic movie they tend to feel accepted and loved, they also tend to laugh while watching comedy. They also tend to go into wishful thinking like issues relating to marriage. An average working class lady would tend to compare marriage like the ones seen on screen “wishing a man would wash the dishes, cook and do the housework. Contrary to Mulvey’s theory and Youna Kim’s research, scholars like B.Ruby Rich in her book “In the name of feminist film criticism” (1978) critically argue that women are not passive. Using herself as an example she explains that women’s viewing experience under patriarchy is always dialectal as they always encode and decode as well as doubt what is shown on the screen. In line with Rich’s theory, Janet Bergstorm’s “Enunciation and Sexual differences” (1979) argues that female viewers does not only identify females on screen neither does the men identify only the males on screen. Therefore, challenging the theory of the active male viewer and passive female viewer. Women can get two different pleasures while watching TV. Firstly, reactive pleasure which is the pleasure that originates from understanding the text and Secondly, active pleasure which comes from watching and talking about the text by picking their favorite characters and knowing more about them. M. E. Brown (1994 p 18).

The content of what is shown of screen determines its viewer. Keith Selby and Cowdery (1995) highlighted that when a text shows a lady then it is meant for the opposite sex. In review of Morley’s book, Laclau (1977) raised an interesting debate explaining that individuals are clear, joined beings that their actions and consciousness show their original essence. The debate of an active viewer has become an issue that is steadily on the rising. In other to understand a male viewer as an active audience, I decided to use Laura Mulvey’s explanation of how the male viewer has the active role of processing and forwarding a story. She explains further how the male viewer has control over the movie fantasies evolving from within while watching the movie and as the power bearer enabling him to act. Although men control the stare, the mare sight of a woman’s body forms two types of pleasure thereby determining their present reaction towards the nearest opposite sex. Firstly, voyeurism (a means in which one receives sexual gratification by watching other people’s sexual behavior). The issue of voyeurism can be linked to sadness, for example if the viewer was separated from his mother thereby deriving pleasure from guilt, gaining control and exposing the guilty (the woman) to either being punished or forgiven. Fetishistic Scopophilia is the second pleasure that rejects the risk through the exemption of fetish objects like shoe, lock of hair and under clothes thereby helping to build up the object’s (woman) physical beauty as something wonderful made to please itself.

The second part of this work is to conduct an audience research through the use of focus group. To conduct a good focus group, one must have to carry out number of researches. I would therefore use Kidd and Parshall’s (2000) work to develop my understanding on how to make a focus group informative and successful. Kidd and Parshall emphasized the need of constructing good questions and making sure that the participants are aware of the text in question. Lea Litosseliti (2003) explains that focus group is used to show the interactions and views, response and approaches and Lastly, the understanding and feelings of the participants. Quoting Gibbs (1997), Lea further explains how focus group methodology differs from other means of conducting research. She talks about the knowledge it provides on different opinions, views and interactions raised during disagreement amongst participants.

However, there are also limitations to this methodology. Krueger (1994) Morgan (1998) and Gibbs (1997) discussed in depth the issues surrounding focus group. Firstly, it can be quite expensive and time consuming. Secondly, the response of the participants can be affected by the manipulation of the researcher and finally, false agreement which can arise when participants with overpowering personalities dominate the discussion. To avoid most of these limitations I decided to make sure there is orderliness in the way questions where answered.

The audience research I carried out generated a lot of gender issues and to understand the gender differences in TBBT, the participants and I had to define sitcom genre, by getting various definitions we then began to discuss the content, representation and format of the text. To start with, the concept of the text was to be understood. The sitcom is about the lives of four scientists, working in different fields of science research, with different personalities and cultural background sharing one bond “friendship”. Through the seasons other characters are introduced to the leading roles. As described in the first aspect of this research, TV sitcom genres have various explanations and can be categorized in different ways. To help my participants understand this categories, I would implement the use of rhetorical analysis to establish the effect of the text of the audience through the use of sound, objects and so on.

When asked the representation of women in the big bang theory, there were mixed reviews from the participants.

“The girls in that show are definitely clowns and dumb. Especially Penny”

…. Participant A.

This therefore, resonates Wagg’s gender issues in his book on British comedy. Contrary to participant A, participant C suggests that women are not dumb and this can be related to Kaplan E.A (1983) theory of women evolution.

“How can you say women are dumb? Was it not Leslie that completed                   Sheldon’s research? …Participant C

This takes back to Kaplan’s work, suggesting the growth of the feminine gender over the past years.

Having established the viewer’s representation of the female character, for more in depth knowledge, I decided to ask the participants to define the three female characters in TBBT.  Participant A yet again raised an important debate “pretty without brains” too girlie, “pretty with brains yet confused” “ugly with brains and too rigid”.

Participant A: “isn’t it obvious the way women are portrayed means they can never have it all? Penny is pretty yet she is not smart (your typical blonde. Extremely girlie), Bernadette is smart but her character is confused! And Emy is ugly and behaves like a robot”.

  

Andrea Lee (p 18) in her work argued that the steady repetition of television series portraying gender differences suggests TV to be static and lack evolution. Relating this to the participants and their opinions on the way these three women are represented one can reason with Lee on how TV remains repetitive. With each episode showing Penny getting dumber, when it seems like she seeking intelligence she falls right back to Leonard who in turns tries to help her also telling her that he still loves her the way she is.

However, questioning the masculinity of the four lead role characters in TBBT required a lot of discussion. Dean Kowalski (2012) raised an argument disagreeing with several scholar debates about masculinity in TV gender differences. “Male representation is not vey different from female representation on screen”. Using his study, the male characters in the big bang theory paints the conventional picture of a man. They might be educated and sound but their characters are not far from the usual female characters on TV sitcom. Leonard is caring, wants commitment but he is not the typical ideal TV man on screen because of his height. Sheldon totally opposite from Leonard does not want to have personal contact with anyone even the opposite sex, his physical look is not fantastic and he is also extremely annoying. Raj is the sweet guy, cute and rich but is scared of women lastly, Howard the douche. Still lives with his mother that constantly undermines him coupled with Bernadette’s as well. Just as women like Amy can be seen as “less women” because they are not the typical example of the feminine society, viewers may also assume that the lead male characters do not fit into the modern culture of male characteristics.

Opposing the above argument, some participants suggested that the portrayal of men on TV has changed over the years.

Researcher: Do you think that male and female representation in TBBT is similar or have men lost their perfect representation on TV? How does this also affect the viewer pleasure?

Participant B: My pleasure while watching TBBT is just seeing the guys act stupid. Sometimes to be honest I wish a guy could be like Leonard. I even think the producers want to show that men are not always jackasses by showing their emotional side.

Participant D: The characters weren’t on the same level. I like Penny’s body.

Participant E: Despite their lack of male tendencies, the girls always runs back to them.

Participant F: My point exactly, the gender differences are just clear. TBBT has a lot of gender difference episodes but I wont mind having a guy that likes me despite how dumb I am.

The findings gotten from the focus group is not a direct one due to the various debates and disagreements by participants. However, the findings from this methodology suggests that gender inequality does not only happen on TV but in the society as well because the male participants viewed the female characters differently and vise versa. This therefore brings me back to the question raised by Loraine Porter “is TV comedy really understood in terms of gender at the point of production or consumption? Does the male and female viewer see things differently?

In conclusion, having talked about the issues of gender representation and audience pleasure this research has managed to generate several arguments on trending debates about gender differences and I am of the opinion that there is no definite description of gender inequality. The participants were very critical about this issue and this therefore implies that different audience derives different pleasure from what is shown on screen and gender has a big influence on determining this pleasure.

Bibliography

·      Bergstorm .J (1979) Enunciation and sexual differences seen in Lee.A (1991) women watching television.

·      Brown. E.M (1994) Soap opera and women’s talk: The pleasure of resistance. London:Sage

·      Brooker.W and Jermyn D (2003) The audience studies reader. London: Routledge

·      Cohen. J (2001) Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters [pp 246]

·      Cowdery. R and Selby.K (1995) How to study television. London:Macmillian

·      Dines.G and Humex J.M (2003) Gender race and Class in media: A text-reader. London: Sage

·      Dow.B.J (1996) Prime time feminism: television, media culture, and the woman’s movement since 1970.Philedelphia: university of Pennsylvania

·      E. Ann Kaplan (1983). Women and film both sides of the camera. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Methuen & Co. p23-30

·      Erens.P (1990) Issues in feminist film criticism. Bloomington: Indiana university press

·      Feasey.R (2008) Masculinity and Popular television. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press.

·      Fiske .J (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.

·      Fiske.J (1989) Moments of television in E seiter et al: Remote Control

·      Gibbs(1997), Krueger(1994), Morgan(1998) seen in Litosseliti (2003) Using focus groups in research

·      Hartley .J (1987) Television audiences, paedocracy and pleasures, textual practice

·      Kidd. P and Parshall. B. M (2000) Getting the focus and group: Enhancing analytic rigor in focus group research [pp293]

·      Kim.Y (2005) Women, television and everyday life in Korea: Journeys of hope. Oxon: Routledge 

·      Kowalski.A.D (2012) The big bang theory and philosophy: Rock paper, scissors, Aristotle, locke. New Jersey: John’s Wiley & sons

·      Laclau .E (1977) Politics and ideology. London: New left books

·      Lee.A (1991) Women watching television: Gender, class and generation in the American television experience. USA: Lee press

·      Listosseliti.L (2003) Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum

·      Lovingston. S (1998) Making sense of television: The psychology of audience interpretation. London: Routledge

·      Morley.D (1992) Television, Audiences & cultural studies. London: Routledge

·      Mulvey.L (1975) Visual pleasure and narrative cinema screen seen in Brown. E.M (1994) Soap opera and women’s talk: The pleasure of resistance

·      Putterman.B (1995) On the television & comedy: Essays on style, theme, performer and writer. Jefferson, NC Mc Farland & co

·      Reese J.M (2004) Heterosexual masculinity in the sitcom genre: The creation and circulation of the male idiot character type [pp 4-8]

·      Rich.B.R (1978) In the name of feminists film theory. University of California

·      Seiter .H et al (1989) Remote control: Television, audience and cultural power. London: Routledge

·      Vincent. M (2006) Mass communications. Canada: Sage

·      Wagg .S (1998) Because I tell a joke or two: Comedy politics and social difference. London: Routledge

Appendix: Focus group discussion and questions

Introduction:

Welcome the participants, inform them on the reason for conducting a focus group, your goal (what to achieve from this), tell them the need of taking turns while talking. Get the participants to introduce themselves.

Activity/Screening

Watch some episodes from TBBT and rules of engagement.

Questions

·      What do you like about TBBT?

·      What episodes have you enjoyed the most?

·      Comparing this sitcom to other sitcoms what makes it stand out?

·      Do you think it is a show that portrays gender inequality?

·      Describe the male and female characters in this sitcom

·      How are women and men represented in this sitcom?

·      What pleasure do you derive when watching TBBT?

MAGAZINE TALK SHOW RESEARCH

I conducted a magazine show research for the morning show on ITV as part of my module assignment

Name of the show: This Morning

Date Of Recording:  Wednesday 13^th March 2013

Transmission: Wednesday 13^th March 2013, 10am-12:00pm. ITV2

Item: Fashion (Spring/ Summer trends)

Duration: 8 minutes

Researcher: Chiamaka Chike-Obuekwe

Researcher Contact Details: Email chike.chiamaka@yahoo.co.uk Phone 07551855148

Producer: Danielle Ellis

Producer Contact Details: danielleellis.itv2@yahoo.co.uk Phone 07552855812

Presenters: Holly Willoghby and Phillip Schofield

Presenters Contact Details: Address ITV studios. The London Television centre upper ground London SE1 9LT Phone 08448814150

Expert: Anna Dowd   

Expert Contact:

Address 200 Gray’s Inn Road London WCIX8HF Phone 02071566000

Reason the Expert Is on the Show:

Anna Dowd is the fashion style producer for this morning and she’s regular on this morning. She’s known as the fashion and style guru. She was a judge on ITV’s graduate fashion week award held on the 3^rd of June 2011.

Suggested Introduction:

Anna Dowd would take us to the world of fashion and tell us about the latest trends for spring and summer.

Presenter:

These dresses are lovely and very affordable. If you missed today’s style session with Anna you can watch it on our website. Thanks Anna

VTS:

This would be what the viewers would expect from Anna. There would also be a session with Anna and the models where she would describe what the models are wearing and where to buy them. Each VT content would last for 10 seconds.

Anna would introduce the models in the studio:

Model One:

Black and white multi stripe cropped shirt £30.00 (River Island)

Cream belted skater skirt £25.00 (River Island)

Metal block heel ankle boots £40.00 (River Island)

Grey aztec mini skirt £22.00 (River Island)

Model Two:

Slim fit shirt £45.00 (COS)

Crepe Wide Trousers £80.00 (Top shop)

Strap sandals £19.99 (New look)

Clutch (£9.99)

Model Three:

Aztec print sleeveless midi dress £30.00 (Top shop)

Lace midi dress £46.00 (Top shop)

Western multi buckle wedges £60.00 (Top shop)

Model Four:

Pink stripe shirt dress £36.00 (Top shop)

Mesh panel wetlook leggings £22.00 (Top shop)

Linger gladiator platforms £70.00 (Top shop)

Winged lady tote bag £85.00 (Top shop)

Props:

Clothes

Bags

Shoes

Questions For Presenters:

1.     Is the 60’s retro and metallic look coming back this season?

2.     The monogram trend is back this season as we can see in most runways, do you think the style is totally opposite from last season?

3.     Model one look can be worn for what occasion?

4.     Following model one, is strap back this season?

5.     How can one also design model four look?

6.     Following model three do you advice it should be worn with heavy accessories?

7.     Model two look can be worn by what age group?

8.     What style advice can you give the viewers

9.     What do you recon would be in for next season?

SAME SEX PORTRAYAL (HOLLYOAKS)

This is a proposal I wrote for my intended dissertation topic a bit tricky but I am very passionate about TV audience research and I hope to be a TV researcher one day. 

Research Question:

How does “Hollyoaks” viewers react to scenes of same sex portrayal?

My research question is the study of same sex portrayal on TV and in films, using hollyoaks as my main focus of study. Same sex portrayal in recent times, has been an ongoing issue of debate and I believe this is an important area of study due to the questions viewers ask regarding this issue and also my personal interest in TV stereotype and audience research. Hollyoaks is one of the most successful UK soap opera and has been transmitted on channel4 for eighteen years, the fact that it has diverse characters makes me ask if the show has a message it wants to pass across to its viewers and if the show is in support of same sex portrayal on TV or against it. My proposed research question is important because, hollyoaks has the ability to influence people’s decisions, beliefs and it can also have an impact on people due to the scenes from the show relating to same sex portrayal therefore, I would like to research on how these portrayals affect the audience and not base my facts on assumption. The issue of same sex portrayals on TV and in films has generated a lot of unanswered questions which reflects that this research is not only of importance to me but to people in general especially with the stereotype of gay and lesbians even their movies and TV shows, the outcome of this research is important because it would help give me a clear knowledge on the industry I intend to have a long lasting career in.

The decision to conduct this research generated while watching a movie written and directed by Terracino, ‘Elliot Loves’ a movie based on two-stages of a young Dominican American’s life, first as a boy trying to build a relationship with his young mother and then as a teenager trying to find love in New york city. This movie had a lot of controversy, generating questions from viewers as well as debates. Questions like ‘who authorized the movie’s release’ ‘this is morally wrong’ and ‘homosexuals are human beings and have the right to love’ were few amongst different arguments that generated from this movie. This caused me to ask several questions as well regarding gay and lesbian image portrayal on TV and in films, due to the positive and negative comments from the viewers I decided to carry out this research to learn more about the representation of gays and lesbians in the media as well as the society.

To help me conduct a good research, I would use the knowledge gotten from both my present and previous modules related to my research. My current module Film Cultures (MED5055) has provided me with detailed information about film and audience study. How the characters are formed in movies and reasons why these characters come about. This part of my knowledge I would have to relate with channel4 and the production of hollyoaks, how the show providers interpret their characters. TV studies (MED5049) is also a very important module I studied last semester, it provided me with important and diverse ways of studying TV in context. It provided me with different analyses to conducting a research, different methodologies which would help me understand how viewers react to things they decode on TV academically example same sex portrayal.

Theoretical Framework| Secondary Sources

There are three theoretical frameworks in my proposed research question that would help me build up and structure my research without straying away from the question. The first theoretical framework in my research is TV and Film because it is the main focus of the proposed question. To get an in depth knowledge of hollyoaks, I would have to start with understanding the features and the term “contemporary” TV and film Cartmell D.et al (1999) Adaptations from text to screen and from screen to text would be a perfect base as it highlights on the academic and practical complications surrounding the translation of the contemporary film in which contributors of this book discuss the adaptations of text into film, this book defines the word contemporary perfectly using the different transitions of the 80s and comparing it with recent occurrences on TV this therefore provides me with a historical knowledge on the laws guiding television in the past years which is paramount in understanding my next area of study. Channel4 would be the next area of research in terms of understanding TV and Film. In the past years it has been speculated that channel4 is always involved with transmitting controversial productions example four lions (a movie on how to become a terrorist), however my research would not be based on speculations therefore Hobson D (2008) Channel4 [the early years and the Jeremy Isaac legacy] is a perfect academic study which would aid me in understanding channel4 and its laws as well as the impact it intends to have on their audience through their shows. This book highlights on the audience, which is also important in understanding the TV station’s target audience and what the audience expects from the shows. Finally, I would research into hollyoaks as part of the contemporary TV, classed feminity, performativity and camp in British structured reality programing by Woods F (2012) focuses on the “representation and tonal qualities of British structured reality programing” and discussing further on how these programmes structure youth identities and ideology. This is important to my research as it highlights on the contemporary TV structuring and ideology, which as mentioned above relates to how TV shows can influence audience beliefs and decisions, for a perfect understanding of hollyoaks same sex portrayal, queering the small screen: homosexuality and television citizenship in spectacular societies by Porfido G (2009) is a good academic source to use, this article studies the “question of queer television citizenship” by looking at changes and adaptation of the British TV. I believe this article is useful, as it would assist in explaining to what extent same sex portrayal affects TV audience and its current visual regime.

Secondly, another important part of my theoretical framework is the gender differences especially in terms of reaction. The first academic source that comes to mind while trying to understand gender differences amongst audience would be Vincent Mosco’s (2006) mass communication article which gives an in depth description of an audience, following it up with Morley.D (1992) television, audiences & cultural studies which would assist me in understanding how a male or female viewer decodes an image seen on TV and supporting my research with Wagg .S (1998) because I tell a joke or two: comedy politics and social difference although not related to the research question, however it examines the gender issues on TV and also stereotype in page 65 which is essential to this part of  my framework as it would help me understand if there are particular TV shows aimed at women and how this affects my text hollyoaks. This book also raised various questions about TV audience, which is applicable to my text, if images viewed on TV could be understood in terms of gender differences at a point of consumption or production therefore, helping me develop an answer to the above question, Mulvey.L (1975) visual pleasure and narrative cinema screen explains how a male viewer attains pleasure from a mare stare at a woman’s body, this therefore leaves me asking if the theorist suggests that a man or a woman only derives pleasure from the opposite sex, why then are there scenes of same sex portrayal on TV and in films. What are they trying to represent, this therefore takes me to my final framework.

  The final framework is representation especially of gays and lesbians on TV and in films. To conduct a good research, I would have to understand the issues surrounding representation and reasons why these scenes were created. Capstuso S (2000) alternate channels: the uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on radio and television which discuses the growth of gay and lesbian images on television in the past decade, page 37 of this book highlights on “images under construction” of television from the 1960s which is a good starting point in understanding representation as it would guide me in getting an in depth knowledge about the history of gay and lesbian scenes and how they were represented in the 60s therefore enabling me launch a debate on how this differs from their representation in recent times and significant changes that might have affected this change. Another brilliant book that would guide me in my research would be queer looks: perspectives on lesbian and gay film and video by Gever M et al (1993) this book offers the steady growth of gay and lesbian media which would aid my understanding of the gay and lesbian perspective on how they are represented thereby introducing a new twist to my research and forming a good argument that would be part of my research. Also discussing how gay and lesbians try to make a difference through these said productions. However, Dyer R (2003) in his book now you see it: studies on lesbian and gay films discusses the “dynamics of lesbians and gay cultural production” with this book I would understand how these representations where created out of cinematic and subcultural images, and how lesbians and gay men make these productions possible, bearing these question in mind, do they want to break free from the homophobic society? In the light of a new debate, the lesbian issue (1985) a book by Freedman E.B et al would help balance my knowledge on the lesbian identity and how they are visualized and accepted in a homophobic culture.

Reviewing all these texts about representation, I would then put into consideration if lesbians and gays are being told what to say or do in these productions in return for them to be accepted in the said homophobic society or if these productions are actually aimed at “pleasing the viewers” and “delivering a message” or “is it just following the trend of the new contemporary TV and film”. This aspect would then throw more light on how hollyoaks same sex representation is accepted by its viewers and if hollyoaks falls under the category of unaccepted soap operas due to the homophobic culture or if it is accepted as one of the soap operas that has embraced the new contemporary TV production.

Primary Research Method

To conduct a well-informed and complete research, I would look into textual analyses most importantly rhetorical and semiotic analyses. However, concentrating on semiotic analyses more because I would watch scenes from hollyoaks and interviews relating to my research question to understand the characters and production as well as the story behind the characters from their perspective. I also intend to watch movies with controversy issues relating to my research question, I would also research online through their fan websites in order to access comments from viewers and to gain an in depth knowledge, to support my findings, I would also research academic articles and journals online using Nexis a website in elibrary with journal archives about films and TV shows, this would assist me in understanding how the ideas behind these productions were created and portrayed also the motives behind these productions and how it relates to my question. I have already gone ahead to source my selected materials, which would be used for my research. To support my primary sources, I would make use of audience research and for this methodology to be effective it is only important that a good research is carried out in other to come up with a suitable means of carrying out a good audience study. I have decided to carryout my audience research through a focus group which would enable me gather quantitative response from the viewers and listening to them directly. Bearing in mind Kidd and Parshall’s (2000) article on how to make a focus group very informative and successful, I would therefore make sure I construct good questions and also informing the participants of the text in question. I also intend to use Litosseliti L (2003) to understand in depth what focus groups are used for and what out come I expect from it. Quoting Gibbs (1997) Litosselti also elaborates on the disadvantages of focus group and with this information, I would then find a way of avoiding such disadvantages.  Another good academic example I intend to use would be making sense of television the psychology of audience interpretation by Lovingstion S (1998) this text highlights on how audience decodes what they view on TV and films, which is important in understanding the audience and their reactions, which is also of paramount importance in a focus group.

Bibliography

1.     Capsuto S (2000). Alternate Channels: the uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on radio and television . 2nd ed. USA: Balllantine Publishing Group.

2.     Cartmell D and Wheleham I (1999). Adaptations from text to screen, screen to text. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

3.     Dyer R (2003). Now you see it: studies on lesbian and gay film. London: Routledge.

4.     Freedman E et al (1985). The lesbian issue: Eassy from signs. 2nd ed. USA: Chicago Press.

5.     Gever M et al (1993). Queer Looks: perspectives on lesbian and gay film and video. London: Routledge.

6.     Gibbs(1997) Using focus group in research Lee.A (1991) Women watching television: Gender, class and generation in the American television experience. USA: Lee press

7.     Hobson D (2008). Channel4 [the early years and the Jeremy Isaac legacy] . London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd

8.     Kidd. P and Parshall. B. M (2000) Getting the focus and group: Enhancing analytic rigor in focus group research [pp293]

9.     Listosseliti.L (2003) Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum

10.  Lovingston. S (1998) Making sense of television: The psychology of audience interpretation. London: Routledge

11.  Morley.D (1992) Television, Audiences & cultural studies. London: Routledge

12.  Mulvey.L (1975) Visual pleasure and narrative cinema screen seen in Brown. E.M (1994) Soap opera and women’s talk: The pleasure of resistance

13.  Porfido G. (2009). Queering the Small Screen: Homosexuality and Televisual Citizenship in Spectacular Societies.12 (3), 161-179.

14.  Wagg .S (1998) Because I tell a joke or two: Comedy politics and social difference. London: Routledge

15.  Woods F. (2012). Classed Femininity, Performativity, and Camp in British Structured Reality Programming.10 (3), p10-16.

16.  Vincent. M (2006) Mass communications. Canada: Sage