中国大陆传播研究民族志进路的逻辑、问题与重塑——基于四本学术期刊及相关研究文献的考察

发布时间：2018-03-12 18:21

本文选题：传播研究　切入点：民族志　出处：《现代传播(中国传媒大学学报)》2017年07期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：通过对经典研究文献的爬梳和学者访谈,梳理了民族志在中国大陆传播研究中的脉络演进及其内在逻辑。基于对四大学术期刊(1996-2016)有关传播民族志学术论文的统计分析发现,研究议题从"社区研究"扩展到了"产制研究",田野调查时间呈现不确定性的特征,在民族志法的使用中传播研究者还综合使用了问卷调查、内容分析等方法;但存在着对"多点民族志"窄化、将中国传播实践装进西方理论的套子里等倾向。同时,偏向"访谈"所可能带来的伦理后果、批判取向的缺失等值得警惕。面对网络社会和传播生态的急遽变迁,传播民族志应从"参与观察"走向"体验观察",田野时间的争论应回到"田野材料能多大程度上回答研究问题"的元追问中寻找答案。
[Abstract]:Through the crawling of classical literature and the interview with scholars, this paper combs the evolution of ethnic ambition in the study of communication in mainland China and its internal logic. Based on the statistical analysis of the academic papers on communication ethnography in four major academic journals (1996 to 2016), the author finds that, The research topic has expanded from "community research" to "production system research". The time of field investigation shows the characteristics of uncertainty. In the use of ethnography, researchers also comprehensively use questionnaires, content analysis and other methods. However, there is a tendency to narrow the "multi-point ethnography" and put Chinese communication practice in the context of western theory. At the same time, there is a tendency to bias toward the ethical consequences of "interview". The lack of critical orientation is worthy of vigilance. In the face of the rapid changes in the network society and communication ecology, The dissemination of ethnography should change from "participation observation" to "experience observation", and the debate on field time should return to the Yuan Quest of "how much field materials can answer research questions".
【作者单位】：武汉大学新闻与传播学院;
【分类号】：G206;K28

【相似文献】