The participants in this study consisted of four males and four females, aged 19 to 21. All are students at Aberystwyth University, from various academic disciplines. Three of the participants are residents of the same household (participants a,b, and g) and participants (d) and (f) also live together; all are in household situations, as opposed to university ‘halls’ accommodation. All participants are regular viewers of the soap, all watching at least one episode per week, and the majority watching all four weekly episodes whenever possible. All of them also said that they watch EastEnders with others, usually friends and housemates and occasionally family, when at home with their parents, so this group situation was not unfamiliar to any of them. Apart from participant (f), all stated that they at least occasionally watch at least one other soap on television. Some watch more than others, but this issue will be addressed in more detail later on.
My research methods consisted of the following. While the episode was on, I tape recorded the discussions that took place while the participants were watching. The group were told that the tape recorder would be used, although its presence did not seem to interfere with their natural responses to the programme. I then interviewed each participant individually and privately and asked them questions to gauge their response to the episode and hear their retelling of its themes, running order, character judgements etc. I tried to keep these interviews as informal as possible. These interviews were once again recorded and apart from some participants commenting on feeling nervous about what I would actually ask them, the use of the tape recorder did not appear to inhibit their replies. Those who had not yet been interviewed did not speak to those who had, so that they did not discuss the answers and did not know what questions they would be asked beforehand. I deliberately did not inform the participants of the nature of the questions I would be asking them so that the answers they gave would not be thought about or planned. Nevertheless I felt constantly aware that participant (g) was being somewhat competitive with the answers he was giving- he seemed to be giving me that answers he thought I wanted him to give (even though I stated in the brief that there was no such thing and that the purpose of the research was to gauge their reactions, not to quiz them on how much they knew). Despite this, he seemed to feel that I was testing him and his response, although very thorough, seemed rather false.
Before the EastEnders episode began, I asked each of the participants to complete a short questionnaire to ascertain their viewing habits (see appendix). I used these later on to tie in with my findings from the discussion and interview.
The participants took part in various discussions throughout the whole episode. All of them took part in these conversations, although they were only ever between two or three people at a time. I felt that recording these discussions would help me in the interviews as if I could see how they were responding while actually watching the programme, it would have a bearing on their retelling of it later. Many of the conversations that took place were completely unrelated to EastEnders, but of those that were, the topics discussed included negative comments concerning Peggy Mitchell, Sonia Jackson (as well as comments about why Sonia’s Mum Carol did not return to help her when Sonia had her baby and subsequently put her up for adoption). Also mentioned were Dot and her major role in ‘the Square’, Pauline’s relationships, and something that sparked debate was the fact that when people fight in the Queen Vic, it is always the same table that gets knocked over! The quality of acting was mentioned; in particular in reference to Doctor Trueman, and which of the actors the participants had seen in ‘real life’. All of these, as it will be shown, were significant later in the interviews when the participants were making character judgements and retelling the episode.
One of the ways that Sonia Livingstone says that viewers diverge in their interpretation of television programmes is that of incorrect recollection of details (Livingstone, 1990). In the individual interviews, I asked each of the participants if they could remember what the opening scene of the episode was. Their answers to this question would hopefully tell me what they could remember of the episode in terms of chronology, themes, etc, but also gave them a chance to five an interpretation of a scene. With the exception of participant (g), none of the others correctly recalled this scene, although interestingly, four of them gave the same incorrect answer, which was in fact the second scene. This could be explained by the fact that the first scene was short and quiet, compared with the second, which was loud, involved many more characters and was directly referred to in the following couple of scenes.
I asked the participants to identify as many of the storylines as they could remember, that were addressed in the episode. There were seven main strands of narrative and most of the group identified most of these strands. Interestingly, it seemed that those who watch most often could recall more, probably because they had previous episodes in mind and had a clearer idea of what was going on in the soap as a whole. Unsurprisingly, participant (e) who watches the soap less often than most of the others, found it most difficult to recall the episode accurately. Only four storylines were identified and the opening scene was completely beyond recollection. Details were very sparse, he found it difficult to remember character’s names and when asked to recall which storylines had been addressed, after naming a few of them briefly, he admitted: ‘I haven’t got a clue about most of the other ones ‘cos I haven’t watched it for about a week’.
Regularity of viewing is likely to affect someone’s retelling of an episode. The less someone watches the less familiar they will be with characters, current narrative strands etc. Therefore when they do watch, their viewing may act more as a ‘catch up’ than an update. A viewer who never misses an episode will know more specifically how the narratives have been developing and where each character is with these narratives.
The participants who watch the soap most often seemed best able to recall the episode accurately. They recalled all of the narratives that had been addressed (although their interpretations of them differed, as will be shown later).
The participants diverged in terms of the depth to which they described these storylines. I did not tell them how far to go into detail, however there were clear differences. Participant (c) for example described the storyline involving Dot and Jim as ‘Dot and Jim and the Christening gown’ whereas participant (g) said that ‘Jim and Dot are possibly having a spot of bother because something that looked like a Christening gown in a suitcase. Jim tried to wash it and it fell apart. Maybe they’re going to have problems but we’ll find out more about that later’. This is something that Sonia Livingstone refers to in terms of divergence, i.e. the complexity of analysis that the viewers make. (Livingstone 1990)
They also each had different views on which of these was the best of the current storyline, and their reasons for liking one in particular more than the others. Two of the participants like the storyline between Sharon, Peggy and Phil best. Participant (d) said it was because he had always liked the character of Sharon and that it was ‘great that she’s back’. They also referred to EastEnders’ history when Sharon left, and how she has brought a lot back with her (meaning that she provides interest and entertainment value) and also that ‘everyone knows who she is’ i.e. that non-regular viewers will probably have heard of Sharon Watts, and regular viewers know a lot about her history: family, reasons for leaving etc.
Participant (b) on the other hand, liked this storyline best because she felt that she related quite a lot to her, something that Sonia Livingstone identifies as a factor determining viewers’ divergence in interpretation (Livingstone 1990). This participant stated that Sharon was ‘from the East End… like me’ and is confident on the outside but ‘behind closed doors she’s not so strong… like me!’. Identifying with a character will influence someone’s perception and interpretation of them and the narrative surrounding them because they will have more sympathy for them and take more of an interest in their welfare. Participant (c) liked the storyline concerning Ian best because what it was building up to had been heavily publicised in the press and so she was looking forward to this story reaching its peak. This is associated with social factors concerning divergence because this participant’s interpretation has arisen because of what she has learnt from external sources.
I also asked the participants for their thoughts on Peggy Mitchell, who featured strongly in the episode and was involved in one of the more prominent storylines at that time. The participants could refer to the character in general, but this would also enable them to give their interpretation of this particular aspect of the episode. The question produced varying responses. Four out of the seven participants had very strong negative views about her. Participant (a) disliked her not only for her characteristics, but also because she felt that Barbara Windsor, who plays her, was a ‘really bad actress’.
In his study on the EastEnders audience, David Buckingham noted how people’s judgements on the quality of acting were directly linked with their subsequent assessment of characters (Buckingham, 1987:182). Although Buckingham was looking at young viewers of EastEnders, the groups were aged between seven and 18 and as my participants were aged between 19 and 21, this is still arguably relevant.
Conversely, participant (b) who felt that she could identify with Sharon Watts, also liked the character of Peggy Mitchell because she liked Barbara Windsor and the Carry On films that she was in. She admitted that she probably wouldn’t like Peggy as much if it wasn’t Barbara Windsor playing her, and justified her sometimes hostile behaviour by saying that she was only unkind to those she felt had done her wrong somehow.
Participant (e) referred to the Janine storyline as the best at the time, because it was the one he had taken the most interest in since it began. Interestingly though, he referred to it as ‘Janine being a cocaine addict’ which has not been explicitly mentioned in the soap for some time. The character of Janine has however, become a prostitute as a result of her drug habit and so it seems that this participant made the inference because of what he had learnt previously from the narrative.
When recalling an episode of a television programme, many people make inferences that go beyond the actual text and details provided by the narrative. They draw on knowledge they have of the outside world, and fill in gaps and make up the parts they don’t know. This occurred with participant (b) who also made quite a significant inference, but this time something that at the time had not been addressed in detail for the audience. This concerned the Christening gown that had been found and Dot’s reaction to it. In the episode, Dot’s husband Jim tried to wash the gown, but because of its age, it fell apart, which clearly upset Dot. This storyline had been building for a few episodes but as yet, the significance of the gown had not been made clear- only that it was of some importance to Dot. Participant (b) however, when describing this particular storyline, referred to it as belonging to her ‘we think, still born child... from before Charlie’ (her first husband).
During this episode, a character who had never been seen by the audience before appeared. He was not formally introduced (in terms of his name, role, purpose etc) and so the participants’ interpretations of him were interesting. The character was associated with the Janine/prostitution storyline and while all of the participants mentioned this strand in their retelling of the episode, only three mentioned the man, even though his role (although as yet undefined) appeared to be fairly important and it was implied that his appearance would not be merely a one off. Participant (g) described the character as Janine’s ‘card-tout’ even though this was never stated. This is relevant to Allport and Postman's categories of reporting, especially that of assimilation. Viewers alter details, or import meanings to make the principle theme. More specifically, they transform details according to how things usually are. (Allport and Postman, 1945, cited in Chandler, nd). This is also associated with schema theory, where people use social frameworks to fill in gaps, i.e. their everyday experiences act as guides for things that they may not yet understand. These may then be altered when more detail is known but they can act as a substitute, as well as constantly being reassessed and altered for the future.
As a result of their study of Dallas viewers, Katz and Liebes identified three ways that viewers retold the narratives of episodes: linear, segmented and thematic (Liebes 1988: 281). Katz and Liebes’ study was cross-cultural and so the differences that they found were between cultures, rather than within one cultural group. The group that would be most culturally similar to my study is the Americans and their form of retelling (segmented) did in fact hold true for the participants of my research.
According to Liebes, viewers used their existing knowledge of characters to predict future complications and referred to the actors aswell as the characters (Liebes and Katz, 1989: 215). Many of the participants made various predictions, such as how the situation at the pub would be resolved between Peggy and Sharon, e.g. participant (d) stated that he wanted to see Sharon move in and ‘chuck Peggy out’.
There were many different forms of divergence found within this study, ranging from inaccurate recall to their depth of analysis. What it tells us however is that people watch and use soaps in very different ways, which affects the ways that they perceive what is within them, and the bearing this has on their external lives.