It is the purpose of this case study to focus on one particular group of viewers; a student household, and to consider their viewing habits and attitudes: in particular what they prefer to watch, how they negotiate what to watch, and their differences in viewing style. It should be noted, however, that as none of the existing ‘television’ studies have focused specifically on the student household: there are no findings as such to support or base this particular study on. With this in mind, I have chosen to use the research findings from studies relating to the nuclear family, in particular those conducted by David Morley and James Lull. For it could be suggested that a student household is in a sense a type of ‘family’. Indeed the Collins Concise Dictionary includes as one of its definitions for family ‘all the people living together in one household’, although this is not the ‘nuclear family’ that Morley and Lull were concerned with.
This essay attempts to discover whether there are any similarities or differences between this student household and the findings of the various studies conducted on ‘family television behaviour’.
I conducted my study through observations and in-depth interviews, as with Morley and Lull. In addition I had the members of the student household keep a written record of their television viewing for seven days (including the weekend). This was done to obtain a record of just how many hours each person viewed of television per week and the type of programmes watched.
The student household I studied is one that I myself am part of. This had the advantage that we are all familiar which each other which meant my presence would, to a certain extent, not affect the other members’ behaviour. I was conscious however that a disadvantage would be that my own pre-existing opinions and interpretations could possibly affect my study and findings.
The interviews were therefore tape-recorded (to transcribe in part later) in an attempt to overcome this. This ensured that I had a precise record of the interviews rather than relying on my own recollections and interpretations of what had been said. However, the act of tape-recording did in itself pose a problem; the members of the household felt slightly inhibited knowing that what they were saying was being recorded. This was particularly apparent in an interview with one member. To try to offset this problem a group interview was also conducted, where there was the opportunity to talk freely in a more natural and relaxed situation. Not only did this allow the household members to correct each other as they discussed their television habits but was also an attempt on my part to gain a more accurate view of their behaviour. It should be noted however, that not all members felt comfortable in this group setting, as a result of this study it was discovered that certain members of the household viewed others as more dominant and were reluctant to voice their views in this setting, preferring instead to talk to me alone.
It must also be taken into consideration that the members may have answered questions and offered opinions to accommodate me as an interviewer; telling me what they thought I wanted to hear rather than what they actually believed. It was hoped that regular and lengthy observations that I could carry out as part of the actual household may have helped to overcome some of these disadvantages, but they must be considered in light of any of the findings, especially as my account of what I observed is still subject to my own bias and interpretation.
Similarly the studies of Morley and Lull that I will be focusing on are not without their limitations and criticisms. Morley, for example, concentrated on a relatively small cross-section of the country. He examined mainly working class families (although there were some lower middle-class families too) from inner city London, who were for the most part characterized as having minimum education. Morley himself admits these obvious limitations suggesting that ‘doubtless my findings would be very different with a sample recruited from the professional, geographically mobile "non-nuclear" viewers of a more up-market area’ (Morley 1986:53). As with Morley, Lull focused on families all of which were from much the same area and social class in California. Lull’s study was slightly broader in that he covered a greater number of families, and therefore touched on other social classes.
The main difference in television use among families was found by both Morley and Lull to be related to the issue of gender. Morley states that ‘the one structural principle working across all the families interviewed is that of gender’ (Morley 1986:146). This in turn affected a number of the issues relating to television use in the family home including: power and control over programme choice; viewing style; amounts of viewing; television-related talk; solo viewing and guilty pleasures; programme and channel preference and the type of news programme that was preferred. I will therefore focus on some of these issues in this case study.
This student household includes three females and two males, one of which is not actually a full-time member of the student household but as he comes down most evenings and weekends I felt he had a part to play in this study. In addition I felt that he could offer additional insight into the television behaviour of the other members of the household.
The first, female (F20) is 20 years old and comes from a small village near Pontypridd in South Wales. She lives at home with her father and sister and came straight from the family home to university. Her background she describes as middle class. Female two (F26) is 26 years old and comes from a small village near Barnsley in Yorkshire, where she lives at home with her parents while studying. She has, however, shared accommodation with others on a regular basis since leaving home and starting work at age 16. She describes these living arrangements as being particularly male dominated. Her background is a mixture of both working and middle class. The first male (M33) is 33 years old and comes from a working class background. He lives in Leeds with his mother while studying but has shared accommodation with others, both male and female, in the past. He left school to work at age 16. Male two (M35) is not a full-time member of the student household but regularly watches television with the other members. He is married with two children and has his own home in a small town in Somerset. He left home to work at age 16 and has shared accommodation with others on a regular basis (in the Navy). He describes his background as middle class. Finally myself, female three (F28). I am 28 years old from New Zealand but now living in N.Ireland with my parents. I have shared accommodation with others in the past, both male and female and left full-time education at age 19 to work. I come from a middle class background.
While this study will focus mainly on the other members of the household I will include my own television use and habits where it is appropriate to do so, particularly where I have a part to play in the television use of the other members. This essay will therefore begin by considering the amount of television watched by the members of the household and the type of programmes that were chosen.
This is taken from the record kept by the members but includes only a selection of the programmes watched. The members also commented that their viewing hours would have increased had they kept a record the following week, as there was more they wanted to see. During this time F20 and F26 were involved with project work and stressed that they would usually watch more than their record suggests. However the intention of this record was to gain only a rough idea of the main programmes viewed and the time the members spent watching television, it in no way suggests a complete or precise indication of television viewing for these members.
What was interesting as a result of this exercise, however, was the reaction of the members to the time they spent watching television. When they reviewed their records at the end of the exercise most members were appalled by the amount of television they had watched. The general feeling was that they should not have spent so much time watching television and felt guilty as a result of this. I noted that while the members felt it was fine to spend a similar amount of time engaged in various other leisure activities, this feeling did not extend to television. Television it seemed was unacceptable as a leisure activity, treated instead like a ‘guilty pleasure’, one that should not be enjoyed too often or for too long.
In addition both males used Teletext frequently to check on sports results.
There are two televisions in the house; the television in the communal room is owned by me (F28), the other is in the bedroom of F26, for her own personal use. There is no video recorder. It should be noted however that this was not the original arrangement; on moving into the house F26 had her television in the communal room. This arrangement was changed because of the ‘television behaviour’ of both F26 and the other members of the household. The other members felt they had no say in what was watched as they did not own the television, apart from which they felt F26 imposed her choice of viewing quite dominantly on the other members. This situation was more apparent as F26 prefers to watch without interruption which is not always possible in this room, thus she felt unable to watch television in the way that she wanted. This gives some indication of how complex the issue of power is within the household and raises the issue of who controls what is watched.
Morley and Lull both found that this was an area that was very much male dominated. In Lull’s study he comments that observational and survey data converged to convincingly demonstrate that fathers had more perceived and actual control of the selection of television programs than any other individual in the family (Lull 1990: 89).
Morley’s study supports this finding but he goes further to comment that this is also an issue of power all be it ‘masculine power’, this he adds ‘is evident in a number of the families as the ultimate determinant on occasions of conflict over viewing choices’ (Morley 1986: 148).
However, when asked individually and as a group who had control and decided what to watch in the student household, the responses were conflicting and more complicated than imagined. The interesting point is that this is an issue that is still under discussion in the student household. M33 commented that "it comes down to our inter-personal relationships with each other and who is the focal point for each person, how we feel about the other person, whether we go along with them and what they’re watching. It’s whether we want to please the other person - the person we think is the focal point for us, it goes beyond just watching TV - it’s more about us and our relationships with each other". He suggested for example that F20 was influenced by me (F28) and that I might be more influenced by M35. F20 disagreed with this however stating that no-one had control over her; if she didn’t want to watch something she wouldn’t. Her view was that "I think all three of us, the girls really have more of a choice... because we know what we want to watch... and (M33) is just too easy, he’s just (imitating him) oh whatever". When F26 was asked she replied "I don’t know... I suppose you and me, I suppose it depends on who’s in room and who, like, say I just want to watch this and if somebody else didn’t want to watch it I’d go and watch it on my own telly". However the other members felt that this wasn’t quite true: they felt (and I observed) that she would very seldom go to her room in this situation but state that this was what she was going to watch.
I was aware that as I own the television the others might feel I have more control, and when asked about this they agreed to a certain extent but didn’t feel that I ever really imposed my programme preference on them. They felt it was more of an issue when F26 had her television in the room. This was a view that was also supported by M35, who commented on noticing this. But the members views keep changing; as time goes on they all felt it was getting more difficult to say who was in control, as most of the time we try to find something we all agree on. My own view is that ‘control’ within the household is an issue of power rather than gender. The girls do have more of a say - in particular F26 and F28. When asked about whether this bothered him M33 said "I don’t really watch television the same here anyway so it doesn’t really bother me that much". It is important therefore to consider how the members differ in their style of viewing and how this affects television behaviour.
Morley found that there is a characteristic distinction between the preferred style of viewing for men, as compared to the viewing style of women. Morley explains that ‘men state a clear preference for viewing attentively, in silence, without interruption in order not to miss anything’ (Morley 1986:150). In contrast women described their style of viewing as being a social activity with ‘ongoing conversation’, often watching while engaged in some other activity. My own findings seem to support Morley’s, but only to a certain extent.
While I did find that M33 and M35 both expressed a preference for watching television with their full attention and in silence, this was also true for F26. They all agreed that they didn’t like to talk during the programme and found it distracting when others did. M33 commented that he could understand something better if he gave it his full attention without any interruption, a point that both F26 and M35 also made. He further added that "maybe that’s why I don’t watch it as much here cos people are talking and stuff and you can’t...you know..., it’s a communal room". There was also a clear preference for solo viewing among these members. In contrast both F20 and F28 expressed a preference for communal viewing, without full attention, and both enjoyed talking while they were watching a programme regardless of the genre. But for F26 and M35 it very much depended in most cases on the type of show they were watching.
Lull suggests that the there is a predictable pattern in program preferences held by men and women which is similar throughout the world. He asserts that
Morley’s findings appear to strongly support this, although he does stress that there can be a degree of overlap. These differences and preferences were very evident among the members of the household, although here too there was found to be a degree of overlap. Both males had no doubt about their preferences, both choosing news-related programmes and sports, whereas all of the female members of the household preferred soaps, dramas and comedies. However, everyone liked documentaries and during the time spent keeping a record of their viewing all members watched mainly news programmes; as the Louise Woodward trial was being covered. One difference that came out among the female members was that F20 did not like the more serious dramas like Lynda la Plante’s Trial and Retribution and thrillers such as the X Files, that F26 and F28 enjoyed. When asked about this she explained that "you know it’s not real; it’s just off-putting isn’t it... it makes you all paranoid especially if you’re away at university. If you see something like that you’re more likely not to go out". F26 and F28 both admitted that despite liking these type of shows, they were much more selective in what they watched while at university.
When asked about what programmes they did not like both males said without hesitation; game shows (wheel of fortune, strike it rich) "that Strike it Rich that’s what I call a bland quiz, Wheel of Fortune is awful" (M35), American sit-coms (Friends) and daytime TV ( Kilroy, Style Challenge). When asked what it was that they disliked about these shows M35 replied "I think if people were given a chance of watching more interesting television they’d watch it, people watch television because television is there and television is on. They’ll watch whatever is there regardless, and I think those sort of programmes are very cheaply made". At this point I put it to him that some people choose to watch these type of shows, to which he added "yeah maybe they do, but they might set aside time for other things..why should things like News Night or Question Time..., why have those things gotta be on after nine o’clock at night or ten o’clock at night even, why can’t they be on during the day...they’re far more interesting than someone having their hair done...".
I decided to ask him why he thought it was that these sort of shows were on during the day. "I don’t really know...they’re catering to women, housewives..but why should a housewife just because she’s a housewife be fed a diet of pap on the telly?" (M35). In addition M35 claimed that he was conscious of stereotyping in television and the programmes that were geared towards a particular sex, something he strongly disagreed with.
M35 also included soaps in his dislikes whereas M33 reluctantly admitted that he did like to watch EastEnders and Coronation Street. He added, however, that he only did so in the communal setting of the student household, as it was more of a social activity. F26 shared much of the same dislikes as the males apart from the soaps, which she enjoys, whereas F20 and F28 were quite keen on most of these type of shows. All members agreed that their favourite programmes for watching as a group were more light-hearted shows such as Never mind the Buzzcocks (music quiz show) and Shooting Stars (comical celebrity quiz show). These were the only shows (apart from the news) that everyone could agree on and as they don’t require much concentration they encouraged talking and were therefore more social.
It was while discussing programme preferences that the issues of preferred channel and news programme were raised. Both males preferred BBC1 and 2, with M35 also liking C4. The females on the other hand agreed that they all liked BBC but there was a strong preference for ITV, especially for dramas. This is supported by the record of television viewing that the members kept for a week; with the males watching mainly news and sport on BBC and the females (when not watching the news) watching HTV (ITV) or a mixture of the other channels. Morley in his study comments that ‘there is a tendency for men to claim to prefer BBC (and in some cases BBC2) rather than ITV, and for women to do the opposite.’ (Morley 1986:167). But he also found that the men while stating that they preferred to watch BBC, actually went on to enthuse about programmes which were on ITV. This he suggests is due to the men actually thinking that these were the type of shows that would be expected to be on BBC. However, I did not find this in the student household where members did actually watch the channels they said they preferred.
Although as Morley notes there is a tendency for men to prefer news programming, there is variation in the area of local or regional news programmes, which women in his study claimed to like. The women were more interested in news that had some sort of ‘practical value to them in terms of their domestic responsibilities’ (Morley 1986: 168), and less interested in national news. As mentioned earlier all the members of the household have an interest in the news, preferring to watch it on BBC. M35 also enjoyed C4 news and the other members ITV (although more so at home). What was interesting was that F20 stated that she preferred national news while at home and regional news at university: "I watch local here to see what’s going on at home", whereas this was the reverse for the other members. All the members watched regional news but everyone claimed to prefer national news overall. Thus there was no evidence of any gender differences in this area.
Having looked at some of the various issues that can have an affect on television use within the ‘home’ there do seem to be some similarities between the student household and the studies of family television, as conducted by Morley and Lull. Their findings suggest that the differences in television use within the home are related to the issue of gender. This was particularly evident in the type of programmes preferred by both the males and females in the student household. The males preferred sports and news-related programmes whereas the females favoured soaps and sit-coms. However, this was not conclusive as the females were also regular viewers of the news and there was a degree of overlap in other preferred genres. Similarly, while the males preferred to watch with full attention without interruption - a ‘genderised’ characteristic of male viewers - this was also true for F26. I would add, however, that this may be a result of F26 sharing accommodation in the past mainly with males, as she remarked that she always watched with them and therefore got used to what they were watching. This in turn may have had an effect on the way that she watches, although there is no way of substantiating this.
While it might be accepted that the members did fit some of the patterns that Morley and Lull found in their studies, there were also differences which must be considered. In the matter of who decides what to watch there was no evidence to suggest any ‘genderised’ stereotypes. Rather I would suggest that this was an issue of power and relations between the members within the student household.
As Morley claims, there are factors such as ‘programme type, family position and cultural background’ which ‘interrelate to produce the dynamics of family viewing behaviour and responses’ (Morley 1986:17). I would suggest that this is also true for the student household. Many things need to be taken into consideration when studying television use and behaviour: views and preferences can change, as can the people themselves. And while this case study is too small to determine any patterns or draw any real conclusions it does suggest that there are both similarities and differences between the student household and the studies of Morley and Lull.
December 1997
