Introduction
This method journal reflects on the development of a research design for an exploratory study in communications and media studies, focusing on the assignment topic: “How do young audiences engage with and interpret reality and reality-style content (e.g., TikTok, influencers, and reality television) in relation to ethical concerns?” As a Year 2 undergraduate student in media studies, I am documenting my emerging understanding of research methods, emphasising assumptions about knowledge, meaning, and evidence, as well as the suitability and limitations of potential approaches. This is not a finalised research proposal but a reflective account of methodological thinking, positioned within a qualitative, constructivist framework. The journal explores the topic non-judgmentally, treating audience interpretations as socially constructed and highlighting tensions around authenticity, entertainment, and ethics. Key sections address framing the topic, epistemological assumptions, research approach, ethical considerations, and final reflections, drawing on sources such as Brennen (2017) and Bryman (2016) to inform a primarily qualitative direction centred on semi-structured interviews.
Framing the Research Topic and Research Interest
In media studies, reality and reality-style content represent a dynamic area where entertainment often blurs with notions of authenticity, prompting questions about audience engagement and ethical implications. My interest in this topic stems from observing how platforms like TikTok and influencer culture create perceptions of intimacy and relatability, seemingly offering glimpses into ‘real’ lives, while reality television provides a longer-form comparison through its portrayal of ‘ordinary’ people in performative settings (Hill, 2005). For young audiences, typically aged 18-24, these formats may intensify experiences of connection, yet they raise ethical concerns such as exploitation, privacy invasions, manipulation, emotional harm, commercial influences, and the blurring of genuine self-expression with strategic self-presentation.
This framing is exploratory and non-biased, acknowledging that my initial assumptions—shaped by personal exposure to social media—might influence how I perceive these issues. For instance, I assume that young people engage with such content not just for entertainment but to navigate identity and social norms, though audience responses could vary widely based on cultural contexts. The research question is open-ended, prioritising people’s experiences and interpretations over fixed truths, as reality is not inherent but constructed through social interactions (Brennen, 2017). This reflects a tentative interest in how ethical tensions, like the potential for influencers to manipulate vulnerability for profit, intersect with audience meaning-making. By treating the topic as fluid, I aim to avoid imposing preconceptions, recognising that my framing may evolve with further reflection. (198 words)
Assumptions about Knowledge and Meaning
Underlying any research design are fundamental assumptions about knowledge, meaning, and evidence, which in this case align with a constructivist perspective suitable for media studies. Constructivism posits that reality is not objective or fixed but socially constructed through interactions, language, and cultural contexts (Brennen, 2017). In the context of young audiences’ engagement with reality-style content, this means that concepts like ‘authenticity’ or ‘ethical concern’ are not universal truths but interpretations shaped by individual and collective experiences. For example, what one viewer perceives as genuine intimacy on TikTok might be seen by another as performative exploitation, influenced by societal norms around privacy and commercialism.
This assumption challenges positivist views that knowledge can be measured quantitatively, instead emphasising that meaning emerges from subjective interpretations. Brennen (2017) argues that qualitative researchers search for meaning and interpretation rather than prediction, acknowledging the researcher’s involvement in co-constructing knowledge. Applied here, evidence would derive from participants’ narratives, revealing how they navigate tensions between entertainment and ethics, such as the emotional harm from reality TV’s dramatised conflicts or influencers’ blurred boundaries between self-expression and sponsorship.
However, this approach has limitations; it assumes meanings are accessible through reflection, yet some interpretations may remain unspoken or influenced by power dynamics, potentially excluding marginalised voices (Bryman, 2016). Reflexively, my own background as a media consumer might bias how I interpret ‘young audiences,’ assuming a homogeneity that overlooks diverse socio-economic factors. Furthermore, treating knowledge as constructed implies evidence is contextual rather than generalisable, which suits an exploratory study but may limit broader applicability. Indeed, this contrasts with quantitative methods that could measure engagement patterns, but such approaches might overlook nuanced ethical interpretations, reinforcing why a constructivist lens prioritises depth over breadth.
Typically, in media research, this perspective allows for exploring how platforms like TikTok intensify ‘realness’ perceptions, yet it requires caution against overgeneralising from subjective data. Arguably, it fosters a more empathetic understanding of audience experiences, though it demands ongoing reflexivity to mitigate researcher assumptions. Overall, these epistemological foundations guide the study towards methods that capture interpretive complexities, while acknowledging that knowledge is partial and evolving. (402 words)
Research Approach and Overall Direction
Given the exploratory nature of the topic, a primarily qualitative research approach seems most appropriate, focusing on understanding interpretations rather than testing hypotheses. Qualitative inquiry seeks meaning, context, and lived experiences, which aligns with the constructivist assumption that reality is socially constructed (Brennen, 2017). For investigating how young audiences engage with reality-style content and ethical concerns, this direction would prioritise depth, exploring tensions around authenticity (e.g., influencers’ ‘relatable’ personas) and entertainment (e.g., reality TV’s performative drama), without assuming fixed outcomes.
I recommend semi-structured interviews as the main method, though this is not yet finalised and could be complemented by others like focus groups. Semi-structured interviews allow flexibility, enabling participants to elaborate on personal interpretations while guiding discussions towards key themes, such as privacy erosion or commercial manipulation (Bryman, 2016). This method would reveal well the subjective ways audiences construct meaning, for instance, how TikTok’s short-form intimacy might foster ethical unease about exploitation, or how reality TV’s ‘ordinary’ participants highlight performance-authenticity dilemmas. The researcher’s role would be active yet facilitative—involved in probing responses and co-constructing narratives, as qualitative inquiry is inherently subjective (Brennen, 2017). Reflexively, I recognise that my questions might reflect initial biases, potentially steering participants towards certain ethical framings.
However, limitations exist; interviews may exclude non-verbal cues or broader social contexts, and self-reported data could be influenced by social desirability, limiting insights into unconscious engagements (Bryman, 2016). They suit open-ended questions but might not capture real-time interactions, such as observing TikTok usage, which could be addressed through supplementary methods like diaries. Generally, this approach excludes quantitative generalisation, focusing instead on interpretive richness, which is apt for media studies but may overlook demographic patterns.
The overall direction involves purposive sampling of 10-15 young adults, ensuring diversity in media consumption, with thematic analysis to identify patterns in interpretations. This follows the principle that methods should align with research questions (Brennen, 2017), emphasising exploratory evidence over measurement. Therefore, while promising for uncovering ethical tensions, the approach demands careful piloting to mitigate exclusions. (398 words)
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations are central to research design, particularly in qualitative studies involving personal interpretations of sensitive topics like media ethics. In this proposed study on young audiences’ engagement with reality-style content, key principles include informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, anonymity, fair representation, and minimising potential discomfort, all while addressing researcher power dynamics (Bryman, 2016).
Participants must voluntarily agree and provide informed consent, fully understanding the study’s purpose, procedures, and risks, such as discussing emotional harm from content exploitation (Brennen, 2017). This ensures autonomy, with clear options to withdraw without repercussions. Confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained through pseudonyms and secure data storage, protecting identities especially when sharing views on privacy invasions in influencer culture or reality TV.
Representation is crucial; the research should avoid misinterpreting participants’ narratives, reflecting their diverse experiences without imposing biases. For instance, ethical concerns like manipulation in TikTok content might evoke discomfort during interviews, so safeguards like debriefing and support resources would be essential to mitigate harm. Researcher power, inherent in qualitative settings, requires reflexivity—I must acknowledge how my position might influence responses, perhaps by building rapport to reduce imbalances (Brennen, 2017).
However, challenges arise; young participants might feel pressured to conform, or discussions could unintentionally trigger distress related to personal ethical dilemmas. Bryman (2016) emphasises balancing benefits (e.g., amplifying audience voices) against risks, ensuring the study adheres to institutional ethics guidelines. Reflexively, my framing of ethics reflects constructivist assumptions, recognising that ‘harm’ is subjectively interpreted, yet this does not absolve responsibility. Overall, these considerations underscore the need for an ethics-approved protocol, prioritising participant welfare in an exploratory design. (312 words)
Final Reflections
Reflecting on this method journal, it highlights my developing grasp of research design in media studies, emphasising constructivist assumptions and qualitative methods like semi-structured interviews for exploring young audiences’ interpretations of reality-style content and ethics. While the approach promises insights into socially constructed meanings and tensions around authenticity, it also reveals limitations, such as subjectivity and potential exclusions, necessitating ongoing reflexivity.
This process has shown that research is iterative, with my initial framing evolving through critical engagement with sources like Brennen (2017) and Bryman (2016). Future steps might involve refining methods or incorporating mixed approaches, but the emphasis on ethical rigour and interpretive depth feels appropriate for an undergraduate exploratory study. Ultimately, this journal underscores the value of cautious, reflective thinking in addressing complex media phenomena. (148 words)
Conclusion
In summary, this method journal has outlined a reflective pathway for researching young audiences’ engagement with reality and reality-style content in relation to ethical concerns, grounded in constructivist principles and qualitative methods. By framing the topic exploratorily, examining epistemological assumptions, proposing semi-structured interviews, addressing ethics, and reflecting critically, it demonstrates sound methodological awareness at an undergraduate level. The implications suggest that such designs can illuminate nuanced audience experiences, though they require careful navigation of limitations to ensure rigour and relevance in media studies.
References
- Brennen, B. S. (2017). Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. Routledge.
- Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
- Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. Routledge.
