Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television
Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fasci...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Sociology compass 2008-03, Vol.2 (2), p.775-782 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 782 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 775 |
| container_title | Sociology compass |
| container_volume | 2 |
| creator | Montemurro, Beth |
| description | Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fascinating to watch. Yet, sociology, in method and theory, has rarely been applied to the analysis of reality television. This is not to say that reality television has not been examined academically. In fact, there is a growing body of research, primarily conducted by communication studies scholars, that takes this type of television seriously. Thus, there is a foundation for teaching the sociology of reality television and excellent resources for doing so.
Author recommends
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
This book was one of the first monographs on reality television. Andrejevic looks at the significance of the ‘digital era’ and the idea of how genres like reality television encourage interactivity. He was able to interview cast members of reality programs and analyze their experiences, a body of data not available elsewhere. Also, Andrejevic discusses multiple shows including Survivor, The Real World, and Big Brother.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Although not a piece of scholarly research, this book would be useful in a course on reality television or new media as it raises questions regarding ethics in the genre and it is also very readable and engaging. Brenton and Cohen discuss underpublicized controversial episodes in reality television production and ask at what cost to society and participants are these shows made. They ponder the future of reality television and where and when lines will be drawn as to what is too invasive or private or inhumane to be broadcast.
Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.
Dubrofsky looks at depictions of race and gender on the reality dating show The Bachelor. She notes how shows like this privilege whiteness through casting and editing. The Bachelor occasionally makes use of racial and ethnic minorities as exotic others when it serves the show to contrast such contestants. This is a good example of how racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes can be reinforced by media.
Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popula |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00092.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61744355</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>61744355</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2572-4dd6b1622ad7395a0154f62da3bb8aba9bab8ebfd80804da58fd80b5b9246aba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkLFOwzAQhiMEEqXwDp66JVzsOHGQGKCCgFRRRIMYLTtxiktaF7ulzduTEFQxcsv90n_fDZ_noRCCsJ3LRRAmNPRTwBBggCQAgBQH-yNvcCiO_-RT78y5BUCMUyADL8uVKN71ao5GaKKEXXUx2-pSocrYK5SbnbAlEmhmCm1qM2-QqdCLErXeNChXtfrSTpvVuXdSidqpi9899F7v7_Lxgz-ZZo_jm4lfYJpgPyrLWIYxxqJMSEoFhDSqYlwKIiUTUqRSSKZkVTJgEJWCsi5KKlMcxW1Pht6o_7u25nOr3IYvtStUXYuVMlvH4zCJIkJpe8j6w8Ia56yq-NrqpbAND4F35viCd1J4J4V35viPOb5v0ese3elaNf_m-Gw6Jm1qeb_ntduo_YEX9oPHCUkof3vKOGEAz8Aifku-AWozgqw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>61744355</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Montemurro, Beth</creator><creatorcontrib>Montemurro, Beth</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fascinating to watch. Yet, sociology, in method and theory, has rarely been applied to the analysis of reality television. This is not to say that reality television has not been examined academically. In fact, there is a growing body of research, primarily conducted by communication studies scholars, that takes this type of television seriously. Thus, there is a foundation for teaching the sociology of reality television and excellent resources for doing so.
Author recommends
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
This book was one of the first monographs on reality television. Andrejevic looks at the significance of the ‘digital era’ and the idea of how genres like reality television encourage interactivity. He was able to interview cast members of reality programs and analyze their experiences, a body of data not available elsewhere. Also, Andrejevic discusses multiple shows including Survivor, The Real World, and Big Brother.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Although not a piece of scholarly research, this book would be useful in a course on reality television or new media as it raises questions regarding ethics in the genre and it is also very readable and engaging. Brenton and Cohen discuss underpublicized controversial episodes in reality television production and ask at what cost to society and participants are these shows made. They ponder the future of reality television and where and when lines will be drawn as to what is too invasive or private or inhumane to be broadcast.
Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.
Dubrofsky looks at depictions of race and gender on the reality dating show The Bachelor. She notes how shows like this privilege whiteness through casting and editing. The Bachelor occasionally makes use of racial and ethnic minorities as exotic others when it serves the show to contrast such contestants. This is a good example of how racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes can be reinforced by media.
Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Hill is one of few researchers who has conducted detailed audience analysis. Using survey research and ethnographic methods, Hill looks at the ways viewers watch and interpret reality shows. She discusses motivations for watching, what appealed to viewers and what did not, and the degree to which viewers take what they see as real.
Jones, Janet Megan 2003. ‘Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother Transmission (2000, 2001, 2002). Investigating the Boundaries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Television.’New Media & Society 5: 400–21.
Janet Megan Jones conducted a three‐wave survey of 8,000 viewers of Big Brother UK in order to determine what audiences respond to on the program, particularly which characters and characteristics are most appealing. She argues that viewers enter into a ‘personalized reality contract’ with the show and the contestants in which they suspend their disbelief regarding the constructed nature of the show. Fans search for the truth or reality within the unreal environment; even though they know the show and its premise are contrived. This is one of the most comprehensive pieces of audience research and its interesting findings should generate class discussion.
Misra, Joya 2000. ‘Integrating The Real World into Introduction to Sociology: Making Sociological Concepts Real.’Teaching Sociology 28: 346–363.
A guide to using clips from the reality program, The Real World, to teach sociology. The principles suggested in this article may be useful in stimulating use of clips from reality programs generally and specifically.
Escoffrey, David S. 2006. How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn (eds) 2004. Understanding Reality Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Murray, Susan and Laurie Ouellette (eds) 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
These three edited volumes are excellent collections of articles about reality television. All deal with production, content, and consumption. Any would be suitable as a text for class as they all contain interesting chapters that cover themes like defining the genre, the reality television industry, political culture, and representations of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
Online materials
To my knowledge, there are no online resources specifically dealing with academic analysis of reality television. However, there are some Web sites that would be useful for exploration and incorporation in a course and in course projects.
http://www.nielsen.com/
The Nielsen media group, who conduct the Nielsen ratings of television viewing, provides a limited amount of free information regarding viewing patterns on its Web site. There is some material regarding ratings and some reports that can be accessed here. Information about grants and internships and other resources for students are also available on this site.
http://www.realitytvworld.com
This Web site contains comprehensive listings and information about reality shows, past and present. If you are unfamiliar with a particular reality show or students are unfamiliar, this Web site could be consulted for background information. Links to news articles about reality shows and contestants are also listed here.
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com
Television Without Pity provides very detailed recaps and discussion forums for selected television programs, including many reality shows (including America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, Project Runway, and Top Chef). If you are studying a show in depth or analyzing a particular show and miss an episode or want detailed summaries to use in class, this site is quite useful.
Sample syllabus
Course Outline and Selected Reading Assignments
1. Studying television from a sociological perspective
Ang, Ien 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gamson, Joshua 1998. Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grindstaff, Laura and Joseph Turow 2006. ‘Video Cultures: Television Sociology in the “New TV” Age.’Annual Review of Sociology 32:103–25.
2. Foundations of reality television
Baker, Sean 2003. ‘From Dragnet to Survivor: Historical and Cultural Perspectives on Reality Television.’ Pp. 57–72 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Cavender, Gray and Mark Fishman 1998. ‘Television Reality Crime Programs: Context and History.’ Pp. 1–18 in Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs, edited by Mark Fishman and Gray Cavender. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Clissold, Bradley D. 2004. ‘Candid Camera and the Origins of Reality TV: Contextualising a Historical Precedent.’ Pp. 33–53 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Corner, John 2002. ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.’Television & New Media 3: 255–269.
Gillan, Jennifer 2004. ‘From Ozzie Nelson to Ozzy Osbourne: the Genesis and Development of the Reality (Star) Sitcom.’ Pp. 54–70 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
McCarthy, Anna 2004. ‘“Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me”: Postwar Social Science and the “First Wave” of Reality Television.’ Pp. 19–39 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, UK: New York University Press.
3. Defining a genre
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Bignell, Jonathan 2005. Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty‐First Century. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Fetveit, Arild 1999. ‘Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture?’Media, Culture & Society 21: 787–804.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn 2004b. ‘Introduction: Understanding Reality TV.’ Pp. 1–32 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Kilborn, Richard 1994. ‘“How Real Can You Get?” Recent Developments in “Reality” Television.’European Journal of Communication 9: 421–39.
Murray, Susan 2004. ‘“I Think We Need a New Name For It”: The Meeting of Documentary and Reality TV.’ Pp. 40–56 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.
4. Production of reality
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Couldry, Nick 2004. ‘Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Television's Reality Games.’ Pp. 57–74 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 57–74. New York, NY: New York University Press.
5. Images, stereotypes, and issues of content
a. Representation and stereotypes
Andrejevic, Mark and Dean Colby 2006. Racism and Reality TV: The Case of MTV's Road Rules. Pp. 195–211 in How Real is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Callais, Todd M. and Melissa Szozda 2006. ‘Female Police]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1751-9020</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-9020</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00092.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Academic Disciplines ; Popular Culture ; Television</subject><ispartof>Sociology compass, 2008-03, Vol.2 (2), p.775-782</ispartof><rights>2008 The Author</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9020.2007.00092.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9020.2007.00092.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,33775,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Montemurro, Beth</creatorcontrib><title>Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television</title><title>Sociology compass</title><description><![CDATA[Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fascinating to watch. Yet, sociology, in method and theory, has rarely been applied to the analysis of reality television. This is not to say that reality television has not been examined academically. In fact, there is a growing body of research, primarily conducted by communication studies scholars, that takes this type of television seriously. Thus, there is a foundation for teaching the sociology of reality television and excellent resources for doing so.
Author recommends
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
This book was one of the first monographs on reality television. Andrejevic looks at the significance of the ‘digital era’ and the idea of how genres like reality television encourage interactivity. He was able to interview cast members of reality programs and analyze their experiences, a body of data not available elsewhere. Also, Andrejevic discusses multiple shows including Survivor, The Real World, and Big Brother.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Although not a piece of scholarly research, this book would be useful in a course on reality television or new media as it raises questions regarding ethics in the genre and it is also very readable and engaging. Brenton and Cohen discuss underpublicized controversial episodes in reality television production and ask at what cost to society and participants are these shows made. They ponder the future of reality television and where and when lines will be drawn as to what is too invasive or private or inhumane to be broadcast.
Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.
Dubrofsky looks at depictions of race and gender on the reality dating show The Bachelor. She notes how shows like this privilege whiteness through casting and editing. The Bachelor occasionally makes use of racial and ethnic minorities as exotic others when it serves the show to contrast such contestants. This is a good example of how racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes can be reinforced by media.
Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Hill is one of few researchers who has conducted detailed audience analysis. Using survey research and ethnographic methods, Hill looks at the ways viewers watch and interpret reality shows. She discusses motivations for watching, what appealed to viewers and what did not, and the degree to which viewers take what they see as real.
Jones, Janet Megan 2003. ‘Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother Transmission (2000, 2001, 2002). Investigating the Boundaries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Television.’New Media & Society 5: 400–21.
Janet Megan Jones conducted a three‐wave survey of 8,000 viewers of Big Brother UK in order to determine what audiences respond to on the program, particularly which characters and characteristics are most appealing. She argues that viewers enter into a ‘personalized reality contract’ with the show and the contestants in which they suspend their disbelief regarding the constructed nature of the show. Fans search for the truth or reality within the unreal environment; even though they know the show and its premise are contrived. This is one of the most comprehensive pieces of audience research and its interesting findings should generate class discussion.
Misra, Joya 2000. ‘Integrating The Real World into Introduction to Sociology: Making Sociological Concepts Real.’Teaching Sociology 28: 346–363.
A guide to using clips from the reality program, The Real World, to teach sociology. The principles suggested in this article may be useful in stimulating use of clips from reality programs generally and specifically.
Escoffrey, David S. 2006. How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn (eds) 2004. Understanding Reality Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Murray, Susan and Laurie Ouellette (eds) 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
These three edited volumes are excellent collections of articles about reality television. All deal with production, content, and consumption. Any would be suitable as a text for class as they all contain interesting chapters that cover themes like defining the genre, the reality television industry, political culture, and representations of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
Online materials
To my knowledge, there are no online resources specifically dealing with academic analysis of reality television. However, there are some Web sites that would be useful for exploration and incorporation in a course and in course projects.
http://www.nielsen.com/
The Nielsen media group, who conduct the Nielsen ratings of television viewing, provides a limited amount of free information regarding viewing patterns on its Web site. There is some material regarding ratings and some reports that can be accessed here. Information about grants and internships and other resources for students are also available on this site.
http://www.realitytvworld.com
This Web site contains comprehensive listings and information about reality shows, past and present. If you are unfamiliar with a particular reality show or students are unfamiliar, this Web site could be consulted for background information. Links to news articles about reality shows and contestants are also listed here.
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com
Television Without Pity provides very detailed recaps and discussion forums for selected television programs, including many reality shows (including America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, Project Runway, and Top Chef). If you are studying a show in depth or analyzing a particular show and miss an episode or want detailed summaries to use in class, this site is quite useful.
Sample syllabus
Course Outline and Selected Reading Assignments
1. Studying television from a sociological perspective
Ang, Ien 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gamson, Joshua 1998. Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grindstaff, Laura and Joseph Turow 2006. ‘Video Cultures: Television Sociology in the “New TV” Age.’Annual Review of Sociology 32:103–25.
2. Foundations of reality television
Baker, Sean 2003. ‘From Dragnet to Survivor: Historical and Cultural Perspectives on Reality Television.’ Pp. 57–72 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Cavender, Gray and Mark Fishman 1998. ‘Television Reality Crime Programs: Context and History.’ Pp. 1–18 in Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs, edited by Mark Fishman and Gray Cavender. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Clissold, Bradley D. 2004. ‘Candid Camera and the Origins of Reality TV: Contextualising a Historical Precedent.’ Pp. 33–53 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Corner, John 2002. ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.’Television & New Media 3: 255–269.
Gillan, Jennifer 2004. ‘From Ozzie Nelson to Ozzy Osbourne: the Genesis and Development of the Reality (Star) Sitcom.’ Pp. 54–70 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
McCarthy, Anna 2004. ‘“Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me”: Postwar Social Science and the “First Wave” of Reality Television.’ Pp. 19–39 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, UK: New York University Press.
3. Defining a genre
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Bignell, Jonathan 2005. Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty‐First Century. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Fetveit, Arild 1999. ‘Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture?’Media, Culture & Society 21: 787–804.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn 2004b. ‘Introduction: Understanding Reality TV.’ Pp. 1–32 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Kilborn, Richard 1994. ‘“How Real Can You Get?” Recent Developments in “Reality” Television.’European Journal of Communication 9: 421–39.
Murray, Susan 2004. ‘“I Think We Need a New Name For It”: The Meeting of Documentary and Reality TV.’ Pp. 40–56 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.
4. Production of reality
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Couldry, Nick 2004. ‘Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Television's Reality Games.’ Pp. 57–74 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 57–74. New York, NY: New York University Press.
5. Images, stereotypes, and issues of content
a. Representation and stereotypes
Andrejevic, Mark and Dean Colby 2006. Racism and Reality TV: The Case of MTV's Road Rules. Pp. 195–211 in How Real is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Callais, Todd M. and Melissa Szozda 2006. ‘Female Police]]></description><subject>Academic Disciplines</subject><subject>Popular Culture</subject><subject>Television</subject><issn>1751-9020</issn><issn>1751-9020</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkLFOwzAQhiMEEqXwDp66JVzsOHGQGKCCgFRRRIMYLTtxiktaF7ulzduTEFQxcsv90n_fDZ_noRCCsJ3LRRAmNPRTwBBggCQAgBQH-yNvcCiO_-RT78y5BUCMUyADL8uVKN71ao5GaKKEXXUx2-pSocrYK5SbnbAlEmhmCm1qM2-QqdCLErXeNChXtfrSTpvVuXdSidqpi9899F7v7_Lxgz-ZZo_jm4lfYJpgPyrLWIYxxqJMSEoFhDSqYlwKIiUTUqRSSKZkVTJgEJWCsi5KKlMcxW1Pht6o_7u25nOr3IYvtStUXYuVMlvH4zCJIkJpe8j6w8Ia56yq-NrqpbAND4F35viCd1J4J4V35viPOb5v0ese3elaNf_m-Gw6Jm1qeb_ntduo_YEX9oPHCUkof3vKOGEAz8Aifku-AWozgqw</recordid><startdate>200803</startdate><enddate>200803</enddate><creator>Montemurro, Beth</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200803</creationdate><title>Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television</title><author>Montemurro, Beth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2572-4dd6b1622ad7395a0154f62da3bb8aba9bab8ebfd80804da58fd80b5b9246aba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Academic Disciplines</topic><topic>Popular Culture</topic><topic>Television</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Montemurro, Beth</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Sociology compass</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Montemurro, Beth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television</atitle><jtitle>Sociology compass</jtitle><date>2008-03</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>775</spage><epage>782</epage><pages>775-782</pages><issn>1751-9020</issn><eissn>1751-9020</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fascinating to watch. Yet, sociology, in method and theory, has rarely been applied to the analysis of reality television. This is not to say that reality television has not been examined academically. In fact, there is a growing body of research, primarily conducted by communication studies scholars, that takes this type of television seriously. Thus, there is a foundation for teaching the sociology of reality television and excellent resources for doing so.
Author recommends
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
This book was one of the first monographs on reality television. Andrejevic looks at the significance of the ‘digital era’ and the idea of how genres like reality television encourage interactivity. He was able to interview cast members of reality programs and analyze their experiences, a body of data not available elsewhere. Also, Andrejevic discusses multiple shows including Survivor, The Real World, and Big Brother.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Although not a piece of scholarly research, this book would be useful in a course on reality television or new media as it raises questions regarding ethics in the genre and it is also very readable and engaging. Brenton and Cohen discuss underpublicized controversial episodes in reality television production and ask at what cost to society and participants are these shows made. They ponder the future of reality television and where and when lines will be drawn as to what is too invasive or private or inhumane to be broadcast.
Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.
Dubrofsky looks at depictions of race and gender on the reality dating show The Bachelor. She notes how shows like this privilege whiteness through casting and editing. The Bachelor occasionally makes use of racial and ethnic minorities as exotic others when it serves the show to contrast such contestants. This is a good example of how racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes can be reinforced by media.
Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Hill is one of few researchers who has conducted detailed audience analysis. Using survey research and ethnographic methods, Hill looks at the ways viewers watch and interpret reality shows. She discusses motivations for watching, what appealed to viewers and what did not, and the degree to which viewers take what they see as real.
Jones, Janet Megan 2003. ‘Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother Transmission (2000, 2001, 2002). Investigating the Boundaries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Television.’New Media & Society 5: 400–21.
Janet Megan Jones conducted a three‐wave survey of 8,000 viewers of Big Brother UK in order to determine what audiences respond to on the program, particularly which characters and characteristics are most appealing. She argues that viewers enter into a ‘personalized reality contract’ with the show and the contestants in which they suspend their disbelief regarding the constructed nature of the show. Fans search for the truth or reality within the unreal environment; even though they know the show and its premise are contrived. This is one of the most comprehensive pieces of audience research and its interesting findings should generate class discussion.
Misra, Joya 2000. ‘Integrating The Real World into Introduction to Sociology: Making Sociological Concepts Real.’Teaching Sociology 28: 346–363.
A guide to using clips from the reality program, The Real World, to teach sociology. The principles suggested in this article may be useful in stimulating use of clips from reality programs generally and specifically.
Escoffrey, David S. 2006. How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn (eds) 2004. Understanding Reality Television. London, UK: Routledge.
Murray, Susan and Laurie Ouellette (eds) 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
These three edited volumes are excellent collections of articles about reality television. All deal with production, content, and consumption. Any would be suitable as a text for class as they all contain interesting chapters that cover themes like defining the genre, the reality television industry, political culture, and representations of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
Online materials
To my knowledge, there are no online resources specifically dealing with academic analysis of reality television. However, there are some Web sites that would be useful for exploration and incorporation in a course and in course projects.
http://www.nielsen.com/
The Nielsen media group, who conduct the Nielsen ratings of television viewing, provides a limited amount of free information regarding viewing patterns on its Web site. There is some material regarding ratings and some reports that can be accessed here. Information about grants and internships and other resources for students are also available on this site.
http://www.realitytvworld.com
This Web site contains comprehensive listings and information about reality shows, past and present. If you are unfamiliar with a particular reality show or students are unfamiliar, this Web site could be consulted for background information. Links to news articles about reality shows and contestants are also listed here.
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com
Television Without Pity provides very detailed recaps and discussion forums for selected television programs, including many reality shows (including America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, Project Runway, and Top Chef). If you are studying a show in depth or analyzing a particular show and miss an episode or want detailed summaries to use in class, this site is quite useful.
Sample syllabus
Course Outline and Selected Reading Assignments
1. Studying television from a sociological perspective
Ang, Ien 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gamson, Joshua 1998. Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grindstaff, Laura and Joseph Turow 2006. ‘Video Cultures: Television Sociology in the “New TV” Age.’Annual Review of Sociology 32:103–25.
2. Foundations of reality television
Baker, Sean 2003. ‘From Dragnet to Survivor: Historical and Cultural Perspectives on Reality Television.’ Pp. 57–72 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Cavender, Gray and Mark Fishman 1998. ‘Television Reality Crime Programs: Context and History.’ Pp. 1–18 in Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs, edited by Mark Fishman and Gray Cavender. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Clissold, Bradley D. 2004. ‘Candid Camera and the Origins of Reality TV: Contextualising a Historical Precedent.’ Pp. 33–53 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Corner, John 2002. ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.’Television & New Media 3: 255–269.
Gillan, Jennifer 2004. ‘From Ozzie Nelson to Ozzy Osbourne: the Genesis and Development of the Reality (Star) Sitcom.’ Pp. 54–70 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
McCarthy, Anna 2004. ‘“Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me”: Postwar Social Science and the “First Wave” of Reality Television.’ Pp. 19–39 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, UK: New York University Press.
3. Defining a genre
Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Bignell, Jonathan 2005. Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty‐First Century. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Fetveit, Arild 1999. ‘Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture?’Media, Culture & Society 21: 787–804.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn 2004b. ‘Introduction: Understanding Reality TV.’ Pp. 1–32 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.
Kilborn, Richard 1994. ‘“How Real Can You Get?” Recent Developments in “Reality” Television.’European Journal of Communication 9: 421–39.
Murray, Susan 2004. ‘“I Think We Need a New Name For It”: The Meeting of Documentary and Reality TV.’ Pp. 40–56 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.
4. Production of reality
Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.
Couldry, Nick 2004. ‘Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Television's Reality Games.’ Pp. 57–74 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 57–74. New York, NY: New York University Press.
5. Images, stereotypes, and issues of content
a. Representation and stereotypes
Andrejevic, Mark and Dean Colby 2006. Racism and Reality TV: The Case of MTV's Road Rules. Pp. 195–211 in How Real is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Callais, Todd M. and Melissa Szozda 2006. ‘Female Police]]></abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00092.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1751-9020 |
| ispartof | Sociology compass, 2008-03, Vol.2 (2), p.775-782 |
| issn | 1751-9020 1751-9020 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61744355 |
| source | Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Academic Disciplines Popular Culture Television |
| title | Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T03%3A58%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Teaching%20&%20Learning%20Guide%20for:%20Toward%20a%20Sociology%20of%20Reality%20Television&rft.jtitle=Sociology%20compass&rft.au=Montemurro,%20Beth&rft.date=2008-03&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=775&rft.epage=782&rft.pages=775-782&rft.issn=1751-9020&rft.eissn=1751-9020&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00092.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61744355%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=61744355&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |