relevance of critical thinking in communication and cultural studies

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies

Communication

Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Critical and Cultural Studies

Introduction, general overviews.

Definitions and Concepts
Anthologies
Bibliographies
Associations and Centers

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Culture Shock and Communication
LGBTQ+ Family Communication
Queerbaiting
Find more forthcoming titles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Critical and Cultural Studies by Meenakshi Gigi Durham LAST REVIEWED: 16 November 2023 LAST MODIFIED: 26 April 2018 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0041

Critical and cultural studies of communication are focused on the analysis of cultural artifacts and practices in relation to the social formations in which they exist. The interrelationships of cultural signs, their conditions of production, and their reception by audiences are at the core of such studies. Critical and cultural studies derive from Marxist approaches to society and culture but have expanded to engage a broad range of theoretical and methodological areas, including semiotics and structuralism, literary theory, rhetoric, philosophy, sociology, ethnography, film theory, gender studies, critical race theory, cybercultures, politics, and the fine arts, among others. Critical theory is generally associated with the ideas of the University of Frankfurt’s Institute for Social Research, often referred to as the “Frankfurt School,” while cultural studies had its genesis in the UK, principally at the Birmingham Center for Critical and Cultural Studies. But critical theory and cultural studies are deeply mutually implicated, and their interrelationships are significant. Critical and cultural studies have proliferated internationally, with distinct perspectives and approaches characterizing their various national, political, and societal contexts. The project of critical and cultural studies of communication is tied to praxis. Critical and cultural studies represent a radical and subversive intervention in the academy because of their basic goal of troubling the term “culture” and linking it to social power and the construction and dissemination of knowledge.

Because both critical theory and cultural studies have extensive histories in the study of communication, a number of books provide good overarching guides to the developments in these fields. Some of these comprehensive overviews trace the evolution of these theoretical fields (e.g., Agger 1992 , Kellner 1989 ) while others offer analyses of the sociopolitical contexts that contributed to different schools of thought within them (e.g., Lewis 2008 ). Storey 1998 and Taylor and Harris 2008 elucidate the connections between critical and cultural theory and media studies, as does Driscoll 2010 . Storey 2010 focuses on the centrality of the analysis of power in cultural studies, drawing on Raymond Williams’s conceptualization of culture as a realized signifying system as well as Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. The American development of cultural studies is often neglected, and Hardt 1992 provides a clear history of theoretical currents in the United States and their intersections with European theoretical models. All of the general “field guides” listed here provide useful introductions to the major theoretical developments and the key scholars in these areas and thus serve as a starting point for reading original works in critical theory and cultural studies. The books’ bibliographies are excellent sources of primary texts, as well.

Agger, Ben. 1992. Cultural studies as critical theory . Philadelphia: Falmer.

Provides not only an explanation of the ascendance of cultural studies as an academic endeavor but also introductions to the major developments in the field, from Marxism through postmodernism and feminism. Agger’s clear and comprehensible overviews capture the core elements of the most significant theoretical and historical movements in cultural studies, though they are now somewhat dated in their allusions.

Driscoll, Catherine. 2010. Modernist cultural studies . Gainesville: Univ. Press of Florida.

DOI: 10.5744/florida/9780813034249.001.0001

Noting that this book “is not a theoretical primer in any sense,” the author traces the emergence of cultural studies in terms of modernist reflections on culture, arguing persuasively that cultural studies continues the key conceptual premises of modernism, especially with regard to the analysis of power and ideology. Her analytical artifacts are mainly literary and cinematic, with occasional gestures to popular culture, but the work is theoretically rigorous: chapter 8, “The Invention of Culture,” is particularly useful in its explication of the genesis of British cultural studies.

Gunster, Shane. 2004. Capitalizing on culture: Critical theory for cultural studies . Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.

DOI: 10.3138/9781442672727

Attempting to bridge the infamous gap between political economy and cultural studies, the author demonstrates how the work of the Frankfurt School theorists can shed light on the relationships among culture, commodity, and social subjectivity. This book offers a sound introduction to important debates in the field as well as some of its most important scholars and their work.

Hardt, Hanno. 1992. Critical communication studies: Communication, history, and theory in America . New York: Routledge.

DOI: 10.4324/9780203312506

Hardt notes that the Continental and British origins of critical theory mean these theories can’t simply be mapped onto the American social and political scene: the intellectual history of communication studies in the US context must be considered to understand the potential of cultural studies and critical theory here. Hardt’s discussion is vitally important to understanding the field at large.

Kellner, Douglas M. 1989. Critical theory, Marxism, and modernity . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

The author provides a detailed account of the genesis and development of critical theory in the mid- to late 20th century. This introductory guide is fortified by Kellner’s profound and extensive knowledge of the goals, history, and works of the Frankfurt School’s influential scholars.

Lewis, Jeff. 2008. Cultural studies: The basics . 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

An indispensable critical introduction to the most important theoretical and analytical paradigms in the broad field of cultural studies. The author offers extraordinarily thorough, lucid, and insightful discussions of important concepts—as fundamental as “culture,” “structure,” and “capitalism”—as well as explanations of major subdisciplines and theories, with references to key texts.

Storey, John. 1998. An introduction to cultural theory and popular culture . Athens, GA: Univ. of Georgia Press.

Chronological and historical in its organization, this well-written text traces key currents in cultural studies with a view to its application in the analysis of popular culture. Theoretically focused chapters in the book are bracketed by an introduction that defines the terrain of popular culture and a conclusion that interrogates the political aims of studies of popular culture.

Storey, John. 2010. Culture and power in cultural studies: The politics of signification . Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

Defining cultures as “shifting networks of signification,” Storey charts the trajectory of cultural studies from Raymond Williams’s early dismantling of the high/low culture dichotomy to a rethinking of globalization in an era of new media. The book’s chapters, which focus on an eclectic range of artifacts from the Vietnam War to the Victorian “invention” of Christmas, provide clear examples of common conceptual and methodological approaches to cultural studies.

Taylor, Paul, and Jan Li Harris. 2008. Critical theories of mass media: Then and now . Berkshire, UK: Open Univ. Press.

Divided into two sections—“Then” and “Now”—this book first summarizes some of the central ideas of prominent critical theorists and then applies these theories to contemporary media, focusing particularly on celebrity culture and its mediation. The authors are skeptical of the trends toward “active audience” theory and the possibility of empowerment through media consumption, providing a certain necessary perspective.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Communication »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Accounting Communication
Acculturation Processes and Communication
Action Assembly Theory
Adherence and Communication
Adolescence and the Media
Advertisements, Televised Political
Advertising
Advertising, Children and
Advertising, International
Advocacy Journalism
Agenda Setting
Annenberg, Walter H.
Apologies and Accounts
Applied Communication Research Methods
Argumentation
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Advertising
Attitude-Behavior Consistency
Audience Fragmentation
Authoritarian Societies, Journalism in
Bakhtin, Mikhail
Bandwagon Effect
Baudrillard, Jean
Blockchain and Communication
Bourdieu, Pierre
Brand Equity
British and Irish Magazine, History of the
Broadcasting, Public Service
Capture, Media
Castells, Manuel
Civil Rights Movement and the Media, The
Cognitive Dissonance
Collective Memory, Communication and
Comedic News
Communication Apprehension
Communication Campaigns
Communication, Definitions and Concepts of
Communication History
Communication Law
Communication Management
Communication Networks
Communication, Philosophy of
Community Attachment
Community Journalism
Community Structure Approach
Computational Journalism
Computer-Mediated Communication
Content Analysis
Corporate Social Responsibility and Communication
Crisis Communication
Critical and Cultural Studies
Cross-tools and Cross-media Effects
Cultivation
Cultural Persuadables
Cyberpolitics
Death, Dying, and Communication
Debates, Televised
Deliberation
Developmental Communication
Diffusion of Innovations
Digital Intimacies
Digital Literacy
Diplomacy, Public
Distributed Work, Comunication and
E-democracy/E-participation
E-Government
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM)
Embedded Coverage
Entertainment
Entertainment-Education
Environmental Communication
Ethnic Media
Experiments
Families, Multicultural
Family Communication
Federal Communications Commission
Feminist Data Studies
Feminist Theory
Focus Groups
Freedom of the Press
Friendships, Intercultural
Gatekeeping
Global Media, History of
Goffman, Erving
Habermas, Jürgen
Habituation and Communication
Health Communication
Homelessness and Communication
Hostile Media Effect
Identification with Media Characters
Identity, Cultural
Image Repair Theory
Implicit Measurement
Impression Management
Infographics
Information and Communication Technology for Development
Information Management
Information Overload
Information Processing
Infotainment
Innis, Harold
Instructional Communication
Integrated Marketing Communications
Interactivity
Intercultural Capital
Intercultural Communication
Intercultural Communication, Tourism and
Intercultural Communication, Worldview in
Intercultural Competence
Intercultural New Media
Intergenerational Communication
Intergroup Communication
International Communications
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal LGBTQ Communication
Interpretation/Reception
Interpretive Communities
Journalism, Accuracy in
Journalism, Alternative
Journalism and Trauma
Journalism, Citizen
Journalism, Citizen, History of
Journalism, Interpretive
Journalism, Peace
Journalism, Tabloid
Journalists, Violence against
Knowledge Gap
Lazarsfeld, Paul
Leadership and Communication
McLuhan, Marshall
Media and Time
Media Convergence
Media Credibility
Media Dependency
Media Economics
Media Economics, Theories of
Media, Educational
Media Effects
Media Ethics
Media Exposure Measurement
Media, Gays and Lesbians in the
Media Literacy
Media Logic
Media Management
Media Policy and Governance
Media Regulation
Media, Social
Media Sociology
Media Systems Theory
Merton, Robert K.
Message Characteristics and Persuasion
Mobile Communication Studies
Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Approaches to
Multinational Organizations, Communication and Culture in
Murdoch, Rupert
Narrative Engagement
Narrative Persuasion
Net Neutrality
News Framing
News Media Coverage of Women
NGOs, Communication and
Online Campaigning
Open Access
Organizational Change and Organizational Change Communicat...
Organizational Communication
Organizational Communication, Aging and
Parasocial Theory in Communication
Participation, Civic/Political
Patient-Provider Communication
Peacebuilding and Communication
Perceived Realism
Personalized Communication
Persuasion and Social Influence
Persuasion, Resisting
Photojournalism
Political Advertising
Political Communication, Normative Analysis of
Political Economy
Political Knowledge
Political Marketing
Political Scandals
Political Socialization
Polls, Opinion
Product Placement
Public Interest Communication
Public Opinion
Public Relations
Public Sphere
Queer Migration and Digital Media
Racism and Communication
Radio Studies
Reality Television
Reasoned Action Frameworks
Religion and the Media
Reporting, Investigative
Rhetoric and Intercultural Communication
Rhetoric, Religious
Rhetoric, Visual
Risk Communication
Rumor and Communication
Schramm, Wilbur
Science Communication
Scripps, E. W.
Selective Exposure
Sense-Making/Sensemaking
Sesame Street
Sex in the Media
Small-Group Communication
Social Capital
Social Cognition
Social Construction
Social Identity Theory and Communication
Social Interaction
Social Movements
Social Network Analysis
Social Protest
Sports Communication
Superdiversity
Symbolic Interactionism in Communication
Synchrony in Intercultural Communication
Telecommunications History/Policy
Television, Cable
Third Culture Kids
Third-Person Effect
Time Warner
Transmedia Storytelling
Two-Step Flow
United Nations and Communication
Urban Communication
Uses and Gratifications
Video Deficit
Video Games and Communication
Violence in the Media
Virtual Reality and Communication
Visual Communication
Web Archiving
Whistleblowing
Whiteness Theory in Intercultural Communication
Youth and Media
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.148.24.167]
185.148.24.167

Search Menu
Advance Articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Why Submit?
About Journal of Communication
About International Communication Association
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The case for critical media effects, critical media effects: intellectual foundations, the critical media effects framework: roadmap, central pillars, and salient examples, charting the terrain ahead: implications and future directions, acknowledgements.

< Previous

Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural Communication and Media Effects through Power, Intersectionality, Context, and Agency

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Srividya Ramasubramanian, Omotayo O Banjo, Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural Communication and Media Effects through Power, Intersectionality, Context, and Agency, Journal of Communication , Volume 70, Issue 3, June 2020, Pages 379–400, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa014

Permissions Icon Permissions

In this essay, we advance the Critical Media Effects (CME) framework as a way of bridging two major subfields of communication that seldom speak to one another: media effects scholarship and critical cultural communication. Critical Media Effects is situated within the dominant mode of social scientific theorizing within media effects scholarship and draws on four key interrelated concepts from critical cultural communication: power, intersectionality, context, and agency. Critical Media Effects advocates for greater reflexivity, rigor, and nuance in theorizing about media effects to better respond to the complexity and dynamicity of emerging global sociopolitical mediated contexts. Recommendations, salient examples, and future directions for co-creating a shared research roadmap for CME are discussed. Through this work of bridging, we hope to promote more collaborative partnerships, productive engagement, and mutual solidarity across these two important subfields to address the most pressing social issues and challenges of the world today.

For about 50 years, tensions between critical cultural and social psychological approaches to studying the relationship between media and audiences has persisted, and in some cases has fueled volatile debates between scholars of these two different paradigms ( Fink & Gantz, 1996 , Morgan, 2007 ; Splichal & Mance, 2018 ). As critical social scientists who are trained in the media effects tradition and who study identity-related questions, we have found ourselves often caught up in methodological polarization and theoretical divides about ontological and epistemological differences that do not completely speak to our lived experiences. The multi-device, multi-platform, multiple-media environment that many media users inhabit today as digital natives means that basic conceptual definitions such as media, audience, and effects are in flux. Within the context of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, social inequalities, rising populist fascist rhetoric, climate change emergency, rampant misinformation, and vitriolic online environments, it is important to interrogate how communication scholarship continues to stay relevant. As media landscapes become more dynamic, audiences become more complex, and sociopolitical contexts evolve rapidly, we advocate for media effects research to take a multi-perspectival approach to effectively address the most pressing research issues of today by drawing from subfields such as critical cultural communication.

Critical cultural communication and media effects scholarship are not necessarily opposing concepts and frameworks; each approach just answers different questions. Critical cultural approaches to media interrogate questions related to systemic power in media ownership, representations, and audience reception. Media effects scholarship typically uses quantitative methods to investigate the nature of media content and its impact on individual attitudes and behaviors as well as intergroup relationships. While media effects scholarship emphasizes issues such as objectivity, categorization, and generalizability, critical cultural communication focuses more on issues of power, positionality, and systemic inequalities. As Splichal and Mance (2018) state, “While critical theory and positivism are definitely opposed conceptual frameworks, critical theory and empirical research per se are not. One can combine them rather than endorse one of them against the other” (p. 233). The current silences, siloed thinking, and serious gaps between these subfields are detrimental to meaningfully theorizing about the new media environments, new generation of media prosumers, and new set of emerging sociopolitical challenges today. It is important for media effects theorizing to go beyond the individual to also consider how structural, institutional, and societal influences shape media experiences. Similarly, critical communication scholars could benefit from empirical, evidence-based support to help nuance theoretical mechanisms.

Almost a decade ago, Meyrowitz (2008) argued for combining critical/cultural studies and medium theory to provide a more holistic view of how media consumers interact with the media. Other scholars have used the term quantitative criticalists to describe scholars who use quantitative data to shed light on the structures and factors that lead to inequalities and injustices ( McLaren, 2017 ; Stage & Wells, 2014 ). Additionally, they might “also question measures and analytic practices used in quantitative research, to ensure that they adequately represent circumstances and contexts, and do not themselves inadvertently perpetuate exclusion and hierarchy” ( McLaren, 2017 , p. 391). Emerging areas such as data activism and critical big data studies are examples of how empirical research could be connected with social justice in meaningful ways ( Milan & van der Velden, 2016 ). Some examples are Data 4 Black Lives , a collective of social scientists and critical scholars that uses data sciences to bring measurable positive outcomes for Black people and the Resource Center for Minority Data at the University of Michigan that codesigns studies with communities of color.

The purpose of this article is to create the much-needed space to open up important dialogs between these two subfields to ask socially relevant research questions relating to media impacts and use multiple approaches to address them at the individual, intergroup, organizational, community, and global levels. Beyond a generic call for greater cross-area partnerships, we propose a Critical Media Effects (CME) framework as a starting point for co-creating a research roadmap for facilitating this bridging in meaningful and effective ways.

The word “critical” means: (a) consisting of criticism, (b) exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation of, (c) relating to, or being a turning point or specially important juncture, (d) indispensable, vital, and (e) of sufficient size to sustain a chain reaction. In this essay, we use “critical” to imply all these meanings in advocating for a CME perspective: as a critique of existing literature, to bring attention to an urgent imperative for a critical turn in media effects research, and with the hope of starting a ripple effect.

Although working class women of color possibly form the majority of the world’s population, much of communication scholarship has been conducted within Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) nations (Afifi & Cornejo, in press; Alper, Katz, & Clark, 2016 ; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010 ). The popular theories, canonical texts, and mainstream journal publications within media effects scholarship have historically been developed and framed within white U.S.-centric ableist heteronormative male contexts without interrogating how these choices might limit theorizing. What is considered normal within media effects scholarship could be a skewed version of reality based on limited samples and the researchers’ own worldviews. By excluding non-Western or non-white perspectives, media effects scholars assume Eurocentric views as universal (which violates a significant tenet of theory building), dismiss the culturally distinctive experience of other audience members, and inadvertently participate in a form of symbolic annihilation. Even when there are attempts to go beyond the United States, media imperialism and Eurocentrism are often reinforced by centering scholarship from dominant groups in Western European nations with long histories of colonization in the Global South and discriminatory policies against minoritized groups.

Research on media effects scholarship is often examined at the individual level. In fact, media effects scholarship is often equated with media psychology today, which leads to an emphasis on the individual psyche while largely neglecting social, cultural, political, economic and other macro factors that shape media effects. Although the notion that media can have uniform, direct, and powerful effects on all viewers has largely been rejected, research on conditional media effects have focused on individual-level differences based on biological, psychological, and personality factors such as sensation-seeking, arousal, need for cognition, perspective taking, authoritarianism, and moral dispositions ( Oliver, 2002 ). Although there is certainly merit to individual differences, media effects scholarship ought to contend with systemic, structural, and institutional inequalities, which play a role in shaping media outcomes.

Even when theories such as agenda setting, social cognitive theory, and social identity theory go beyond individual differences to include intergroup relations, they do not engage with these concepts from a critical cultural perspective by considering structural hierarchies. For instance, we note that intergroup processes within media effects scholarship often simply designate groups as “ingroups” and “outgroups” without explicitly acknowledging power relations between majority–minority groups. For example, Social Identity Theory (SIT) ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ), a popular theory to study intergroup relations, posits that people, motivated to see themselves positively, evaluate themselves and the groups to which they belong more favorably than socially distant ones or out-groups. However, it does not adequately account for the role that hierarchical structure plays in motivations for an individual’s need to belong and thus neglects the degree to which individuals’ social location within a social system shapes media experience. Self-Categorization Theory comes close to addressing individuals as members of a social system but its emphasis is largely on cognitive grouping of identities and the circumstantial salience which prime different aspects of the social self ( Turner & Reynolds, 2011 ).

Another concern within traditional media effects scholarship is that media patterns among majority groups are assumed to be normative and those of minoritized groups are narrowly defined as negative, abnormal, problematic, and even pathological. For instance, it is common for media content, use, and outcomes to be defined and framed as negative, violent, or excessive by researchers with little or no involvement with communities that are being studied. This gap between the researcher and the researched shapes how research problems are defined and what solutions are proposed within media effects. Even when positive and pro-social media effects such as elevation, empathy, and inspiration have been examined ( Oliver & Raney, 2011 ), these effects have been explained within dominant mainstream groups, which leads to the question, “Positive effects for whom?” Given the power differences among minoritized and majority groups, it is crucial, then, that so-called positive media effects are inclusive and take power into consideration by asking “Who gets to feel positive about whom and why?”

Even when media effects scholarship does focus on minoritized media experiences, it does so through mono-categorical theorizing, which refers to using a single identity lens to understand, describe, and explain how identities shape experiences ( Collins & Bilge, 2016 ; Goff & Kahn, 2013 ). Multiple stigmatizations and layered intersectional oppressions are not considered in understanding media outcomes. For instance, within media violence scholarship, which is arguably one of the most well-researched media topics, perpetrator–victim analysis is often limited to using gender-only or race-only identities. Intersectional erasures, even if not intentional, can have significant implications for research design, methods, and theorizing.

We propose the CME framework to address some of the shortcomings outlined thus far and to facilitate a more nuanced approach to theorizing within media effects scholarship. This framework provides concrete analytical and conceptual tools on how to systematically and intentionally incorporate critical theory into media effects scholarship. It considers the most pressing socially-relevant problems of our times, how to better amplify the voices of those at the margins of society, and how media can serve as a tool for undoing systemic inequalities. It examines, validates, and affirms marginalized perspectives, including non-white, queer, feminist, postcolonial, poor, indigenous, and other minoritized ones.

In conceptualizing CME, we draw on foundational work from critical cultural scholarship, which is informed and influenced by feminist, critical race, queer, Marxist, and postcolonial approaches, to argue that media effects scholarship needs to go beyond traditional modes of theorizing to pay more attention to notions of power and structural inequities. Although communication scholars in other subareas have bridged critical theory with subfields such as health communication ( Dutta, 2010 , 2018 ), organizational communication ( Mumby, 2013 ), technology studies ( Bakardjieva & Gehl, 2017 ), family communication ( Soliz & Phillips, 2018 ) and interpersonal communication (Afifi & Cornejo, in press), the value added by this article is creating a framework specific to media effects, which has largely focused on individual-level effects using a post-positivist paradigm. Here we acknowledge the pioneering scholarship on media and identity, which has laid the groundwork for and is foundational for the framework we have proposed ( Armstrong, Neuendorf, & Brentar, 1992 ; Oliver, 1996 ).

The CME framework applies four interrelated concepts—power, intersectionality, context, and agency—from critical cultural communication to media effects scholarship. These concepts serve as central pillars and support structures upon which the bridging across subfields becomes possible. This is not to say that these are the only key concepts to advance CME scholarship but we believe these are the most crucial and central concepts that should be considered. Power addresses the hierarchical relationships and structural inequalities between dominant groups and subordinated groups that are marginalized, including within media effects scholarship. Intersectionality challenges mono-categorical theorizing within media effects research by acknowledging overlapping and mutually constructed intersectional identities. Context explores the degree to which media effects research accounts for the dynamicity of sociocultural political factors which impact the media experiences. And finally, agency accounts for the active role that media users can play in their media use in participatory and counter-hegemonic ways.

Below, we discuss how each pillar relates to CME, highlight salient examples and best practices (from areas such as critical/cultural studies, psychology, sociology, feminist studies, critical race theory, postcolonial studies, critical disability studies, indigenous studies, political economy, and neo-Marxism) as starting points to illustrate, broaden, and build upon existing media effects scholarship. The CME framework provides scholars with a toolkit of shared language, central concepts, and theoretical tools to converse and collaborate together.

Power and Critical Media Effects

The CME framework considers the ways in which dominant ideological structures frame users, problems, and solutions within traditional media effects. The question of how knowledge, including about media use and effects, is defined, produced, and distributed in myopic ways along asymmetric power relations across groups is at the core of examining power within CME. For example, Dutta (2010 , 2018 ) has applied the notions of power to critical health communication by taking a culture-centered approach that analyzes structure, agency, and culture in resisting health inequalities. This approach emphasizes solidarity, reflexivity, and praxis. Similarly, the CME approach challenges the erasures of marginalized voices in the formation of research questions, methods, theories, and initiatives related to media.

Interrupting the existing structures of knowledge production within the dominant post-positivist paradigm of media effects scholarship means questioning universalist and essentialist assumptions about media users and their impacts. Critical interrogation of issues of power also allows for the cocreation of knowledge with and by media users, with an emphasis on users’ agency and voice. Such theorizing turns the lens back on the assumptions of post-positivism that often ends up unintentionally reinforcing media inequalities rather than explicitly making space for social justice issues and alternative knowledge structures.

CME argues that macrolevel structural institutional dynamics and policies are just as important as microlevel individual behaviors and interpersonal dynamics in understanding the role that power plays when examining media effects. Group membership within a social system does not accurately capture oppressive societal structures which inform an individual’s social experience, with implications for their cognitions, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. For instance, Hitlin, Scott Brown, and Elder (2006) suggest that “development of a sense of racial self-categorization is inherently social and occurs within racially structured, often discriminatory interactions” (p. 1299). For example, in the context of Black women, bell hooks (2003) has argued: “subordinates in relations of power learn experientially that there is a critical gaze, one that looks to document and one that is oppositional” (p. 95).

The ontological assumptions of critical paradigms presuppose that what is structured does not exist in and of itself and is not merely determined by the individual but is shaped by systems and infrastructures that maintain status quo ( Trepte & Loy, 2017 ). For example, Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne (2000) Colorblind Racial Attitude Scale goes beyond schematic processing of racial categories to incorporate beliefs related to institutional discrimination. Within health psychology, Scheepers and Ellemers (2019) consider historical factors and structural limitations such as medical exploitation of Black people and the practice of redlining and food deserts in analyzing eating habits among various racial groups. Applying this approach to media effects, the CME framework considers the impact of power status of institutionally disenfranchised persons by connecting individual media behaviors with macrolevel systemic inequalities.

Another way in which CME scholarship incorporates power is by examining media effects through the lens of political economy, neo-Marxism and postcolonial critical perspectives ( Fuchs & Mosco, 2015 ; Jin, 2006 ; Oh, 2018 ; Shome & Hegde, 2002 ). From the CME perspective, meaning construction and dominant discourses are often shaped by powerful media institutions and members of society who hold class privilege, political capital, and ideological influence ( Fuchs & Mosco, 2015 ). Disparities in media ownership and workforce are linked to media monopolization, consolidation, and corporatization, which influence media representation, distribution, and reception processes ( Castañeda, Fuentes-Bautista, & Baruch, 2015 ). CME scholarship takes power structures into consideration at the global, national, and local levels by challenging “prevailing structures of domination [which] shape various discourses of resistance” ( Crenshaw, 1991 , p. 1243). CME amplifies the voices of communities that are marginalized within mainstream media. For example, scholars have examined media-based collective action strategies to disrupt status quo hierarchies through Arab Spring and #BlackLivesMatter ( Al-Azdee & Metzgar, 2018 ; Sturm & Amer, 2013 ). Similarly, Wabwire (2013) , Pavarala (2003) and Ramasubramanian (2016) have examined the impact of media ownership on rural Kenyan, Indian, and African-American contexts respectively.

Intersectionality and Critical Media Effects

What intersectionality adds to the CME framework is the insight that factors that shape mediated experiences are coconstituted and are not mutually independent of one another ( Collins & Bilge, 2016 ; Crenshaw, 1991 ). Social inequalities and power dynamics intersect such that diverse identities such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, nationality, citizenship status, religion, and physical/mental abilities shape everyday mediated experiences in complex ways. Intersectionality as a central node of theorizing opens up important investigations about the intertwined, overlapping, and sometimes contradictory ways in which various forms of inequalities influence social hierarchies, which single-axis theorizing does not adequately account for ( Bowleg, 2008 ; Dubrow, 2008 ; Goff & Kahn, 2013 ; Remedios & Snyder, 2018 ).

Rather than look at each identity in isolation, the CME framework suggests that research questions, methods, and analyses examine how multiple identities intersect in influencing mediated processes and effects ( Dubrow, 2008 ; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016 ). CME recognizes that using a race-only, gender-only, or class-only framework, for instance, only partially advances knowledge and provides an incomplete and inaccurate picture of mediated inequalities that characterize the lives of those who are simultaneously experiencing racism, sexism, class exploitation, patriarchy, homophobia, and other such oppressive systems. This is not to say that various axes of identities are equally salient, weighted equally, or additive in how they influence experiences ( Bowleg, 2008 ; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016 ).

Intersectionality is not merely asking demographic questions, just like feminist social sciences are much more than simply measuring gender or examining gender differences. Rather, intersectionality and critical approaches address various dimensions of experiences such as discrimination, stress, media access, media representation, etc that are informed by multiple identities and power hierarchies. These factors are considered simultaneously, with the emphasis on the “and” and not the “or,” in order to account for a more comprehensive understanding of complex systems of multiple oppressions and privileges ( Bowleg, 2008 ; Remedios & Snyder, 2018 ). What this means is that for intersectional analyses, beyond the observed data, the media effects scholar also considers the broader structural inequalities and socio-historic context within which the data emerge. For example, Bowleg (2008) examines observed data within socio-historic contexts by demonstrating how social systems of racism, sexism, and homophobia are mutually constructed in shaping Black lesbians’ intersectional economic inequalities.

A few studies have examined multiple identities such as LGB adolescents ( Bond, 2018 ), colorism and gender ( Dixon & Maddox, 2005 ), Muslim American youth ( Saleem & Ramasubramanian, 2019 ), low-income families ( Behm-Morawitz, Miller, & Lewallen, 2018 ), socioeconomic status and race ( Taylor-Clark, Koh, & Viswanath, 2007 ), race and gender portrayals ( Figueroa-Caballero, Mastro, & Stamps, 2019 ), and ethnic marginalization of Native Americans ( Kopacz & Lee Lawton, 2011 ). However, they do not approach it through a critical lens by engaging with intersectionality as a methodological tool or theoretical concept.

Critical social psychologists have started paving the way for incorporating issues of intersectionality into measurement, research design, and data analyses, that could serve as a possible starting point for media effects scholars to build upon ( Bowleg, 2008 ; Dubrow, 2008 ; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016 ; Goff & Kahn, 2013 ; Remedios & Snyder, 2018 ). For instance, Garnett et al. (2014) have used Latent Class Analysis (LCA) as an exploratory analytical tool to analyze co-occurring adverse outcomes such as weight-based bullying, homophobia, and racism without disentangling them by specific identity dimensions. Else-Quest and Hyde (2016) provide specific guidelines such as distinguishing framing identities as person variables or as stimulus variables, using within-group designs and between-group comparisons, considering conceptual equivalence and measurement invariance, and using techniques such as statistical interactions and multi-level modeling to incorporate intersectionality.

Context and Critical Media Effects

Much of the traditional media effects scholarship on context relates to examining the effects of specific media genres such as sports, news, humor, or horror. There is a need to go beyond these narrow definitions of context to consider how factors such as social, cultural, political, and technological contexts shape media effects. Medium theorists have argued for a level of analysis that emphasizes the characteristics of a specific medium, suggesting that just as the characteristics of a landscape shape the culture and develop human behavior associated with that region, the features of a particular medium draw a particular audience with specific needs or interests ( Meyrowitz, 2008 ). Morah and Omojola’s (2018) , for example, examine how technological affordances of social media cultivate entrepreneurial audiences in Nigeria.

Other media effects scholars have done work on user characteristics and contextual factors ( Chaffee, 1986 ; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973 ; McGuire, 2004 ; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013 ). For instance, Valkenburg and Peter (2013) have proposed the differential media effects framework, which argues for more nuanced theorizing about differential effects on certain users. Similarly, Lee and Niederdeppe (2011) have contextualized cultivation effects by genre and source of information (overall versus local) on health beliefs. Such studies exemplify the need for nuanced theorizing about context to better incorporate varying needs across communities.

Building on this existing body of work, the CME approach considers environmental boundary constraints such as technological, social, political, and cultural contexts; especially in terms of how they relate to issues of power, and has varying implications for how we frame research questions and outcomes in studying media impacts within various contexts. Social scientific philosophers like Popper (2005) have argued that a goal of scientific inquiry should be to falsify (not prove) a generalizing theory in order to identify the specificity needed to examine complex phenomena. The CME perspective encourages media effects theories to be tested across multiple contexts, content types, formats, and populations, especially emphasizing historically marginalized ones, so that their generalizability, relevance, and applicability can be ascertained.

It is important to consider the social characteristics of users by incorporating the characteristics of the audience which is drawn by or avoids a particular medium. Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi, Shteynberg, & Wan (2010) , for example, proposed an intersubjective approach to nonreductionist contemporary theories of psychology that argue that “social behaviors invariably take place in relational contexts and should be understood as responses to socially constructed meanings” (p. 483). The CME approach considers the social and cultural locations of content creators within media effects. It acknowledges that much of entertainment consumption, especially in a hyper-digital era, is shared and is a social experience. A few media scholars have incorporated context by studying social characteristics of media use and viewers’ responses ( Banjo, 2013 ; Banjo et al., 2017 ), co-viewers’ gendered reactions to sexual violence in film ( Tal-Or & Tsfati, 2015 ), social connectedness via co-viewing ( Haridakis & Hanson, 2009 ), and social media context versus a physical viewing context ( Cohen & Lancaster, 2014 ).

Political contexts shape how media effects researchers formulate research questions, interpret data, and draw conclusions. For example, Rodríguez, Ferron, & Shamas (2014) account for historical context and the political economy of information in citizens’ media. Other scholars study the effects of political context on media directly. Cho (2011) , for instance, takes a multi-level approach by examining the effect of local political information on local ad markets exemplifying the impact of community characteristics on political behaviors. Current events and political context can be used throughout all steps of the research process to generate more nuanced results. Scholars have examined representations of sociopolitically relevant groups such as immigrants ( Mastro, 2019 ) or Muslims ( Saleem & Ramasubramanian, 2019 ) within the broader context of discriminatory public policies against these groups. Others such as Dal Yong Jin (2006) , Fuchs and Mosco (2015) and Rodríguez et al. (2014) push scholars to consider broader political economic issues such as media imperialism and neoliberal cultural politics, especially in terms of U.S. and European dominance in media environments, even as they engage with rigorous microlevel studies that test specific hypotheses in controlled settings.

Perhaps the most significant context for our field to consider is that of culture. Edward Said’s (1978) important work on Orientalism challenges scholars to consider the imperialistic relationship between the West and the East and its role in how we conduct research. For example, Cho and Han’s (2004) research revealed cultural differences in third person effects where greater effects emerged among individualistic samples compared to collectivistic cultures where the distance between self and other is not as great. Kim, Seo, Yu, & Neuendorf (2014) find a preference for positive affect for U.S. audiences and mixed affect responses among Korean viewers, making room for new ways of theorizing media effects. Their work challenges dominant arguments in favor of trait and affective state motivations for entertainment selection by considering Buddhist inspired beliefs about hedonic pleasure among East Asian audiences. Even within a specific geographical area, subcultures can vary depending on power, status, and positionality. For instance, the cultures of Tamil-Singaporeans, Afro-Latinx Haitians, Romani-Europeans, and indigenous groups in Brazil are significantly distinct from mainstream cultures. Several non-Western media are prime candidates for studies of transportation, empathy and other emotion-oriented, affective and cognitive processing phenomena. For example, films such as Straight Outta Compton can be used to study nostalgia, The Best Man Holiday to examine interpersonal relationships or Crazy Rich Asians to study perceptions of romance or mood regulation. Countries such as India and Nigeria are among the biggest producers of films, those such as China, Japan, and Korea have millions of gamers, and nations like Mexico and Brazil have vast networks of television audiences whose perspectives could provide the opportunity to explore culturally relevant effects which have often been overlooked within media effects. These examples highlight the importance of situating media effects in ecologically valid ways that account for the sociocultural political contexts of individuals’ media experiences.

Agency and Critical Media Effects

Building on media effects approaches such as Uses and Gratifications and selective information processing ( Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973 ; McGuire, 2004 ; Rubin, 2009 ), CME emphasizes being more user focused by incorporating user agency into theories and applications of media effects. While these approaches define agency in terms of active versus passive audience based on awareness of their relationship to media, the CME approach goes beyond the active–passive binary to emphasize media users’ agency to create meaning and counter the hegemonic nature of mainstream dominant media discourses from a critical cultural studies perspective ( Couldry, 2004 ; Hall, 1980 ). In today’s digital convergence culture of prosumption where media users are both cocreators and consumers of content, effects scholarship needs innovative ways of theorizing about user agency, especially including minoritized perspectives, by fully accounting for fandom, pleasure, participatory cultures, engagement, and agentic media use ( Couldry, 2004 ; Jenkins & Deuze, 2008 ).

Without taking a technologically optimistic celebratory view of media, CME argues that dominant theorizing within media effects research tends to have focus excessively on harm, risk, and other negative effects, especially in terms of characterizing media use of minoritized groups ( Alper et al., 2016 , Vickery, 2017 ). For example, excessive media use, say the use of selfies, is framed as addictive, psychologically harmful, or narcissistic. Similarly, inoculation approaches to media literacy have been critiqued as being too prescriptive in that such interventions are often designed to “save” children from negative effects through positive role modeling without considering user-centered perspectives on media choice, use, and effects ( Vickery, 2017 ).

The CME approach considers the hegemonic notions of what is considered high versus low culture . Media behavior of media users from marginalized groups, in particular, is examined through a deficit-based perspective of social deviance as problems to be “fixed” ( Alper et al., 2016 ). For instance, content such as hip hop has been framed as violent or using “improper” English rather than examining the cultural context within which it emerged as a way of “talking B(l)ack.” Similarly, studies of effects of erotic media content, social media consumption, reality TV, and soap operas are often assumed to be “trashy,” judged as low culture or assumed to have harmful effects. The CME approach does not take an essentialist view of social differences. Difference is seen as an asset or an opportunity, and not as a problem to be fixed. It challenges what it is “normal” media use and questions if such normality is even desirable, especially if it is defined mainly from the perspective of researchers and from those in authority positions.

Although recent media effects theories include more positive effects such as inspiration and elevation ( Oliver & Raney, 2011 ), they do not consider power relations in such theorizing. Ideas from critical disability studies ( Goodley, 2013 ) and critical affect theory ( Edbauer Rice, 2008 ) would readily help scholars recognize that messages about people with disabilities, for instance, overcoming everyday challenges—the supercrip narrative—might be inspirational for able-bodied persons ( Bartsch, Oliver, Nitsch, & Scherr, 2016 ) but could be insulting to those with disabilities. Indeed, such narratives have been referred to as inspiration porn where stories about exploited groups serve as elevation and inspiration for dominant group members in the context of disabilities 1 ( Grue, 2016 ), poverty ( Beresford, 2016 ), and racial/ethnic minorities ( Apel, 2005 ). 2 CME argues that it is important to carefully examine seemingly positive portrayals such as pity and inspiration in terms of whether or not they reinforce social hierarchies ( Ramasubramanian & Oliver, 2007 ; Ramasubramanian, Winfield & Riewestahl, in press).

Centering user agency means approaching research from a space of cultural humility that allows participants the agency to cocreate knowledge and have a more active role in the research process. Inclusive language such as minoritized, enslaved populations, and overly exploited countries put the onus on those exploiting power to oppress other groups ( Joseph, 2017 ). For example, social psychologist Carrotte et al. (2016) made sure to test their survey measures with gender and sexually diverse (GSD) participants to avoid heteronormative language that could be alienating and misrepresent some sexual experiences. Similarly, Broussard, Warner, & Pope (2017) worked closely with cisgender, transgender, nonbinary participants across a variety of sexual orientations to determine ways to represent gender identity accurately. CME encourages such participatory approaches to defining and measuring concepts.

CME further emphasizes examining marginalized groups within their own cultural contexts without having to compare them with dominant group norms. Only a few studies within media effects have focused on content created by and effects of mainstream media on minoritized communities (e.g., Martinez & Ramasubramanian, 2015 ; Saleem & Ramasubramanian, 2019 ). CME emphasizes minoritized users’ agency to question, challenge, and subvert mainstream media by reframing content, even as mega media corporations continue to create homogenized content within neoliberal capitalist structures. Rodríguez’s (2011) work, for example, formulates a theory of how media enable citizens to thrive during political unrest in Colombia and Pavarala (2003) engages with indigenous resistances through community radio.

The CME framework proposed here provides a unifying framework, research toolkit, shared language, and roadmap for bridging critical cultural communication with media effects scholarship. The four central pillars of power, intersectionality, context, and agency that are elaborated upon in this framework can be applied to and extended across various mediated contexts. The salient examples, best practices, and recommendations provided here help us imagine the transformative possibilities that such collaborations, cross-area partnerships, and broad applications can offer. Beyond research and theory-building, CME also has implications for pedagogy, curriculum, hiring, promotion, mentoring, leadership and community engagement in terms of whose perspectives and experiences are privileged, how resources are allocated, and how priorities are set in terms of disciplinary directions and institutional support.

CME moves the subfield of media effects into an exciting direction by being responsive to examining, theorizing about, and addressing some of the most pressing social issues, challenges, and questions within Communication today. We envision that the next stage of CME scholarship will explore the full spectrum and range of media effects and experiences, especially minoritized perspectives. Such scholarship goes beyond a narrow focus on individual media outcomes and differences to also incorporate macrolevel questions such as media access, rights, services, representation, and policies for minoritized groups to fully participate and engage in individual and social transformation. It engages with understudied topics such as poverty, social class, racism, homelessness, transphobia, casteism, colorism, and indigeneity across various mediated contexts using critical intersectional lenses. Using an asset-based perspective, it questions implicit assumptions of what is considered “normal” in media effects, as defined from a space of privilege (such as wealth, able-bodiedness, citizenship, whiteness, heteronormativity).

With regard to theoretical implications, the CME framework is not only applicable to studies relating to “other” cultures and to scholarship that is explicitly about identity, social justice, and discrimination. It urges media effects scholars to interrogate claims of the universal applicability, generalizability, and relevance of all media effects theories, concepts, and models. Taking, say, a color-evasive, gender-neutral, and Eurocentric approach to conceptualizing, researching and theorizing about media and its effects is not the solution. Rather, the CME approach encourages applying, studying, and testing media effects theories, including established and popular ones, across subpopulations and cultural contexts to better identify their boundaries, generalizability, robustness, applicability, and falsifiability ( Popper, 2005 ). Replicating studies across diverse samples through intentional recruitment, cross-national collaborations, and community partnerships would increase generalizability of these existing theories. It serves as an invitation for scholars to theorize in new and inclusive ways about all types of media effects across various contexts, users, and texts.

In terms of methodological implications, CME calls to question how key variables such as social categories, identity, and media use are often defined and measured from a dominant group perspective. Practices such as cocreating conceptual definitions and pretesting research instruments with typically neglected groups could address these issues. Partnerships with community-based organizations through long-term mutually beneficial relationships can help with such participatory methods. CME research should also be open to incorporating qualitative methods such as media ethnography, examining multiple levels of analysis, and connecting individual media behaviors with structural and systemic factors. The use of multiplicative interactions, contextualization of observed data within larger sociohistorical contexts, and attention to systemic variations across subpopulations are important to consider ( Bowleg, 2008 , Dubrow, 2008 ; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016 ).

With respect to inclusive sampling practices, several communication scholars have suggested practical solutions to diversify research samples in terms of geodemographic and social characteristics to capture broader user experiences and media content (Afifi & Cornejo, in press; Soliz & Phillips, 2018 ). Beyond cross-cultural studies, marginalized groups can be studied on their own terms without always having to compare them to dominant group norms. Often small sample sizes and access to minoritized populations are major challenges to overcome. However, collecting data relating to minoritized groups and their experiences are important for them to feel included, respected, and heard. Through methods such as meta-analyses, combining datasets, and longitudinal data, some of the challenges of small samples can be overcome.

The CME approach seeks to bring about structural and institutional changes in media industries and media policies beyond studying individual-level effects. One way to do this is by interrogating taken-for-granted neutrality of the processes through which stories are selected, characters are created, and actors are chosen. For example, Dr. Stacy Smith’s Media, Diversity, and Social Change Initiative uses empirical data to influence hiring practices across several entertainment platforms by taking media effects research beyond academe to content creators and media industries, providing opportunities to address issues of inequality in storytelling and production processes (e.g. inclusion contracts).

The CME approach actively supports alternative, community-oriented, and ethnic media initiatives from around the world through research, teaching, and advocacy efforts by working to raise awareness of what stories are being erased and silenced in mainstream media. Collaborations between activists, community leaders, and media effects scholars would strengthen evidence-based, data-driven social scientific approaches to using media for social change in socially relevant, transformative, and meaningful ways. Other examples of such community-based media initiatives are Question Bridge , Latinitas Magazine , Media Rise , Center for Scholars and Storytellers , and citizens’ participatory media in India and Columbia discussed earlier ( Pavarala, 2003 ; Ramasubramanian, 2016 ; Rodríguez et al., 2014 ). Leadership institutes, mentoring networks, and micro-financing support for alternative media can also help build capacity.

We also need to contend with structural, systemic, and institutional inequalities in conducting and publishing CME scholarship, which need to be addressed in terms of broader access to, allocation, and distribution of resources. This means working intentionally and collaboratively toward a cultural shift in terms of addressing inclusion at many different levels from research agendas to sampling techniques to theory testing to community-engaged scholarship to media activism. Doing so requires leaders working together to determine concrete benchmarks and ways to share resources for inclusive CME research, teaching, and community engagement at the disciplinary and institutional levels. Many top journals within Communication are heavily oriented toward publishing media effects research that involves multiple studies, longitudinal surveys, and complex experimental designs. However, such methodologies require resources that might not be available to scholars from marginalized communities, especially outside of the United Studies and Europe. Lab-based experimental research, for instance, involves sophisticated equipment and measurement tools, which are limited to scholars with space and funding support. Gaining access to national samples for surveys, for example, also requires funding, which may not be available to scholars from under-resourced institutions around the world. Access to knowledge in terms of journals, books, media, software, and mentorship could be barriers for scholars from underprivileged backgrounds, especially in the Global South.

Leadership in professional networks and disciplinary organizations could help alleviate these inequalities by facilitating greater collaboration across institutions, nations, and subdivisions by providing seed grants, networking opportunities, and assistance with access to data collection, publications, media texts, research materials, and equipment for those from under-resourced scholarly communities. Disciplinary leaders such as editors could be intentional about collecting author background information, having diverse editorial boards and ad-hoc reviewers, and encouraging citation of literature outside of “canonical” paradigms from nontraditional perspectives ( Chakravartty, Kuo, Grubbs, & McIlwain, 2018 ). Communication journals and conferences could make inclusion and diversity an explicit part of their research agenda and reviewing criteria, require authors to be more intentional about justifying sampling decisions and find ways to support and reward scholarship that focuses on minoritized groups, media content, and users ( Afifi & Cornejo, in press ).

The CME framework also has significant implications for teaching and curriculum development by being purposeful about diversifying who is included in conference panels, special issues of journals, textbooks, class syllabi, bibliographies, and reading lists. Universities and professional organizations need to create mechanisms for better disciplinary and institutional support for hiring, tenure, promotion, and advancement of critical media scholars through developing protocols to understand implicit biases in reviewing and feedback, developing mentoring programs, and providing support for collecting inclusive samples or for collaborating with community-based organizations as part of their research.

While championing a critical approach to studying media impacts, we are not unaware of the limitations that such an approach presents methodologically and practically in terms of research design, methods, sampling, data collection, and data analysis. We have provided some salient examples and recommendations from recent research from areas such as social psychology and health communication to start envisioning some ways to address these limitations and challenges. Through conversations and dialogs in our classrooms, at our conferences, and in our communities, and, through special issues of journals, edited books, workshops, blogs, and other outlets, the framework proposed here will be further fine-tuned, fleshed out, and firmed up. The applications, implications, limitations, and scope of the CME framework will unfold through these scholarly spaces in a dialectical manner.

In conclusion, in this article, we bridge media effects scholarship with critical cultural communication by proposing the CME framework and offer four interrelated concepts as the core pillars of this framework: power, intersectionality, context, and agency. In doing so, we hope to facilitate collaborative partnerships, productive engagement, and mutual solidarity between these two subfields. We argue for a more nuanced, intersectional, and critical approach to theorizing media effects scholarship to better reflect the diversity and dynamicity of media experiences, especially in the emerging sociopolitical landscape. We suggest that media effects scholars consider the unmitigated role of power relations, limitations of mono-categorical theorizing, and intersectional erasures in how they examine mediated experiences, impacts, and interventions. The framework considers how sociocultural and political factors impact viewers’ responses, employs an asset-based approach to understanding marginalized groups’ media experiences, and centers participatory, audience-created content, and alternative media. It pays attention to the ways in which dominant hegemonic structures shape media discourses and encourages media effects scholars to incorporate minoritized perspectives in cocreating knowledge, theories, and initiatives.

The authors are grateful to Mary Beth Oliver for her encouragement and guidance, to Priya Stephen and Emily Riewestahl for their research assistance, and to David Oh, the special issue editors and three reviewers for their feedback. The authors are grateful to all those on the frontlines of COVID-19, which was declared a global pandemic by WHO two days after this paper was accepted for publication. There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Afifi W. A. , & Cornejo M. (in press). #CommunicationsoWEIRD: The question of sample representativeness in interpersonal communication research. In Doerfel M. L. , & Gibbs J. L. (Eds.), Building inclusiveness in organizations, institutions, and communities: Communication theory perspectives . New York: Routledge .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Alper M. , Katz V. S. , & Clark L. S. ( 2016 ). Researching children, intersectionality, and diversity in the digital age . Journal of Children and Media , 10 ( 1 ), 107 – 114 . doi:10.1080/17482798.2015.1121886

Al-Azdee M. , & Metzgar E. ( 2018 ). The Arab spring: Beyond media effects . Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research , 11 ( 1 ), 3 – 23 . doi:10.1386/jammr.11.1.3_1

Apel D. ( 2005 ). Torture culture: Lynching photographs and the images of Abu Ghraib . Art Journal , 64 ( 2 ), 88 – 100 . DOI: 10.1080/00043249.2005.10791174

Armstrong G. B. , Neuendorf K. A. , & Brentar J. E. ( 1992 ). TV entertainment, news, and racial perceptions of college students . Journal of Communication , 42 , 153 – 176 . doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00804.x

Bakardjieva M. , & Gehl R. W. ( 2017 ). Critical approaches to communication technology – the past five years . Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 ( 3-4 ), 213 – 219 . doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1374201

Bartsch A. , Oliver M. B. , Nitsch C. , & Scherr S. ( 2016 ). Inspired by the paralympics: Effects of empathy on audience interest in para-sports and on the destigmatization of persons with disabilities . Communication Research , 45 ( 4 ), 525 – 553 . doi:10.1177/0093650215626984

Banjo O. O. ( 2013 ). For us only? Examining the effect of viewing context on black audiences’ perceived influence of black entertainment . Race and Social Problems , 5 ( 4 ), 309 – 322 .

Banjo O. O. , Wang Z. , Appiah O. , Brown C. , Walther-Martin W. , Tchernev J. , & Irwin M. ( 2017 ). Experiencing racial humor with outgroups: A psychophysiological examination of co-viewing effects . Media Psychology , 20 ( 4 ), 607 – 631 . doi:10.1080/15213269.2016.1234396

Behm-Morawitz E. , Miller B. M. , & Lewallen J. ( 2018 ). A model for quantitatively analyzing representations of social class in screen media . Communication Research Reports , 35 ( 3 ), 210 – 221 . doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1428544

Beresford P. ( 2016 ). Presenting welfare reform: Poverty porn, telling sad stories or achieving change? . Disability & Society , 31 ( 3 ), 421 – 425 . doi : 10.1080/09687599.2016.1173419

Bond B. ( 2018 ). Parasocial relationships with media personae: Why they matter and how they differ among heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents . Media Psychology , 21 ( 3 ), 457 – 485 . doi:10.1080/15213269.2017.1416295

Bowleg L. ( 2008 ). When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≄ Black Lesbian Woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research . Sex Roles , 59 ( 5–6 ), 312 – 325 . doi : 10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z

Broussard K. , Warner R. , & Pope A. ( 2017 ). Too many boxes, or not enough? Preferences for how we ask about gender in cisgender, LGB, and gender-diverse samples . Sex Roles , 78(9), 606–624 . doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0823-2.

Carrotte E. R. , Vella A. M. , Bowring A. L. , Douglass C. , Hellard M. E. , Lim M. S. ( 2016 ). “ I am yet to encounter any survey that actually reflects my life”: A qualitative study of inclusivity in sexual health research . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 16 , 86 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0193-4

Castañeda M. , Fuentes-Bautista M. , & Baruch F. ( 2015 ). Racial and ethnic inclusion in the digital era: Shifting discourses in communications public policy . Journal of Social Issues , 71 ( 1 ), 139 – 154 . doi:10.1111/josi.12101

Chaffee S. H. ( 1986 ). Mass media and interpersonal channels: competitive, convergent or complimentary? In Gumpert G. & Cathcart R. (Eds.), Intermedia: Interpersonal communication in a media world , 3 (pp. 62 – 80 ). New York, NY : Oxford University Press .

Chakravartty P. , Kuo R. , Grubbs V. , & McIlwain C. ( 2018 ). #CommunicationSoWhite . Journal of Communication , 68 ( 2 ), 254 – 266 . https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003

Chiu C. Y. , Gelfand M. J. , Yamagishi T. , Shteynberg G. , & Wan C. ( 2010 ). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 5 ( 4 ), 482 – 493 . doi:10.1177/1745691610375562.

Cho H. , & Han M. ( 2004 ). Perceived effect of the mass media on self vs. other: A cross-cultural investigation of the third person effect hypothesis . Journal of Asian Pacific Communication , 14 ( 2 ), 299 – 318 . doi:10.1075/japc.14.2.06cho

Cho J. ( 2011 ). The geography of political communication: Effects of regional variations in campaign advertising on citizen communication . Human Communication Research , 37 ( 3 ), 434 – 462 .

Cohen E. L. , & Lancaster A. L. ( 2014 ). Individual differences in in-person and social media television coviewing: The role of emotional contagion, need to belong, and coviewing orientation . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17 ( 8 ), 512 – 518 . doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0484

Collins P. H. , & Bilge S. ( 2016 ). Intersectionality . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons .

Couldry N. ( 2004 ). Theorising media as practice . Social Semiotics , 14 ( 2 ), 115 – 132 . doi:10.1080/1035033042000238295

Crenshaw K. ( 1991 ). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 ( 6 ), 1241 – 1299 .

Dixon T. L. , & Maddox K. B. ( 2005 ). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous Black criminal . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 35 ( 8 ), 1555 – 1570 . doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02184.x

Dutta M. J. ( 2010 ). The critical cultural turn in health communication: Reflexivity, solidarity, and praxis . Health Communication , 25 , 534 – 539 . doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.497995

Dutta M. J. ( 2018 ). Culture-centered approach in addressing health disparities: Communication infrastructures for subaltern voices . Communication Methods and Measures , 12 ( 4 ), 239 – 259 . doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1453057

Dubrow J. K. ( 2008 ). How can we account for intersectionality in quantitative analysis of survey data? Empirical illustration for Central and Eastern Europe . ASK. Research & Methods , ( 17 ), 85 – 100 .

Edbauer Rice J. ( 2008 ). The new “new”: Making a case for critical affect studies . Quarterly Journal of Speech , 94 ( 2 ), 200 – 212 . doi:10.1080/00335630801975434

Else-Quest N. M. , & Hyde J. S. ( 2016 ). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and techniques . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 40 ( 3 ), 319 – 336 . doi:doi.org/10.1177/0361684316647953

Fink E. J. , & Gantz W. ( 1996 ). A content analysis of three mass communication research traditions: Social science, interpretive studies, and critical analysis . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 73 ( 1 ), 114 – 134 . doi:10.1177/107769909607300111

Figueroa-Caballero A. , Mastro D. , & Stamps D. ( 2019 ). An examination of the effects of mediated intragroup and intergroup interactions among Latino/a characters . Communication Quarterly , 67 ( 3 ), 271 – 290 . doi:10.1080/01463373.2019.1573745.

Fuchs C. , & Mosco V. ( 2015 ). Marx and the political economy of the media . Boston, MA : Brill .

Garnett B. R. , Masyn K. E. , Austin S. B. , Miller M. , Williams D. R. , & Viswanath K. ( 2014 ). The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying among youth: An applied latent class analysis . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 43 , 1225 – 1239 . doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0073-8

Goff P. A. , & Kahn K. B. ( 2013 ). How psychological science impedes intersectional thinking . Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race , 10 ( 2 ), 365 – 384 . doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000313

Goodley D. ( 2013 ). Dis/entangling critical disability studies . Disability & Society , 28 ( 5 ), 631 – 644 . doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.717884

Grue J. ( 2016 ). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique . Disability & Society , 31 ( 6 ), 838 – 849 . doi : 10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473

Hall S. ( 1980 ). Encoding/decoding. In Hall S. , Hobson D. , Lowe A. , & Willis P. (Eds.), Culture, media, language . London : Unwin Hyman .

Haridakis P. , & Hanson G. ( 2009 ). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection . Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 53 ( 2 ), 317 – 335 . doi:10.1080/08838150902908270

Henrich J. , Heine S. J. , & Norenzayan A. ( 2010 ). The weirdest people in the world? . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 ( 2-3 ), 61 – 83 . doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

Hitlin S. , Scott Brown J. , & Elder G. H. Jr. ( 2006 ). Racial self‐categorization in adolescence: Multiracial development and social pathways . Child Development , 77 ( 5 ), 1298 – 1308 . doi:doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00935.x

Jin D. Y. ( 2006 ). Cultural politics in Korea’s contemporary films under neoliberal globalization . Media, Culture & Society , 28 ( 1 ), 5 – 23 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706059274

Jenkins H. , & Deuze M. ( 2008 ). Convergence culture . Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies , 14 ( 1 ), 5 – 12 . doi:10.1177/1354856507084415

Joseph R. ( 2017 ). What’s the difference with “difference”? Equity, communication, and the politics of difference . International Journal of Communication , 11 , 3306 – 3326 .

Katz E. , Blumler J. G. , & Gurevitch M. ( 1973 ). Uses and gratifications research . Public Opinion Quarterly , 37 ( 4 ), 509 – 523 .

Kim J. , Seo M. , Yu H. , & Neuendorf K. ( 2014 ). Cultural differences in preference for entertainment messages that induce mixed responses of joy and sorrow . Human Communication Research , 40 ( 4 ), 530 – 552 . doi:10.1111/hcre.12037

Kopacz M. , & Lee Lawton B. ( 2011 ). The YouTube Indian: Portrayals of native Americans on a viral video site . New Media & Society , 13 ( 2 ), 330 – 349 . doi : 10.1177/1461444810373532

Lee C. J. , & Niederdeppe J. ( 2011 ). Genre-specific cultivation effects: Lagged associations between overall TV viewing, local TV news viewing, and fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention . Communication Research , 38 ( 6 ), 731 – 753 .

Martinez A. , & Ramasubramanian S. ( 2015 ). Latino audiences, racial/ethnic identification, and responses to stereotypical comedy . Mass Communication and Society , 18 ( 2 ), 209 – 229 . doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.907427.

Mastro D. ( 2019 ). Virtual theme collection: Immigrants as minorities in the media . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 96 ( 1 ), 31 – 36 . doi:10.1177/1077699018824402

McLaren L. ( 2017 ). A space for critical quantitative public health research? Critical Public Health , 27 ( 4 ), 391 – 393 . doi:10.1080/09581596.2017.1326214

McGuire W. J. ( 2004 ). A perspectivist approach to theory construction . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8 ( 2 ), 173 – 182 . doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_11

Meyrowitz J. ( 2008 ). Power, pleasure, patterns: Intersecting narratives of media influence . Journal of Communication , 58 ( 4 ), 641 – 663 . doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00406.x

Milan S. , & Van Der Velden L. ( 2016 ). The alternative epistemologies of data activism . Digital Culture & Society , 2 ( 2 ), 57 – 74 .

Morah D. N. , & Omojola O. ( 2018 ). Social media use and entrepreneurship development in Nigeria: Lagos and Onitsha in focus . International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work , 1 ( 5 ), 15 – 26 . doi:10.5281/zenodo.1420101

Morgan D. L. ( 2007 ). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods . Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 1 ( 1 ), 48 – 76 . doi:10.1177/2345678906292462

Mumby D. K. ( 2013 ). Organizational communication: A critical approach . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Neville H. A. , Lilly R. L. , Duran G. , Lee R. M. , & Browne L. ( 2000 ). Construction and initial validation of the color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS) . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 47 ( 1 ), 59 . doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59

Oh D. C. ( 2018 ). Racist propaganda: Discursive negotiations on Youtube of perceived anti-white racism in south Korea . Atlantic Journal of Communication , 26 ( 5 ), 306 – 317 . doi:10.1080/15456870.2018.1517767

Oliver M. B. ( 1996 ). Influences of authoritarianism and portrayals of race on Caucasian viewers’ responses to reality‐based crime dramas . Communication Reports , 9 ( 2 ), 141 – 150 .

Oliver M. B. ( 2002 ). Individual differences in media effects. In Bryant J. & Zillmann D. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 507 – 524 ). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers .

Oliver M. B. , & Raney A. A. ( 2011 ). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption . Journal of Communication , 61 ( 5 ), 984 – 1004 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x

Pavarala V. ( 2003 ). Building solidarities: A case of community radio in Jharkhand. Economic and Political Weekly , 2188–2197. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4413632

Popper K. ( 2005 ). The logic of scientific discovery . London : Routledge .

Ramasubramanian S. ( 2016 ). Racial/ethnic identity, community-oriented media initiatives, and transmedia storytelling . The Information Society , 32 ( 5 ), 333 – 342 . doi:10.1080/01972243.2016.1212618

Ramasubramanian S. , & Oliver M. B. ( 2007 ). Activating and suppressing hostile and benevolent racism: Evidence for comparative stereotyping . Media Psychology , 9 ( 3 ), 623 – 646 .

Ramasubramanian S. , Winfield A. , & Riewestahl E. (in press). Positive stereotypes and counter-stereotypes: Examining their effects on prejudice reduction and favorable intergroup relations. In Billings A. & Parrott S. (Eds.), Media stereotypes: From Ageism to Xenophobia . Peter Lang Publishers .

Remedios J. D. , & Snyder S. H. ( 2018 ). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized identities and perceptions of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping . Journal of Social Issues , 74 ( 2 ), 265 – 281 . doi:10.1111/josi.12268

Rodríguez C. ( 2011 ). Citizens’ media against armed conflict: Disrupting violence in Colombia . MN, Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press .

Rodríguez C. , Ferron B. , & Shamas K. ( 2014 ). Four challenges in the field of alternative, radical and citizens’ media research . Media, Culture & Society , 36 ( 2 ), 150 – 166 . doi:10.1177/0163443714523877

Rubin A. M. ( 2009 ). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 181 – 200 ). New York, NY : Routledge .

Said E. ( 1978 ). Orientalism . New York : Pantheon Books .

Saleem M. , & Ramasubramanian S. ( 2019 ). Muslim Americans’ identity management strategies in response to media stereotypes and discrimination . Media Psychology , 22 ( 3 ), 373 – 393 . doi:10.1080/15213269.2017.1302345

Scheepers D. , & Ellemers N. ( 2019 ). Social identity theory. In Sassenbert K. & Vliek M. L.W. (Eds.), Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice (pp. 129 – 143 ). New York : Springer .

Shome R. , & Hegde R. S. ( 2002 ). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections . Communication Theory , 12 ( 3 ), 249 – 270 . doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00269.x

Soliz J. , & Phillips K. E. ( 2018 ). Toward a more expansive understanding of family communication: Considerations for inclusion of ethnic-racial and global diversity . Journal of Family Communication , 18 ( 1 ), 5 – 12 . doi:10.1080/15267431.2017.1399890

Splichal S. , & Mance B. ( 2018 ). Paradigm(s) lost? Islands of critical media research in communication journals . Journal of Communication , 68 ( 2 ), 399 – 414 . doi:10.1093/joc/jqx018

Stage F. K. , & Wells R. S. ( 2014 ). Critical quantitative inquiry in context . New directions for institutional Research , 2013 ( 158 ), 1 – 7 . doi:10.1002/ir.20041

Sturm C. , & Amer H. ( 2013 ). The effects of (social) media on revolutions–perspectives from Egypt and the Arab Spring. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 352 – 358 ). Berlin, Heidelberg : Springer . doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39265-8_39.

Tajfel H. , & Turner J. C. ( 1979 ). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin W. G. , & Worchel S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7 – 24 ). Wiley-Blackwell.

Tal-Or N. , & Tsfati Y. ( 2015 ). Does the co-viewing of sexual material affect rape myth acceptance? The role of the co-viewer’s reactions and gender . Communication Research , 45 ( 4 ), 577 – 602 . doi:10.1177/0093650215595073

Taylor-Clark K. , Koh H. , & Viswanath K. ( 2007 ). Perceptions of environmental health risks and communication barriers among low-SEP and racial/ethnic minority communities . Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , 18 , 165 – 183 . 10.1353/hpu.2007.0113.

Trepte S. , & Loy L. S. ( 2017 ). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory. In Rössler P. , Hoffner C. A. , & Zoonen L. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects . doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0088

Turner J. C. , & Reynolds K. J. ( 2011 ). Self-categorization theory . Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology , 2 ( 1 ), 399 – 417 .

Valkenburg P. M. , & Peter J. ( 2013 ). The differential susceptibility to media effects model . Journal of Communication , 63 ( 2 ), 221 – 243 . doi:10.1111/jcom.12024

Vickery J. ( 2017 ). Worried about the wrong things: Youth, risk, and opportunity in the digital world . Cambridge; London : MIT Press .

Wabwire J. ( 2013 ). The role of community radio in development of the rural poor . New Media and Mass Communication , 10 , 40 – 47 .

Inspiration porn is “the representation of disability as a desirable but undesired characteristic, usually by showing impairment as a visually or symbolically distinct biophysical deficit in one person, a deficit that can and must be overcome through the display of physical prowess” ( Grue, 2016 , p. 838).

Among other scholars who write on this topic, Apel (2005) draws a comparison between lynching postcards that were circulated as souvenirs by white supremacists after lynching murders of Black residents in their neighborhoods with photographs of Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated being circulated as spectacles that reinforce hegemonic white American supremacy.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1460-2466
Print ISSN 0021-9916
Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Introductory Guide to Critical / Cultural Studies

relevance of critical thinking in communication and cultural studies

Critical scholarship broadly describes academic research that, to paraphrase Karl Marx (1845), “seeks not only to interpret the world but to change it.” Cultural studies, on the other hand, is a more specific approach to critical scholarship focused on the relationship between power and culture. “Critical / cultural studies” (CCS) is an umbrella term used in communication studies to describe cultural studies scholarship, as well as critical research on identity and identity politics, media and technology, and critical rhetoric. Though their approaches vary, CCS researchers share an interest in how oppressive power structures, like those organized around class, race, gender, sexuality, and ability, are perpetuated, defended and, just as importantly, resisted through culture. And, following Marx’s advice, CCS scholars often work to positively intervene in the cultural and political dynamics that they study.

CCS is a central part of communication studies; it is taught in communication departments across the nation, and Communication and Critical / Cultural Studies is one of the National Communication Association’s most important scholarly journals. At the same time, critical / cultural scholarship is extremely interdisciplinary. Indeed, it has to be. Raymond Williams famously calls culture a “whole way of life (1960, p. 32).” Culture involves many things that are not primarily communicative: the geographic organization of cities, for instance, or the economic structure. As such, critical / cultural scholars work in many fields outside of communication studies, including literary studies (Berlant 2011), geography (Massey 2005), anthropology (Escobar 2018), and media and technology studies (Slack and Wise 2015).

Critical / cultural scholarship in communication is influenced by, and in dialogue with, research within these other disciplines, and prospective graduate students interested in this field may want to research programs across disciplines. This article provides an introduction to critical / cultural approaches to communication intended to clarify some of the field’s diversity and complexity for prospective graduate students. After defining some key terms and reviewing the history of the field of study, the following sections discuss some central topics in critical / cultural studies, including popular culture, identity, and politics.

Defining Critical / Cultural Studies

As discussed above, critical scholarship has two main features. First, critical scholarship is invested in questions of social and political power. Second, critical scholars aim for their scholarship to make a social or political impact. Cultural studies is a specific subset of critical scholarship that emerged out of the UK in the 1950s to become one of the predominant forms of critical communication scholarship.

Jodi Dean describes cultural studies as “an engaged mode of inquiry committed to understanding the complex terrain of the cultural in connection with relations of power (2000).” Cultural studies approaches the social and political consequences of power by observing how it manifests in culture. It begins with the idea that power does not influence us through explicit and coercive authority alone, like the police enforce the law or the factory boss enforces productivity. The norms and demands of power appear everywhere within culture, especially in its most mundane forms – places like advertisements, soap operas, and romance novels. In light of this, Lawrence Grossberg (2005) argues that cultural studies examines “contexts of life”: to understand the social or political significance of any text, practice, or communicative element of culture, one must understand how it is affected by the other elements involved: people, customs, language, laws, media, knowledge, technologies, and more.

A Brief History of Critical / Cultural Studies

From the turn of the 20th century to the post-War era, scholars struggled to make sense of the emergence of mass media and so-called “mass culture.” At the time, culture was usually treated in one of two separate ways within scholarly discourse. On the one hand, anthropologists tended to view culture as describing the practices, traditions, rituals, and forms of artistic expression of a given society. On the other hand, some commentators understood culture as being synonymous with “high” culture: those traditions in art, scholarship, and social life that represent the best of a given culture.

Each of these approaches had limitations wrapped up with their Western biases. Anthropological approaches tended to be primarily focused on the study of non-Western cultures, while Western societies were defined as “high culture.” The conceptualization of culture as high culture was unapologetically elitist: not only was Western culture treated as the only source of high culture, it was typically the elites within Western societies that had access to the production and consumption of high culture.

The “mass society” debates that emerged in the inter-War period and continued after the World Wars revolved around the idea that mass culture was leading to the degradation of high culture and with it liberal, civil society as a whole. The decline of high culture and the rise of mass culture was not criticized by socially conservative critics alone. The Marxist scholars of the Frankfurt school similarly criticized the rise of the “culture industry” that replaced high art with inferior art designed for mass consumption. Cultural studies emerged as a critical reaction to these early, exclusionary approaches to understanding culture.

At the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham University, founded by Richard Hoggart in 1964, a group of scholars including Hoggart, Stuart Hall, and Raymond Williams began to develop what came to be known as “culturalism” or British cultural studies. Their work helped to establish the tradition of politically oriented scholarship now commonly referred to as “Critical / Cultural Studies” (CCS) within the discipline of communication.

Critical / Cultural Studies Theories and Concepts

Critical / cultural studies applies the approaches of British cultural studies, discussed above, and related critical perspectives on culture like those found in radical feminism, critical race scholarship, and queer theory, to communication studies.

Critical / cultural scholarship is diverse in its methods and topics. Some critical / cultural scholars analyze the politics of specific cultural practices, texts, or artifacts. For example, one might ask if a particular soap opera was misogynistic or the soap opera was was misogynistic as a genre or form of media. This is often the type of work done by critics of popular culture and critical rhetoricians. On the other hand, other cultural scholars like Lawrence Grossberg are committed to describing the broader contexts – all the complex cultural variables – that go into producing certain features of culture, especially its structures of power.

What unites critical / cultural scholarship is its shared emphasis on understanding power as a force affecting the many different forms of communication that make up a culture. This article provides an introduction to CCS by focusing on three main areas of cultural studies scholarship: popular culture, identity, and politics. For a discussion of critical rhetoric, which is often included as part of CCS, see our Guide to Critical Rhetoric .

Cultural Studies and The Study of Popular Culture : Cultural scholars explore the way popular culture works as a strategic tool for power and as a space for popular resistance; both as an expression of “the people” and as an expression of the dominant culture. Cultural studies challenges the traditional separation between high and low culture. Scholars like Stuart Hall argue that this distinction is produced by the relations of power specific to that culture. What counts as popular culture, who gets to produce it, whether popular culture reinforces or resists the politics of the status quo: all of this is a result of cultural struggle (Hall 1981).

There is, therefore, a cultural politics to what popular culture is as much as what is represented in the popular. As a result, cultural studies engages with popular culture not only by asking what it represents, as discussed below, but also who gets to do the representing, who gets to be the audience, and how the audience goes about interpreting discourses popular culture. For example, there is a growing literature in cultural scholarship on media that explores the labor required by today’s popular culture – from content producers on YouTube to the workers who make our iPhones and other technological devices.

Critical Research on Identity and Representation : Critical /cultural studies is concerned with how different cultural identities are represented in media and popular culture, especially the identities of those who have been marginalized and oppressed on the basis of class, race, gender, sexuality, nationality, or ability. British cultural studies attains popularity within communication studies at the same time as other critical traditions like feminism, queer theory, ability studies, and critical studies of race and ethnicity. Each of these critical perspectives argues that the power structures related to cultural identity are just as socially and politically significant as those related to class. They also posit that communication is vital to the construction of these cultural identities.

Critical / cultural scholars hold that identity categories are primarily socially constructed through representations . They therefore consider how different cultural discourses – like legal, media, educational, or scientific discourses – represent different cultural identities and, consequently, help create and enforce sociopolitical hierarchies. Alternately, critical / cultural scholars may research elements of culture that struggle against stereotypical, misleading, or otherwise problematic cultural representations. Critical / cultural studies therefore researches the representations of cultural discourses as places where oppressive power relations are traditionally enforced, but also as spaces of potential resistance.

Cultural Studies and Politics : Critical / cultural scholars have been working for the last several decades to expand the political contributions made by academic research in communication. A number of important critical / cultural scholars are also activists. Many scholars conduct participatory research with social movements and other politically marginalized groups in hopes of advancing these parties’ social justice-oriented causes. Moreover, cultural studies treats social movements and other voices not typically considered “academic” as important co-producers of academic knowledge. These qualities make critical / cultural studies one of the most innovative and politically impactful subfields of communication studies today.

Cultural studies has also been a valuable contributor to theorizing the relationship between communication and politics. Indeed, while thus far we have talked primarily about cultural studies in relation to how power affects media and popular culture, the concerns of critical / cultural studies are often broader and more ambitious. Lawrence Grossberg calls cultural studies a “radically contextual” discipline because it is interested in describing the broader cultural contexts that give the specific texts of media and popular culture their meaning and political consequences. This approach, which Grossberg refers to as conjunctural analysis, is an extremely nuanced method of analyzing culture, communication, and politics, which is discussed in detail in our article on Cultural Studies and Politics.

Some critical / cultural critics, therefore, attempt to describe the dynamics that define a given culture across its many texts and practices. For example, critical / cultural scholars have examined the centrality of anti-Black racism in Western culture by tracing its construction through the discourses of popular media, popular culture, science, medicine, the law, and more.

Critical / Cultural Studies Today

As discussed in the previous section, critical / cultural studies is invested in politically engaged and applied research. Because of this, CCS is rapidly growing and changing, adapting to new political situations and cultural developments as they emerge. Recent critical cultural studies scholarship has grappled with the rise of digital media, right-wing extremism, the decline of liberal democracy, police brutality and anti-Black racism, to name only a few urgent matters.

Contemporary scholars of critical / cultural studies attend to pressing issues such as these by investigating how cultural contexts and power relations shape their significance. In a time defined by political upheaval and power struggles, critical / cultural scholarship like this is more important than ever because it marries political engagement with an emphasis on the complexity of culture.

Sources and Additional Resources

To keep up with CCS, check out the following scholarly journals New Formations , Communication and Critical Cultural Studies and Critical Studies in Media Communication , as well as the following references and sources.

Dean, Jodi. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies . Durham: Duke University Press, 2009.
Dean, Jodi. ed. Cultural Studies and Political Theory . Ithaca: Cornell University of Press, 2000.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks . New York: Grove Street Press, 1952/1967.
Hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” in Black Looks: Race and Representation , London: South End Publishing, pp. 115-131, 1992.
Jefferson, Tony, ed. 2002. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain . London: Routledge.
Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism . Durham: Duke University Press, 2011.
Escobar, Arturo. Designs For the Pluriverse . Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
Gilroy, Paul. T he Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double-Consciousness . Los Angeles: Verso, 1997.
Grossberg, Lawrence. Cultural Studies in the Future Tense . Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.
Hall, Stuart. (1993). “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture.” Social Justice : a Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order , Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 104-115.
Hall, Stuart. (1981). “Notes on Deconstructing the Popular.” in Essential Essays, Volume 1: Foundations of Cultural Studies , ed. David Morely Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
Hall, Stuart. (1973). “Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse” in Essential Essays, Volume 1: Foundations of Cultural Studies , ed. David Morely Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
Hall, Stuart, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signification , New York: Sage, 1997.
Hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” in Black Looks: Race and Representation . London: South End Publishing, 1992, pp. 115-131.
Marx, Karl. 1845. “Theses on Feurbach.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Massey, Doreen. For Space . London: Sage, 2005.
Morris, M. (2006). Identity Anecdotes: Translation and Media Culture . New Delhi & London: Sage Publications.
Morelock, Jeremiah, ed. Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism . London: University of Westminster Press, 2018.
Noble, Safiya. Algorithms of Oppression: How search engines reinforce racism . New York: NYU Press, 2018.
Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society , 1780-1950. Los Angeles: Anchor Books, 1960.

Topics in Critical / Cultural Studies

Critical / Cultural Studies in Media and Popular Culture

Learn about the rich history of critical / cultural studies and how it has informed scholars’ examination of media and popular culture over the years. Also discover the ways in which media and pop culture consumption provides opportunities for resistance to existing stereotypes and power structures.

Jump to navigation

Resources and Programs

Teaching the Four Skills
U.S. Culture, Music & Games
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
Other Resources
English Club Texts and Materials
Teacher's Corner
Comics for Language Learning
Online Professional English Network (OPEN)

Integrating Critical Thinking Into The Exploration Of Culture

When one thinks about culture, what often comes to mind are the foods, languages, celebrations, music, and clothing of people from different areas of the world. While these things are certainly part of culture, there are a lot more cultural components that are not quite as easy to see. As Sonia Nieto and Patty Bode note , “Culture includes not only tangibles such as foods, holidays, dress, and artistic expression but also less tangible manifestations such as communication style, attitudes, values, and family relationships” (p. 17 1).

English teachers have a special responsibility to help students navigate the components of culture that may not be easily visible. Many students studying English may eventually wish to travel, attend school, or work in other countries. Others may choose to work in industries that require them to interact with English speakers from many different backgrounds. Therefore, it is important that students are able to think critically about their personal experiences and cultural values, those of other people, and the potential conflicts differences may cause. This critical thinking will help them to navigate and resolve potential cultural misunderstandings.

This month the Teacher’s Corne r will present four successive activities to help students examine and deepen their understanding of culture:

Week 1: Reflecting on Hidden Cultural Rules, Part One Week 2: Reflecting on Hidden Cultural Rules, Part Two Week 3: Thinking About Intercultural Interactions Week 4: Successfully Navigating Intercultural Interactions

Educators are positioned to provide students with a chance to take part in activities and discussions that promote self-examination, reflection, and critical thinking. In doing so, teachers can help students begin to understand the less obvious parts of their own culture as well as those of other cultures. Activities like these, and the kind of thinking they require of students, have a lasting effect on how learners approach interacting with people from different backgrounds.

Reference: Nieto, S. and P. Bode. (2012). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education (6 th ed.). Pearson.

This week’s Teacher’s Corner encourages students to think critically about the unspoken rules and expectations of different cultures. Because English is a lingua franca—a common language used by speakers with different native languages—the ability to successfully navigate different cultural expectations is becoming more and more valuable.

As noted by K. David Harrison in his book The Last Speakers , “languages abound in ‘cultural knowledge,’ which is neither genetic nor explicitly learned, but comes to us in an information package—rich and hierarchical in its structure” (p. 58). Every language has its own cultural “information package,” including English. However, because English is studied and spoken by so many different types of people from various backgrounds, there is not one set of unspoken rules or expectations for all English speakers. Rather, as teachers of English, we must prepare our students to be aware of differences and be ready to work through any potential miscommunications that may occur.

Activity: Generating a list of behaviors and planning a skit

Time: 60 minutes

To help students reflect on what defines culture and to understand that different cultural groups have rules and expectations that may not always be communicated directly.
To listen, speak, read, and write about culture in English.

Materials: Culture Group Descriptions (Appendix A), Example Scenario (Appendix B), poster/chart paper, different color markers, student notebooks, pencils

Preparation:

Decide how you will divide your class into groups. There should ideally be a minimum of four groups with 3 to 6 students in each one. If you have a small or large class, adjust groups accordingly.
Prepare copies of the Culture Group Descriptions and cut them into fourths for distribution. Note that each group of students will be assigned a single culture description (1, 2, 3, or 4). If your class is divided into more than four groups, you can assign the same description to multiple groups, but each group will need its own copy.
Figure out how you will share the Example Scenario with students, such as by projecting it or making copies.
Begin by asking students what they think culture means. They can discuss this in small groups or as a whole class.
Create a Culture Thinking Map on chart/poster paper by writing culture in a circle in the middle. As students share their ideas with the class, draw lines coming out of the circle to record students’ responses.
Explain to students, “Every cultural group has visible or spoken elements that are easy to see and understand. These are things like common celebrations, foods, clothing, and music. Additionally, we can also observe common ways of interacting such as greetings and goodbyes. However, every culture also has rules and expectations that are not discussed, directly taught, or easy for other people to see.”
Tell students that they are going to participate in an activity to examine some of the parts of culture that are not as easy to see.
Have students get into groups according to the plan you prepared before starting the activity.
Continue by explaining that each group will be assigned one description of a fictional culture. Working together, the groups should discuss the description and write down a list of behaviors they believe that members of their assigned cultural group would show in a conversation or interaction.
Model this portion of the activity by choosing one or two of the characteristics from a Culture Group Description. Talk to students about what behaviors a person might show during a conversation or interaction as a result of each characteristic. Record responses in a chart as shown below.
Have students create the same chart in their notebooks. Working together, each group should discuss the characteristics from the assigned description. Students should write down a list of behaviors they believe that members of their assigned cultural group would show in a conversation or interaction.
Once groups have had adequate time to prepare a list of behaviors, tell students that they will now be given an example scenario. Say, “Using this scenario and the list of behaviors you wrote, your group will create a skit. The skit must be about the example scenario and the actors must demonstrate as many of the behaviors as possible. You will perform this skit for the rest of the class. Based on your skit, your classmates will try to determine some of the characteristics of your culture, so keep this in mind as you are working.”
Display or distribute the example scenario, review it with students, and answer any questions they may have.
As groups work on writing their skits, move around the room to ensure students understand the assignment. Note that not every student from a group must act in the skit, but all group members should help to write it.
Students should write down a script or at least an outline of their skit in their notebooks in order to continue during the next class.
Provide time for students to practice their skits. If needed, review each group’s culture description, list of behaviors, and skit to offer suggestions.
After the activity is complete, collect all materials for use during upcoming classes.

In the next activity in this month’s Teacher’s Corner, students will perform and observe skits and work with classmates to describe each culture group.

Harrison, K. D. (2010). The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World’s Most Endangered Languages . Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.

During last week’s Teacher’s Corner activity, students began to think critically about what defines culture. They also planned a skit based on the characteristics of an assigned culture group. This week, groups will perform their skits as others observe and try to identify characteristics of each culture group.

Activities: Skit Presentations and Brainstorming

Time: Varies depending on the size of your class, but all groups will need to present skits, reflect on those they watch, and brainstorm a list of descriptors. Estimated time is 45-60 minutes.

Materials: Culture Group Descriptions (Appendix A), Example Scenario (Appendix B), poster/chart paper, different color markers, student notebooks, pencils, student skits (written and brought in by students)

Copy the Skit Observation Table (shown in Procedure Step 3) on the board for student groups to use to record observations as they watch skits and discuss what they see. Students should copy the table into their notebooks before groups share their skits.
If you have a very large class, with multiple groups representing each culture, you may choose not to have every group perform their skit in front of the whole class. Instead, you can divide up the class (in half, or in multiple sections) and have each section watch the groups in their section. If you divide up the class, make sure that all of the culture groups (1-4) are represented in each section. Every student should make observations about all the culture groups.

Activity one: Skit Presentations and Observations

Begin by reviewing the purpose of the skits with students and answering any questions. Remind learners that the goal of the skit is to demonstrate the list of behaviors they made with their group based on their assigned Culture Group Description.
Tell students that they will have 10-15 minutes to practice their skits before performing them for others. If you are splitting your class in half or into sections as described under Preparation, share the plan with students.
Once the time allotted for practice has passed, draw students’ attention to the Skit Observation Table. Explain that as students present their skit, they should share the number of the culture group they are representing. Members of the audience should record this number on the Skit Observation Table. As they watch the skit, students should also note what behaviors they observe, as shown below.
Once students have had a chance to view all of the skits from each of the other culture groups, they should work together with their group members for about 15 minutes to compare notes, discuss observations, and brainstorm ideas about characteristics of each culture. Characteristics should be recorded in the Skit Observation Table.
After groups have had sufficient time to discuss and record characteristics, bring the class back together. Tell students that they will now share ideas in order to attempt to create a description of each cultural group.
Label four sections of the board or four pieces of chart/poster paper with culture group 1, culture group 2, etc. Tell students that you will record the characteristics they share about each culture group and that they should also copy the information into their notebooks.
Remind students that this is just a learning experience and that no one assumes any student shares the behaviors or characteristics of the culture group they represented for the activity.
Beginning with Culture Group 1 on the board or chart/poster paper, have students volunteer to share characteristics that were observed during the skit. Continue with each culture group until a list of characteristics has been recorded for each one.

Activity Two: Descriptive Brainstorming

Explain to students that now that a profile of each culture group has been established, the next step is to list words or phrases that describe each culture group. At this point, you can share the culture group Descriptions (Appendix A) either by photocopying, projecting, or having students read them aloud, to provide students with as much information as possible.
Divide the class into four large groups or, if you have a large class, create smaller sections and assign each one a culture group to focus on. Provide students with chart/poster paper and markers to record their list.
Tell students that they should carefully read the description and profile of their newly assigned culture group and think about positive and negative descriptions that may be used to describe the group. Inform the class that they will have 10 minutes to record as many positive and negative words as they can to describe the culture group they have been assigned. Have each group elect a recorder to write down student responses.
Provide ample time for groups to review the list of characteristics generated about their assigned cultural group during the first activity, as well as the original culture group Description.
Then, set a timer for 10 minutes and allow students to begin recording their one-word descriptions.
What are some positive aspects of this culture group? What do you think they would do well? What would people like about someone from this group?
What are some negative aspects of this culture group? What do you think they would not be very good at? What would people dislike about someone from this group?
Once time is up, have each group select one student to share what their group wrote down to describe the others. Give each group ample time to share their list.
What descriptors would you characterize as positive? Which ones are negative? Create a list for each.
Which of the positive descriptors do you agree with most? Which do you disagree with? Why?
Which of the negative descriptors do you agree with most? Which do you disagree with? Why?
Do you think this is a fair representation of the culture group you represented during the skit? Why or why not?
Ask students to find a partner that was assigned to a different culture group during Activity 1. Have partners share the reflections they recorded in their notebooks.
Once partners have had time to discuss reflections, ask students to volunteer to share their feelings about this experience and whether their culture group was described accurately or not. Encourage students to discuss the implications of this activity beyond the classroom.

Next week, students will continue to think critically about culture as they add to their initial ideas about what makes up culture on the Culture Thinking Map from Week 1. Students will also begin to discuss and reflect on how cultural differences can make intercultural communication challenging at times.

So far this month in the Teacher’s Corner, students have had a chance to adopt characteristics of a fictional culture group, plan and perform skits, and observe and describe culture groups other than those they were assigned. Through critical thinking, reflection, and discussion, these activities have helped students recognize that culture includes more than just food, clothing, and celebrations. This week, students will add ideas to the Culture Thinking Map and reflect on potential breakdowns in communication that could happen when people interact.

PREPARATION

Time: 30-45 minutes Goals:

 To help students continue to reflect on what defines culture.

 To think about and discuss potential miscommunications or misunderstandings that could happen

during intercultural interactions.

 To listen, speak, read, and write about culture in English.

Materials: culture group Descriptions (Appendix A), Example Scenario (Appendix B), Culture Thinking Map with students’ ideas about culture from Week 1, different color markers, chart/poster paper, student notebooks, pencils

Ensure that the Culture Thinking Map (Week 1) and descriptive lists (Week 2, Activity 2) are displayed in the classroom.

Gather copies of Culture Group Descriptions (Appendix A) and Example Scenario (Appendix B) , or be sure you have a way to project them.

ACTIVITY ONE: ADDING TO THE CULTURE THINKING MAP

Display the Culture Thinking Map from Week 1. Start by asking students to review the ideas about culture they previously added to the map.

Next, have students get into groups of 3-4.

Remind students to consider how they thought critically about culture during the other activities. Ask them to discuss additional ideas they would now add to the map.

Allow groups to discuss for five minutes. Then, have students share their ideas. Using a different color of marker, add new ideas to the Culture Thinking Map.

ACTIVITY TWO: REFLECTING ON INTERCULTURAL INTERACTIONS

Ask students to recall the number of the culture group they were assigned when they created and performed the skit. Have students hold up fingers to indicate which group they were a part of.

Tell students that for the next activity, they will need to create a new group of four students. Their new group should be made up of one member from each of the culture groups. It is OK if some groups have more than four members as long as each culture group is represented. Provide time for students to get into new groups.

Tell students that for the next activity, each of them will represent their assigned culture group. Students should approach the activity from their culture group ’s point of view.

Project or pass out the Culture Group Descriptions and remind students about the descriptive lists they created in Activity 2 during Week 2. Provide students a few minutes to review these items.

Explain to students that they will revisit the Example Scenario they used to plan their skits during Week 1. This time, students will participate in a discussion with classmates from each of the different culture groups and answer questions.

Display the following instructions for students to read:

Choose two culture groups. For each one, think about the description, the skit you

observed, and the descriptive list. What do you think would happen if members of both of these culture groups were in this scenario? Would people from the different groups interact easily and get along well? Would the interaction be difficult, or would anyone get upset?

List areas where you think the interaction might go well and areas where you think communication could be difficult. In your answers, refer to your descriptions of the culture group ’s behaviors and characteristics.

Repeat Steps A and B for a different pair of culture groups.

After students read the instructions, answer any questions about the task.

Tell students to write down their responses in their notebooks. Provide student s with at least 20 minutes to work in groups. As they do so, move around the room and observe.

When time is up, g ather students’ attention again. Ask learners to reflect on what they discussed and wrote down in their notebooks, thinking specifically about the reasons that intercultural interactions can be successful or challenging. Provide some examples by saying “For instance, in some cultures, direct eye contact is a sign of respect. However, in others, it is a sign of respect to not make eye contact. Or some cultures prefer to speak directly about issues when someone is upset, while others prefer to minimize feelings and maintain relationships. These differences could cause a misunderstanding.”

Givestudents5minutesingroupstogenerateafewreasonsthatinterculturalinteractionsmight succeed or be a challenge. Let students know that they will share their ideas with the class to create a new thinking map.

Writethewords“Factorsthatcanaffectinterculturalinteractions”inacircl einthecenterofa piece of chart paper or on the board. Have each group share the reasons they came up with and add them to the chart paper to create a new thinking map.

Onceallgroupshavesharedtheirideasandallnewideashavebeenaddedtothemap,explainto students that they will use this Intercultural Interactions Thinking Map during the next activity.

In next week’s Teacher’s Corner, students will bring together all of their ideas and reflections in order to think critically about how to successfully approach intercultural interactions.

Each week of this month’s Teacher’s Corner has required students to reflect and think critically in order to deepen their understanding of culture and how it can affect interactions. This week, students will apply their experience and knowledge to figure out how to make intercultural interactions successful, even if they are challenging.

Preparation

To help students continue to reflect on what defines culture.
To think about ways to avoid or mediate miscommunications or misunderstandings during intercultural interactions.

Materials: Culture Thinking Map (Week 1) and Intercultural Interactions Thinking Map (Week 3), student notebooks, pencils

1. Ensure that all of the thinking maps and descriptive lists from previous activities are displayed in the classroom so that students can see them.

2. If desired, assign students to participate in completely new groups. Alternatively, students can continue to work in the same groups used during Activity 2 of Week 3.

3. If you have a large class, you can make a plan for how students will present their scenes at the end of Activity 2. Instead of having each group present to the whole class, you can pair groups to present to each other.

Activity one: writing scenarios

1. Have students get into groups (see Step 2 under Preparation).

2. Give groups a few minutes to review the information on the Intercultural Interactions Thinking Map and the information they recorded in their notebooks about how different groups would interact with each other (See Step 6 in Week 3, Activity 2).

3. Tell students that they will work together with their group to create a scenario where a misunderstanding or miscommunication due to cultural differences might occur. Provide students with the examples below so that they understand expectations for this part of the activity.

a. Example 1: There are eight people in a sales department at a company. The two leaders have received a cash bonus for the achievements of their department. One leader comes from a culture where resources are shared amongst community members and accomplishments are celebrated by everyone. The other leader comes from a culture where the needs of each individual are most important and every person works for and keeps what they earn or receive. The two leaders must come up with a plan for what to do with the bonus money.

b. Example 2: A teacher is giving a test to his or her class. The teacher notices that three of the students from the same culture group are whispering and helping each other on the test. After class, the teacher asks these three students to stay and explain why they were cheating on the test. One student explains that they were simply trying to help each other get good grades and make their parents proud because their parents want them to do well in school. The teacher must decide whether the students should get in trouble and have to retake the test.

4. Let students know that another group of their classmates will act out the scenario they write. Allow time for students to ask questions and clarify what they are expected to do. Tell students that they will have 20 minutes to write down a scenario with their group.

5. As students are working, move around the room and check in with each group to ensure that the scenarios make sense and will work for others to act out. Help any groups that need guidance or may be struggling with ideas.

6. When 20 minutes have passed, check to see that all groups have finished. If needed, give students more time to complete the task.

7. When students are done, collect all of the scenarios.

Activity TWo: Acting out and Reflecting on scenarios

Read the scenario.
Discuss the different elements of culture that may cause conflict or misunderstanding in the scenario. Write these cultural elements down on the same paper as the scenario.
Think about possible ways to resolve the conflict or misunderstanding. Write these resolutions down on the same paper as the scenario.
Make a plan for how to act out the scenario using one of the resolutions your group thought of.
Answer any questions that students may have about the assignment.
Tell students they will have 15 minutes to discuss the scenario, brainstorm possible resolutions, and practice performing the scene.
When 15 minutes have passed, tell students that in a moment they will present their scene to their classmates. If you have paired groups together, as noted in Step 3 under Preparation, explain the plan to students.
Explain to students that as they watch their classmates, they should reflect on a few things. Write the following questions on the board:

a. What were the different cultural elements that caused a problem in this situation?

b. How was the conflict avoided or resolved?

After each group performs their scene, ask the rest of the class (or the other group if groups are paired) to discuss and share their answers to the reflection questions.
After all groups have shared their scenes, ask students to reflect on the following questions in their notebooks in class or for homework:

a. What are some possible reasons that intercultural interactions can be successful or not?

b. What are some actions you, or any person, could take to prevent or resolve misunderstandings when interacting with people from different backgrounds?

The activities in this month’s Teacher’s Corner have aimed to help students increase their cultural awareness through reflection and critical thinking. Because speakers of English come from many different backgrounds, the ability to recognize and acknowledge the less obvious elements of culture is an important skill for students studying English. With this knowledge and a better understanding of how to apply it to intercultural interactions, teachers are setting students up for success as they communicate in English.

Privacy Notice
Copyright Info
Accessibility Statement
Get Adobe Reader

For English Language Teachers Around the World

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, manages this site. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

IMAGES

The benefits of critical thinking for students and how to develop it
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
The future of Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
Critical Thinking Skills
Critical_Thinking_Skills_Diagram_svg
PPT

VIDEO

What is the Importance of Critical Thinking in Evaluating Sources?
Module 6
Communication Leadership: January Info Session
2210_s23_qp_22
Activity based on critical thinking & communication organised by Mr Neeraj kumar and Dr R N Pandey
Empathy to Eloquence: Crafting Compelling Public Speeche

COMMENTS

Critical and Cultural Studies
Critical and cultural studies of communication are focused on the analysis of cultural artifacts and practices in relation to the social formations in which they exist. The interrelationships of cultural signs, their conditions of production, and their reception by audiences are at the core of such studies. Critical and cultural studies derive ...
The future of Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
ABSTRACT. With its beginnings marked by a challenge to a noncritical cultural history, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies is currently a mainstay within the communication discipline. Thinking about its future in terms of scholars whose work is currently challenging the field may help us think about where Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies was and is, and where it is going.
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies (CC/CS) is a peer-reviewed publication of the National Communication Association. CC/CS publishes original scholarship that situates culture as a site of struggle and communication as an enactment and discipline of power. The journal features critical inquiry that cuts across academic and theoretical boundaries.
The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication
An up-to-date and comprehensive resource for scholars and students of critical intercultural communication studies. In the newly revised second edition of The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, a lineup of outstanding critical researchers delivers a one-stop collection of contemporary and relevant readings that define, delineate, and inhabit what it means to 'do critical ...
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Communication and Critical Cultural Studies
Critical cultural studies provide a vital supplement to studies of communication in various contexts, such as relationships, organizations, and political campaigns; as well as, to investigations on understanding the structures and discourses of domination & resistance as they occur beyond the agentive intervention of individuals.
Critical Perspectives Toward Cultural and Communication Research
This approach has been shaped by critical theory of the Frankfurt School, European poststructural and critical theories, British cultural studies, and postcolonial theories. Critical scholarship is diverse, interdisciplinary, and multimethodological.
Critical Thinking and Intercultural Competence: Review, Use, and
This article review sought to scope the relevant literature to discover studies that incorporated critical thinking skills and intercultural communicative competence in the context of an ...
Intercultural Communication and Dialectics Revisited
Twenty five years ago we described four distinct paradigms of culture and communication research (functionalist, interpretive, critical humanist, and critical structuralist) based on their metatheoretical assumptions, explored strategies for constructive interparadigmatic discussions and proposed a dialectical approach that could guide future intercultural communication research and practice.
Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural
For about 50 years, tensions between critical cultural and social psychological approaches to studying the relationship between media and audiences has persisted, and in some cases has fueled volatile debates between scholars of these two different paradigms (Fink & Gantz, 1996, Morgan, 2007; Splichal & Mance, 2018).As critical social scientists who are trained in the media effects tradition ...
Critical Intercultural Communication Studies: Formation
This chapter revisits the crossroads from which this handbook was born in 2010 as well as elucidate the trajectories and urgencies that have further built up and advanced critical intercultural communication studies over the past 13 years.
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Aims & Scope
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies (CC/CS) is a peer-reviewed publication of the National Communication Association. CC/CS publishes original scholarship that situates culture as a site of struggle and communication as an enactment and discipline of power. The journal features critical inquiry that cuts across academic and theoretical boundaries.
PDF Critical thinking in the intercultural context: Investigating EFL ...
integral to effective cross-cultural communication. In his opinion, developing ICC "parallels the development of critical thinking" (p. 109). References to the skill can also be found in Janet Bennett's (2009) tripartite framework of ICC made up of mindset (knowledge),skillset (skills), and heartset (attitude) (p. 97).
Rapid Communication: Critical Management Studies/Cultural Studies
Similar questions can be applied to an affirmative context as is offered by Geoff Goldman's Inaugural Lecture. A much easier read, largely free of trauma, he tries to make sense of his discipline, Critical Management Studies (CMS), and its social significance, in our mad, mad world. These three essays reveal two sides of the same coin.
Introductory Guide to Critical / Cultural Studies
Defining Critical / Cultural Studies. As discussed above, critical scholarship has two main features. First, critical scholarship is invested in questions of social and political power. Second, critical scholars aim for their scholarship to make a social or political impact. Cultural studies is a specific subset of critical scholarship that ...
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Thinking Culture and
COMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES 207 In this context, another point can also be raised: the high culture/mass or popular culture split that Williams (and British Cultural Studies) rightly critiqued and this critique has now become a kind of "common sense" in Cultural Studies (especially Western Cul- tural Studies).
Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural
The Relationship Between Creativity and Critical Thinking. Most of the studies thus far referenced have investigated creativity and critical thinking separately; however, the discussion on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking spans decades of research (Barron and Harrington, 1981; Glassner and Schwartz, 2007; Wechsler et al., 2018; Akpur, 2020).
Culture as Text and Culture as Theory
The chapter first contextualizes the importance of Afrocentric, Asiacentric, and other non-Western centric approaches by critiquing the hegemony of Eurocentrism in contemporary research on culture and communication. The chapter then clarifies the idea of Asiacentricity by highlighting its major dimensions and dispelling its common misconceptions.
Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration
Communication has an obvious link with the three other Cs. Starting with critical thinking, sound communication implies fostering the conditions for a communicative exchange directed towards a common goal, which is, at least in educational and professional contexts, based on a fair evaluation of reality (Pornpitakpan 2004). Collaboration too ...
Post-Truth and Critical Communication Studies
Political Communication. Post-truth (PT) is a periodizing concept (Green, 1995; Besserman, 1998) that refers to a historically particular public anxiety about public truth claims and authority to be a legitimate public truth-teller. However, the term is potentially misleading for at least two major reasons.
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies: Vol 20, No 1
Forum Issue: Interventions in Public Memory: Interrogating the Critical/Cultural Landscape of Higher Education, Part 1: Subject & Objects Resisting at the Boundary. Volume 20, Issue 1 of Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
Critical Reflections on Culture and Critical Intercultural Communication
Summary This chapter contains sections titled: Intercultural Communication, 1997-2007 Contributions of the "Critical Turn" Dialogue on the (Disciplinary) ... Critical Reflections on Culture and Critical Intercultural Communication. Dreama G. Moon, Dreama G. Moon. Department of Communication, California State University, San Marcos, USA.
Integrating Critical Thinking Into The Exploration Of Culture
The activities in this month's Teacher's Corner have aimed to help students increase their cultural awareness through reflection and critical thinking. Because speakers of English come from many different backgrounds, the ability to recognize and acknowledge the less obvious elements of culture is an important skill for students studying ...
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 20, Issue 4 (2023)
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 20, Issue 4 (2023) See all volumes and issues. Volume 20, 2023 Vol 19, 2022 Vol 18, 2021 Vol 17, 2020 Vol 16, 2019 Vol 15, 2018 Vol 14, 2017 Vol 13, 2016 Vol 12, 2015 Vol 11, 2014 Vol 10, 2013 Vol 9, 2012 Vol 8, 2011 Vol 7, 2010 Vol 6, 2009 Vol 5, 2008 Vol 4, 2007 Vol 3, 2006 Vol 2, 2005 Vol 1 ...