Academic literature on the topic 'Graduate Center Group (Cambridge, Mass.)'

Abstract Objectives Parental (maternal and paternal) weight before and after pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of obesity in the offspring. However, less is known on the longitudinal association between parental and child growth trajectories across early childhood. This work aims to describe parental and child body mass index (BMI) trajectory patterns from birth until adolescence and assess their association. Methods We analyzed 1537 single-child families participating in the Applied Research Group for Kids (TARGet Kids! ) cohort (ON, Canada). Children and their parents had repeated measurements of weight and length or height from child's birth to 13 years during scheduled visits with their primary care physician. These measurements were used to calculate BMI for parents and age and sex adjusted BMI z-scores (zBMI) for children based on the World Health Organization. Latent class mixed modeling was used to identify children and parental growth patterns. A loglinear analysis was conducted to study the tri-party interaction between child, maternal, paternal longitudinal patterns. Jaccard distance was used to assess cluster similarity. Results We identified two distinct patterns in children (normal, increasing obesity), mothers (normal, increasing obesity), and fathers (overweight, obesity). The three-way loglinear analysis indicated that the tri-party interaction between children, maternal and paternal growth patterns interaction was significant (χ2 (1) = 15.1, p < .001). 92.1% of children in the normal pattern had mothers in the normal pattern and fathers in the overweight pattern. Cluster similarity was 63% for mothers and children, but 12.5% between fathers and children, with most children from the increasing obesity group with a father in the overweight group. Conclusions There is a significant tri-party association between children, maternal and paternal BMI patterns from birth to adolescence. Future studies should aim in studying eating and other health behaviors associated with these relationships at the family level. Funding Sources Joannah and Brian Lawson Center for Child Nutrition, Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

In the conditions of a substantial increase in the number of foreign students in the universities of the Russian Federation in recent years especially relevant research of studying ways to increase the effectiveness of the formation of the communicative competence of this contingent of students in the educational and scientific sphere of communication at the stage of pre-university training. Professionally oriented teaching in groups of the humanitarian profile has its own specific features, due to the conditions of study, in which students who have chosen humanitarian areas of a fairly wide range can study in one group. The purpose of this paper is to describe the student body studying at the stage of pre-university training at Russian as a Foreign Language Center of Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU HSIEP RFLC), to find out their educational route and degree of conformity of the scientific prose style course, which is prepared based on traditional approaches, to communicative needs relevant to future majors of the students, and to propose and to present an argument for a more effective technology of modular education. As methods of scientific research, the work used the method of analysis of scientific sources devoted to the competence approach to teaching, professionally oriented teaching of Russian as a foreign language and modular technology. Also, the questionnaire method allowed us to obtain data as a result of a survey of 154 students of the pre-university training program of SPbPU HSIEP RFLC. On the basis of theoretical analysis, it has been established that, within the competence-based approach, professionally oriented training in groups of the humanitarian profile at the stage of pre-university training should take place taking into account the communication needs that are relevant for future specialties of students. Empirical method of study allowed identifying a list of future majors of pre-graduate training program trainees, the top of which are the following: linguistics (46%), foreign area studies (24%), majors related to art and culture (8%), psychological and educational majors (8%), law (6%), advertising and public relations (5%). Also a low level of foreign students’ satisfaction (39%) with the content of scientific prose style course based on traditional technology of mass group learning, which preconditions the need to use an innovative modular technology in teaching and learning process. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the description of the process of pre-university training of foreign students in humanitarian groups through the prism of the foundations of modular education. According to the authors, modular training will allow to quickly vary the content aspect of training, focusing on the communicative needs of a certain humanitarian direction.

The redox flow battery (RFB) is a promising stationary energy storage technology due to its inherent decoupling of energy and power, long service lifetime, and potential for low-cost manufacturing.1 While current embodiments are constrained by high upfront cost, nonaqueous RFBs may offer a pathway to cost-competitive energy storage systems through higher energy densities;2 however, this concept is at an early stage and several challenges must be overcome. In particular, the development of stable, high-voltage redox chemistries in conjunction with low-cost, selective membranes is needed to mitigate difficult-to-reverse capacity fade and reduced efficiencies. As such, a range of redox-active organic macrostructures, including oligomers (RAOs),3 polymers (RAPs),4 and colloids (RACs),5 have been described in the peer-reviewed literature. Of specific interest are RAOs, which, like the other macrostructures, can be paired with size-exclusion membranes but exhibit electrochemical and fluid dynamic properties that more closely align with monomers. While this proof-of-concept has been demonstrated,6,7 to our knowledge, few studies have systematically evaluated how the molecular properties of RAOs influence their performance in flow cells. In this presentation, we will describe our efforts to understand how the molecular properties of different oligomers influence their behavior in redox flow cells. To this end, we synthesize and characterize a set of model compounds, ranging from monomers to tetramers, that utilize TEMPO as the redox-active unit. We then assess the thermodynamic, kinetic, and transport properties of these compounds using a suite of voltammetric techniques. Subsequently, we characterize the performance and durability of these compounds in symmetric flow cells via electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, DC polarization, and durational cycling. We perform post-test characterization after the cycling experiments to disaggregate molecular- and cell-level sources of capacity fade. We find that, in general, oligomers with increased size exhibit lower diffusivities while maintaining the facile charge transfer characteristics afforded by the appended monomer. These size-dependent variations in mass transport rates directly translate to differences in cell polarization and cycling performance. Time-dependent capacity fade observed during cycling is confirmed by post-mortem analysis. Broadly, these results align with previously developed relationships between molecular size, electrochemical properties, and flow cell performance; we posit that the principles for functionalization and testing utilized here can be applied to other RAOs with improved stability. Acknowledgements This work was supported as part of the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, an Energy Innovation Hub funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences. B.J.N gratefully acknowledges the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant Number 1122374. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors thank Jeffrey Kowalski and Katharine Greco of the Brushett Group as well as Yu Cao and Jeffrey Moore of the Moore Group at the University of Illinois for their contributions to conceptualizing the framework and preliminary testing for this work. References: R. Chalamala et al., Proceedings of the IEEE, 102, 976–999 (2014). Liu et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56, 1595–1599 (2017). E. Doris et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56, 1595–1599 (2017). Burgess, J. S. Moore, and J. Rodríguez-López, Accounts of Chemical Research, 49, 2649–2657 (2016). C. Montoto et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society, 138, 13230–13237 (2016). J. Baran et al., Chemistry of Materials, 30, 3861–3866 (2018). H. Hendriks et al., ACS Central Science, 4, 189–196 (2018).

In Feminist theory: from margin to center, bell hooks puts into question the works by reformist feminists who happens to be mostly white, privileged women. She insists that these reformists do not address the plight of other oppressed women who were subjugated not only by their sex alone but by other factors such as race and class. Consequently, she proposes a cultural criticism that investigates the systems of domination in place through a disruption and deconstruction of cultural productions. This paper aims to critically evaluate hooks’ radical feminism and cultural criticism, and show its philosophical heritage through an engagement with the key ideas of critical theory and postmodernism. References Ackerly, Brooke A. Political theory and feminist social criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. “Culture industry reconsidered.” New German Critique 6 (1975): 12-19. Ahmed, Sara. Differences that matter: Feminist theory and postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Anderson, Pamela Sue. “Feminism and philosophy.” In Gamble, Sarah, ed. The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism. London: Routledge, 2006, 117-124. Berger, Arthur Asa. Cultural criticism: a primer of key concepts. California: Sage Publications, 1995. Brezina, Corona. Sojourner Truth’s “ain't I a woman?” speech: A primary source investigation. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005. Bronner, Stephen Eric, and Douglas Kellner, eds. Critical theory and society: A reader. New York: Psychology Press, 1989. Brooks, Ann. Postfeminisms: feminism, cultural theory and cultural forms. London: Routledge, 1997. Cavallaro, Dani. Critical and cultural theory. London: The Athlone Press, 2001. Cott, Nancy F. The grounding of modern feminism. Boston, Mass.: Yale University Press, 1987. del Guadalupe Davidson, Maria, and George Yancy, eds. Critical perspectives on bell hooks. London: Routledge, 2009. Devereux, Cecily. “New woman, new world: maternal feminism and the new imperialism in the white settler colonies.” In Women's studies international forum, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 175-184. Pergamon, 1999. Dicker, Rory, and Alison Piepmeier, eds. Catching a wave: Reclaiming feminism for the 21st century. Northeastern University Press, 2016. Foucault, Michel. The history of sexuality: An introduction. Vintage, 1990. Friedan, Betty. The feminine mystique. New York: WW Norton & Company, 2010. Gamble, Sarah, ed. The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism. London: Routledge, 2006. Genz, Stéphanie and Benjamin Brabon. Postfeminism: cultural texts and theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. Geuss, Raymond. The idea of a critical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. hooks, bell. Outlaw culture: resisting representations. London: Routledge, 2006. __________. Salvation: Black people and love. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001. __________. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston, Mass.: South and Press, 1990. __________. Feminist theory: from margin to center. Boston, Mass.: South End Press, 1984. __________. Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston, Mass.: South End Press, 1981. Horkheimer, Max. Between philosophy and social science: selected early writings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. Leitch, Vincent B., and William E. Cain, eds. The Norton anthology of theory and criticism. New York: WW Norton & Company, 2010. McLaren, Peter, and Nathalia E. Jaramillo. “Borderlines: bell hooks and the Pedagogy of Revolutionary Change.” In Critical Perspectives on bell hooks, pp. 31-47. Routledge, 2009. Kellner, Douglas. Baudrillard: A critical reader. Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1995. May, Tim, and Jason Powell. Situating social theory. London: McGraw-Hill Education, 2008. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism.” Political Theory 20, no. 2 (1992): 202-46. Rush, Fred, ed. The Cambridge companion to critical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. "Forty Years of Women’s Studies." Ms. Magazine online. Spring Issue. http://www. msmagazine. com/womensstudies/FourtyYears.asp (2009). Walters, Suzanna Danuta. Material girls: Making sense of feminist cultural theory. California: University of California Press, 1995. Watkins, S. Craig, and Rana A. Emerson. “Feminist media criticism and feminist media practices.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571, no. 1 (2000): 151-166. Wolf, Naomi. The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Random House, 1991.

Introduction: Even though the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in late 2019 in Wuhan, China, it is still prevalent across the globe and continues to create mayhem. According to WHO, on March 26, 2021, SARS- CoV-2 virus has infected a total of 125 million people worldwide and caused 3 million casualties. There have been 14.5 million confirmed cases in Southeast Asia, out of which 6.5 lac confirmed cases of COVID-19 are from Pakistan alone, with 14,028 deaths. In Sindh, Pakistan, there have been 2.6 lac confirmed cases of COVID-19 out of which 2 lac 56 thousand have recovered while 4,487 died. Since the outbreak, countless research has been undertaken pertaining to the virus transmission cycle and different countries have strived to come up with a vaccine to protect the masses. The continued dissemination of this coronavirus vaccine emphasizes the role of international collaboration in the development of vaccines and therapeutics. Factors contributing towards vaccine hesitancy include unknown adverse effects of the vaccine, perceived threats, lack of awareness, religious beliefs, myths surrounding the pandemic and vaccine, lack of confidence in the health system and lack of community awareness about vaccine-preventable diseases. Moreover, since the vaccine is new and there is a lack of research pertaining to its efficacy and detrimental effects, people are reluctant to get vaccinated. The findings of this study might help the government figure out the best way to introduce mass vaccination programs in Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Moreover, lockdowns and social distancing may be eased if a COVID-19 vaccination offers immune defense, which will be beneficial for the country’s economy. Objective: To gauge the percentage of citizens who are willing to become vaccinated, their overall attitude towards the vaccination programs and the factors contributing towards vaccine hesitancy at the COVID Vaccination Center, Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center, Karachi, Pakistan. Methodology: A cross sectional study from May 2021 to August 2021 was conducted at the COVID Vaccination Center, Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center in Karachi. The study was conducted on 400 persons who were either the vaccination staff of the COVID Vacination Center or the persons coming for COVID vaccination. The sampling technique was non probability purposive sampling. The data was collected by rotating a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to the data collectors who distributed them to the vaccination staff and the visitors .Written consent was taken from the participants and all ethical considerations and research protocols were observed. Data was collected in the form of pre-tested self-administered questionnaires. In order to standardize the questionnaires, a pilot study was conducted among research participants for the purpose of examining content validity. Data collected was analyzed using SPSS software version 20. The statistical analysis was conducted with 95% confidence interval and a p-value of <0.05 was taken as threshold of statistical significance. Results: 400 subjects were approached to fill in the questionnaires. The age group of participants was less than 25 years were 48.2%( n=204), 25 to 50 years were 38.8% (n=164) and more than 50 years were 7.6%(n=32) Males were 40.%(n=169) while females were 54.5%(n=231). Among the participants 40.4% ( n=171) were married and 54.1%(n=229) were unmarried. Coming to the educational background, the majority had a bachelor’s degree or beyond. Not Formally educated were 1.7%(n=7), those who studied till fifth grade or below were 1.2%(n=5), those educated up until matriculation were 3.3%(n=14), those who were intermediate educated were 14.3%(n=63), Diploma holders were 31%(n=131) and those who were university educated were 42.5%(n=180. When the participants were asked about their opinion regarding their health status, 21.5%(n=91) said it was excellent, 47.8%(n=202) said it was good, 21.3%(n=90) said it was fair, while 4%(n=17) said it was poor. When the participants were asked whether they were they suffering from any illness ( e.g: asthma, high BP, diabetes mellitus), 16.3%(n=69) said yes while 78.3%(n=331) said no. When the participants were asked whether COVID-19 existed, 86.5% (n=366) said yes while 8%(n=34) said no. When asked if COVID-19 was dangerous, 82.7%(n=350) said yes while 11.8% (n=50) said no. Replying to the question had the participants ever been infected by COVID in past, 13.9%(n=59) said yes while 54.8%(n=274) said no. When asked whether any members of their family, friends or neighbours had been affected by COVID-19, 61.9%(n=262) said yes and 32.6%(n=138) said no. When asked had they ever heard about COVID-19 vaccination, 39%(n=165) said yes and 55%(n=235) said no. 92.7%(n=392) said yes while 1.9%(n=8) said when asked whether had they received COVID-19 vaccination, 39%(n=165) said yes while 61 %(n=235) said no. When those who had not taken the vaccine were asked the reasons for not doing so, 6.5%(n=28) said that the COVID-19vaccine was not effective, 9.5%(n=40) said that it had side effects, 4.7%(n=20) believed that they had alternate protection against COVID-19 while 36.9%(n=156) gave other reasons. When the participants were asked whether they considered themselves at risk of getting COVID-19,43.7%(n=185) said yes ,27.2%(n=115) said no and 23.6%(n=100) said that they were not sure. Replying to the question would they prefer a vaccine with lower efficacy for the time being, 50.6%(n=214) said yes and 44%(n=186) said no. When asked which vaccine would they prefer, 35.5%(n=150) said Sinopharm/Sinovac (China), 5.2%(n=22) said Sputnik-V (Russia), 3.1%(n=13) said AstraZeneca( United Kingdom), 17.5%(n=74) said Pfizer( USA), 18.9%(n=80) said any vaccine and 14.4(n=61) were not in favour of any vaccine. When asked in detail regarding the participants ‘ major concerns and reservations regarding COVID 19 vaccine, about 29.6%(n=125) participants did not trust a vaccine made in such a short period of time, 35.7%(n=151) trusted the vaccine and 29.3%(n=124) were not sure. When asked whether the Vaccine’s contents were not permissible in their religion, 7.1%(n=30) agreed, 60.3%(n=255) disagreed and 27.2%(n=115) were not sure. When asked whether they did not need a vaccine as they had already contracted COVID-19, 8%(n=34) agreed, 70.7%(n=299) disagreed and 15.8%(n=57) were not sure, Replying to the question whether the Vaccine could cause infertility, 7.8%(n=33) agreed, 49.9%(n=211) disagreed and 36.9%(n=156) were not sure. When the participants were asked whether COVID-19 vaccine was a conspiracy of the West, 17%(n=72) agreed, 52.2%(n=221) disagreed while 25.3%(n=107) were not sure. Responding to the question whether the participants would wait and see vaccine outcomes on other recipients, 38.8%(n=154) agreed, 45.4%(n=132) disagreed while 10.4%(n=44) were not sure. Responding to the question that vaccination would not be effective for different mutated forms, 34.3%(n=145) agreed, 23.9%(n=121) disagreed and 36.4%(n=154) were not sure. When asked whether they suspected that Vaccine inserts a chip inside the body, 6.9%(n=19) agreed, 59.8%(n=253) disagreed while 27.9%(n=118) were not sure. When the participants were asked whether they would get a booster dose if required, 49.4%(n=209) said yes and 22.7%(n=96) said no. When asked what were their reason/s for getting vaccinated, 51.1%(n=216) said that they wanted to protect their family and friends, 21.7%(n=92) said that they were at high risk of contracting COVID 19, 1.9%(n=8) said that they were suffering from co-morbidities while 15.4%(n=65) gave other reasons and 4.5%(n=19) said that they did not want to get vaccinated. Conclusion: The population’s acceptance rate for COVID-19 vaccine is only thirty nine percent according to this study. In this research, key characteristics are emphasized that have significant consequences for formulating vaccine policy that maximizes vaccine uptake. Religious leaders should be involved in developing successful communication strategies, particularly for low-income families. Public messaging shoulddispel any worries about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, as well as emphasize the vaccine’s potential for containing the pandemic. Keywords: COVID Vaccination+ Acceptance+ Healthcare workers+ general population

The dietary omega‐6 (n‐6) to omega‐3 (n‐3) fatty acid (FA) ratio (n‐6/n‐3 ratio) has been shown to predict planning abilities in children 7 to 12 years old. We previously demonstrated that a balanced n‐6/n‐3 ratio and n‐3 intake (e.g., low n‐3 intake with a low n‐6/n‐3 ratio) predicted better performance on difficult planning problems in 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds, and unbalanced intake (e.g., high n‐3 intake with a low n‐6/n‐3 ratio) predicted better performance in 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds. These results imply important developmental considerations for the role of n‐6 and n‐3 FAs in cognitive function. We further explored the role of n‐6 and n‐3 FAs in brain function by collecting brain imaging data from the prefrontal cortex (PFC) using near‐infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with 57 children (29 children 7 to 9 years old and 28 children 10 to 12 years old) who completed the Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) planning task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). We computed the oxygenated hemoglobin (oxyHb) levels in the left PFC, central PFC, and right PFC (Figure 1) related to children solving simple planning problems (3‐move problems), difficult planning problems (5‐move problems), and the change in brain activity moving from 3‐move to 5‐move problems. The difference in brain activity from 3‐move to 5‐move problems represents both the increased number of moves required and the need to make the counterintuitive moves required of 5‐move problems.Correlations between brain activity and SOC performance (Table 1) indicated that greater activity when solving 3‐move problems and reduced activity when moving from 3‐move to 5‐move problems was related to improved performance (making fewer errors and solving more problems in the minimum number of moves). Increased use of the PFC was important for solving simpler planning problems, and efficiency was important for the ability to make counterintuitive moves and solve more difficult planning problems. Multivariate regressions were run using the n‐6/n‐3 ratio, n‐3 intake, and their interaction to predict brain activity in the PFC related to solving planning problems above and beyond maternal education and physical activity. The interaction between the n‐6/n‐3 ratio and n‐3 intake predicted brain activity in the central PFC when moving from the 3‐move to 5‐move planning problems differently in 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds (t(21) = −2.73, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.14) and 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds (t(19) = 2.53, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.19). In 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds (Figure 2), balanced n‐6/n‐3 ratio and n‐3 intake predicted reduced central PFC activity moving from 3‐move to 5‐move problems, which was associated with improved planning performance. In 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds (Figure 3), unbalanced n‐6/n‐3 ratio and n‐3 intake predicted reduced central PFC activity. These results further support considering the overall balance of n‐6 and n‐3 FAs, and highlight the need to consider developmental changes that affect the brain's nutritional needs. The 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds were likely entering puberty, a time of considerable brain growth that may be best supported by increased n‐3 intake and lower n‐6/n‐3 ratios, whereas younger children may require greater balance of n‐6 and n‐3 FAs to support flexible use of cortical resources as they become more adept at increasingly challenging cognitive tasks.Support or Funding InformationThis work was funded by monies granted to the second author from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC‐CH) Nutrition Research Institute, and to the first author through a Sigma Xi Grants‐in‐aid‐of‐Research (GIAR) grant, a Dashiell Dissertation Start‐Up Grant from the UNC‐CH Psychology & Neuroscience Department, a pre‐doctoral fellowship from the UNC‐CH Center for Developmental Science (NICHD T32‐HD07376), and a Dissertation Completion Fellowship from the UNC‐CH Graduate School. Pearson correlations between brain activity and SOC planning task performance by age group. 7– to 9‐year‐olds (n = 29) Central 3‐move Right Hem 3‐move Left Hem 3 to 5 Central 3 to 5 Right Hem 3 to 5 Min. Moves Probs. Total Moves (5‐move) Mean Initial Thinking Time (5‐move) Left Hem 3‐move 0.62*** 0.82*** −0.36 −0.1 −0.23 0.09 −0.25 −0.12 Central 3‐move 0.75*** −0.35 −0.42* −0.4* 0.08 −0.25 0.01 Right Hem 3‐move −0.41* −0.3 −0.05* 0.27 −0.37* −0.17 Left Hem 3 to 5 0.75*** 0.84*** −0.26 0.36 0.29 Central 3 to 5 0.85*** −0.27 0.24 0.19 Right Hem 3 to 5 −0.33 0.43* 0.37* Min. Moves Probs. −0.49** −0.01 Total Moves (5‐move) 0.04 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds (n=28)' Central 3‐move Right Hem 3‐move Left Hem 3 to 5 Central 3 to 5 Right Hem 3 to 5 Min. Moves Probs. Total Moves (5‐move) Mean Initial Thinking Time (5‐move) Left Hem 3‐move 0.67*** 0.81*** −0.63*** −0.33 −0.47* 0.37 0.21 0.18 Central 3‐move 0.73*** −0.52** −0.69*** −0.53** 0.56** 0.03 0.33 Right Hem 3‐move −0.61** −0.44* −0.6** 0.38* 0.28 0.14 Left Hem 3 to 5 0.71*** 0.79*** −0.4* 0.002 0.09 Central 3 to 5 0.8*** −0.55** 0.1 0.03 Right Hem 3 to 5 −0.5* −0.09 0.15 Min. Moves Probs. −0.45** 0.29 Total Moves 15‐ move) −0.27 Note. p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001. Left Hem: Left prefrontal cortex (channels 1 – 6); Central: Central prefrontal cortex (channels 7 –14); Right Hem: Right prefrontal cortex (channels 15 – 20); Min. Moves Probs: Problems solved in the minimum number of moves; Mean Initial Thinking Time (5‐move): Time spent thinking through the problem before beginning to solve it.

Introduction Documentary film has grown significantly in the past decade, with high profile films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Supersize Me, and An Inconvenient Truth garnering increased attention both at the box office and in the news media. In addition, the rising prominence of web-based media has provided new opportunities for documentary to create social impact. Films are now typically released with websites, Facebook pages, twitter feeds, and web videos to increase both reach and impact. This combination of technology and broader audience appeal has given rise to a current landscape in which documentary films are imbedded within coordinated multi-media campaigns. New media have not only opened up new avenues for communicating with audiences, they have also created new opportunities for data collection and analysis of film impacts. A recent report by McKinsey and Company highlighted this potential, introducing and discussing the implications of increasing consumer information being recorded on the Internet as well as through networked sensors in the physical world. As they found: "Big data—large pools of data that can be captured, communicated, aggregated, stored, and analyzed—is now part of every sector and function of the global economy" (Manyika et al. iv). This data can be mined to learn a great deal about both individual and cultural response to documentary films and the issues they represent. Although film has a rich history in humanities research, this new set of tools enables an empirical approach grounded in the social sciences. However, several researchers across disciplines have noted that limited investigation has been conducted in this area. Although there has always been an emphasis on social impact in film and many filmmakers and scholars have made legitimate (and possibly illegitimate) claims of impact, few have attempted to empirically justify these claims. Over fifteen years ago, noted film scholar Brian Winston commented that "the underlying assumption of most social documentaries—that they shall act as agents of reform and change—is almost never demonstrated" (236). A decade later, Political Scientist David Whiteman repeated this sentiment, arguing that, "despite widespread speculation about the impact of documentaries, the topic has received relatively little systematic attention" ("Evolving"). And earlier this year, the introduction to a special issue of Mass Communication and Society on documentary film stated, "documentary film, despite its growing influence and many impacts, has mostly been overlooked by social scientists studying the media and communication" (Nisbet and Aufderheide 451). Film has been studied extensively as entertainment, as narrative, and as cultural event, but the study of film as an agent of social change is still in its infancy. This paper introduces a systematic approach to measuring the social impact of documentary film aiming to: (1) discuss the context of documentary film and its potential impact; and (2) argue for a social science approach, discussing key issues about conducting such research. Changes in Documentary Practice Documentary film has been used as a tool for promoting social change throughout its history. John Grierson, who coined the term "documentary" in 1926, believed it could be used to influence the ideas and actions of people in ways once reserved for church and school. He presented his thoughts on this emerging genre in his 1932 essay, First Principles of Documentary, saying, "We believe that the cinema's capacity for getting around, for observing and selecting from life itself, can be exploited in a new and vital art form" (97). Richard Barsam further specified the definition of documentary, distinguishing it from non-fiction film, such that all documentaries are non-fiction films but not all non-fiction films are documentaries. He distinguishes documentary from other forms of non-fiction film (i.e. travel films, educational films, newsreels) by its purpose; it is a film with an opinion and a specific message that aims to persuade or influence the audience. And Bill Nichols writes that the definition of documentary may even expand beyond the film itself, defining it as a "filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception" (12). Documentary film has undergone many significant changes since its inception, from the heavily staged romanticism movement of the 1920s to the propagandist tradition of governments using film to persuade individuals to support national agendas to the introduction of cinéma vérité in the 1960s and historical documentary in the 1980s (cf. Barnouw). However, the recent upsurge in popularity of documentary media, combined with technological advances of internet and computers have opened up a whole new set of opportunities for film to serve as both art and agent for social change. One such opportunity is in the creation of film-based social action campaigns. Over the past decade, filmmakers have taken a more active role in promoting social change by coordinating film releases with action campaigns. Companies such as Participant Media (An Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc., etc.) now create "specific social action campaigns for each film and documentary designed to give a voice to issues that resonate in the films" (Participant Media). In addition, a new sector of "social media" consultants are now offering services, including "consultation, strategic planning for alternative distribution, website and social media development, and complete campaign management services to filmmakers to ensure the content of nonfiction media truly meets the intention for change" (Working Films). The emergence of new forms of media and technology are changing our conceptions of both documentary film and social action. Technologies such as podcasts, video blogs, internet radio, social media and network applications, and collaborative web editing "both unsettle and extend concepts and assumptions at the heart of 'documentary' as a practice and as an idea" (Ellsworth). In the past decade, we have seen new forms of documentary creation, distribution, marketing, and engagement. Likewise, film campaigns are utilizing a broad array of strategies to engage audience members, including "action kits, screening programs, educational curriculums and classes, house parties, seminars, panels" that often turn into "ongoing 'legacy' programs that are updated and revised to continue beyond the film's domestic and international theatrical, DVD and television windows" (Participant Media). This move towards multi-media documentary film is becoming not only commonplace, but expected as a part of filmmaking. NYU film professor and documentary film pioneer George Stoney recently noted, "50 percent of the documentary filmmaker's job is making the movie, and 50 percent is figuring out what its impact can be and how it can move audiences to action" (qtd. in Nisbet, "Gasland"). In his book Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins, coined the term "transmedia storytelling", which he later defined as "a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience" ("Transmedia"). When applied to documentary film, it is the elements of the "issue" raised by the film that get dispersed across these channels, coordinating, not just an entertainment experience, but a social action campaign. Dimensions of Evaluation It is not unreasonable to assume that such film campaigns, just like any policy or program, have the possibility to influence viewers' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Measuring this impact has become increasingly important, as funders of documentary and issue-based films want look to understand the "return on investment" of films in terms of social impact so that they can compare them with other projects, including non-media, direct service projects. Although we "feel" like films make a difference to the individuals who also see them in the broader cultures in which they are embedded, measurement and empirical analysis of this impact are vitally important for both providing feedback to filmmakers and funders as well as informing future efforts attempting to leverage film for social change. This type of systematic assessment, or program evaluation, is often discussed in terms of two primary goals—formative (or process) and summative (or impact) evaluation (cf. Muraskin; Trochim and Donnelly). Formative evaluation studies program materials and activities to strengthen a program, and summative evaluation examines program outcomes. In terms of documentary film, these two goals can be described as follows: Formative Evaluation: Informing the Process As programs (broadly defined as an intentional set of activities with the aim of having some specific impact), the people who interact with them, and the cultures they are situated in are constantly changing, program development and evaluation is an ongoing learning cycle. Film campaigns, which are an intentional set of activities with the aim of impacting individual viewers and broader cultures, fit squarely within this purview. Without formulating hypotheses about the relationships between program activities and goals and then collecting and analyzing data during implementation to test them, it is difficult to learn ways to improve programs (or continue doing what works best in the most efficient manner). Attention to this process enables those involved to learn more about, not only what works, but how and why it works and even gain insights about how program outcomes may be affected by changes to resource availability, potential audiences, or infrastructure. Filmmakers are constantly learning and honing their craft and realizing the impact of their practice can help the artistic process. Often faced with tight budgets and timelines, they are forced to confront tradeoffs all the time, in the writing, production and post-production process. Understanding where they are having impact can improve their decision-making, which can help both the individual project and the overall field. Summative Evaluation: Quantifying Impacts Evaluation is used in many different fields to determine whether programs are achieving their intended goals and objectives. It became popular in the 1960s as a way of understanding the impact of the Great Society programs and has continued to grow since that time (Madaus and Stufflebeam). A recent White House memo stated that "rigorous, independent program evaluations can be a key resource in determining whether government programs are achieving their intended outcomes as well as possible and at the lowest possible cost" and the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) launched an initiative to increase the practice of "impact evaluations, or evaluations aimed at determining the causal effects of programs" (Orszag 1). Documentary films, like government programs, generally target a national audience, aim to serve a social purpose, and often do not provide a return on their investment. Participant Media, the most visible and arguably most successful documentary production company in the film industry, made recent headlines for its difficulty in making a profit during its seven-year history (Cieply). Owner and founder Jeff Skoll reported investing hundreds of millions of dollars into the company and CEO James Berk added that the company sometimes measures success, not by profit, but by "whether Mr. Skoll could have exerted more impact simply by spending his money philanthropically" (Cieply). Because of this, documentary projects often rely on grant funding, and are starting to approach funders beyond traditional arts and media sources. "Filmmakers are finding new fiscal and non-fiscal partners, in constituencies that would not traditionally be considered—or consider themselves—media funders or partners" (BRITDOC 6). And funders increasingly expect tangible data about their return on investment. Says Luis Ubiñas, president of Ford Foundation, which recently launched the Just Films Initiative: In these times of global economic uncertainty, with increasing demand for limited philanthropic dollars, assessing our effectiveness is more important than ever. Today, staying on the frontlines of social change means gauging, with thoughtfulness and rigor, the immediate and distant outcomes of our funding. Establishing the need for evaluation is not enough—attention to methodology is also critical. Valid research methodology is a critical component of understanding around the role entertainment can play in impacting social and environmental issues. The following issues are vital to measuring impact. Defining the Project Though this may seem like an obvious step, it is essential to determine the nature of the project so one can create research questions and hypotheses based on a complete understanding of the "treatment". One organization that provides a great example of the integration of documentary film imbedded into a larger campaign or movement is Invisible Children. Founded in 2005, Invisible Children is both a media-based organization as well as an economic development NGO with the goal of raising awareness and meeting the needs of child soldiers and other youth suffering as a result of the ongoing war in northern Uganda. Although Invisible Children began as a documentary film, it has grown into a large non-profit organization with an operating budget of over $8 million and a staff of over a hundred employees and interns throughout the year as well as volunteers in all 50 states and several countries. Invisible Children programming includes films, events, fundraising campaigns, contests, social media platforms, blogs, videos, two national "tours" per year, merchandise, and even a 650-person three-day youth summit in August 2011 called The Fourth Estate. Individually, each of these components might lead to specific outcomes; collectively, they might lead to others. In order to properly assess impacts of the film "project", it is important to take all of these components into consideration and think about who they may impact and how. This informs the research questions, hypotheses, and methods used in evaluation. Film campaigns may even include partnerships with existing social movements and non-profit organizations targeting social change. The American University Center for Social Media concluded in a case study of three issue-based documentary film campaigns: Digital technologies do not replace, but are closely entwined with, longstanding on-the-ground activities of stakeholders and citizens working for social change. Projects like these forge new tools, pipelines, and circuits of circulation in a multiplatform media environment. They help to create sustainable network infrastructures for participatory public media that extend from local communities to transnational circuits and from grassroots communities to policy makers. (Abrash) Expanding the Focus of Impact beyond the Individual A recent focus has shifted the dialogue on film impact. Whiteman ("Theaters") argues that traditional metrics of film "success" tend to focus on studio economic indicators that are far more relevant to large budget films. Current efforts focused on box office receipts and audience size, the author claims, are really measures of successful film marketing or promotion, missing the mark when it comes to understanding social impact. He instead stresses the importance of developing a more comprehensive model. His "coalition model" broadens the range and types of impact of film beyond traditional metrics to include the entire filmmaking process, from production to distribution. Whiteman (“Theaters”) argues that a narrow focus on the size of the audience for a film, its box office receipts, and viewers' attitudes does not incorporate the potential reach of a documentary film. Impacts within the coalition model include both individual and policy levels. Individual impacts (with an emphasis on activist groups) include educating members, mobilizing for action, and raising group status; policy includes altering both agenda for and the substance of policy deliberations. The Fledgling Fund (Barrett and Leddy) expanded on this concept and identified five distinct impacts of documentary film campaigns. These potential impacts expand from individual viewers to groups, movements, and eventually to what they call the "ultimate goal" of social change. Each is introduced briefly below. Quality Film. The film itself can be presented as a quality film or media project, creating enjoyment or evoking emotion in the part of audiences. "By this we mean a film that has a compelling narrative that draws viewers in and can engage them in the issue and illustrate complex problems in ways that statistics cannot" (Barrett and Leddy, 6). Public Awareness. Film can increase public awareness by bringing light to issues and stories that may have otherwise been unknown or not often thought about. This is the level of impact that has received the most attention, as films are often discussed in terms of their "educational" value. "A project's ability to raise awareness around a particular issue, since awareness is a critical building block for both individual change and broader social change" (Barrett and Leddy, 6). Public Engagement. Impact, however, need not stop at simply raising public awareness. Engagement "indicates a shift from simply being aware of an issue to acting on this awareness. Were a film and its outreach campaign able to provide an answer to the question 'What can I do?' and more importantly mobilize that individual to act?" (Barrett and Leddy, 7). This is where an associated film campaign becomes increasingly important, as transmedia outlets such as Facebook, websites, blogs, etc. can build off the interest and awareness developed through watching a film and provide outlets for viewers channel their constructive efforts. Social Movement. In addition to impacts on individuals, films can also serve to mobilize groups focused on a particular problem. The filmmaker can create a campaign around the film to promote its goals and/or work with existing groups focused on a particular issue, so that the film can be used as a tool for mobilization and collaboration. "Moving beyond measures of impact as they relate to individual awareness and engagement, we look at the project's impact as it relates to the broader social movement … if a project can strengthen the work of key advocacy organizations that have strong commitment to the issues raised in the film" (Barrett and Leddy, 7). Social Change. The final level of impact and "ultimate goal" of an issue-based film is long-term and systemic social change. "While we understand that realizing social change is often a long and complex process, we do believe it is possible and that for some projects and issues there are key indicators of success" (Barrett and Leddy, 7). This can take the form of policy or legislative change, passed through film-based lobbying efforts, or shifts in public dialogue and behavior. Legislative change typically takes place beyond the social movement stage, when there is enough support to pressure legislators to change or create policy. Film-inspired activism has been seen in issues ranging from environmental causes such as agriculture (Food Inc.) and toxic products (Blue Vinyl) to social causes such as foreign conflict (Invisible Children) and education (Waiting for Superman). Documentary films can also have a strong influence as media agenda-setters, as films provide dramatic "news pegs" for journalists seeking to either sustain or generation new coverage of an issue (Nisbet "Introduction" 5), such as the media coverage of climate change in conjunction with An Inconvenient Truth. Barrett and Leddy, however, note that not all films target all five impacts and that different films may lead to different impacts. "In some cases we could look to key legislative or policy changes that were driven by, or at least supported by the project... In other cases, we can point to shifts in public dialogue and how issues are framed and discussed" (7). It is possible that specific film and/or campaign characteristics may lead to different impacts; this is a nascent area for research and one with great promise for both practical and theoretical utility. Innovations in Tools and Methods Finally, the selection of tools is a vital component for assessing impact and the new media landscape is enabling innovations in the methods and strategies for program evaluation. Whereas the traditional domain of film impact measurement included box office statistics, focus groups, and exit surveys, innovations in data collection and analysis have expanded the reach of what questions we can ask and how we are able to answer them. For example, press coverage can assist in understanding and measuring the increase in awareness about an issue post-release. Looking directly at web-traffic changes "enables the creation of an information-seeking curve that can define the parameters of a teachable moment" (Hart and Leiserowitz 360). Audience reception can be measured, not only via interviews and focus groups, but also through content and sentiment analysis of web content and online analytics. "Sophisticated analytics can substantially improve decision making, minimize risks, and unearth valuable insights that would otherwise remain hidden" (Manyika et al. 5). These new tools are significantly changing evaluation, expanding what we can learn about the social impacts of film through triangulation of self-report data with measurement of actual behavior in virtual environments. Conclusion The changing media landscape both allows and impels evaluation of film impacts on individual viewers and the broader culture in which they are imbedded. Although such analysis may have previously been limited to box office numbers, critics' reviews, and theater exit surveys, the rise of new media provides both the ability to connect filmmakers, activists, and viewers in new ways and the data in which to study the process. This capability, combined with significant growth in the documentary landscape, suggests a great potential for documentary film to contribute to some of our most pressing social and environmental needs. A social scientific approach, that combines empirical analysis with theory applied from basic science, ensures that impact can be measured and leveraged in a way that is useful for both filmmakers as well as funders. In the end, this attention to impact ensures a continued thriving marketplace for issue-based documentary films in our social landscape. References Abrash, Barbara. "Social Issue Documentary: The Evolution of Public Engagement." American University Center for Social Media 21 Apr. 2010. 26 Sep. 2011 ‹http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/›. Aufderheide, Patricia. "The Changing Documentary Marketplace." Cineaste 30.3 (2005): 24-28. Barnouw, Eric. Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Barrett, Diana and Sheila Leddy. "Assessing Creative Media's Social Impact." The Fledgling Fund, Dec. 2008. 15 Sep. 2011 ‹http://www.thefledglingfund.org/media/research.html›. Barsam, Richard M. Nonfiction Film: A Critical History. Bloomington: Indiana UP. 1992. BRITDOC Foundation. The End of the Line: A Social Impact Evaluation. London: Channel 4, 2011. 12 Oct. 2011 ‹http://britdoc.org/news_details/the_social_impact_of_the_end_of_the_line/›. Cieply, Michael. "Uneven Growth for Film Studio with a Message." New York Times 5 Jun. 2011: B1. Ellsworth, Elizabeth. "Emerging Media and Documentary Practice." The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs. Aug. 2008. 22 Sep. 2011. ‹http://www.gpia.info/node/911›. Grierson, John. "First Principles of Documentary (1932)." Imagining Reality: The Faber Book of Documentary. Eds. Kevin Macdonald and Mark Cousins. London: Faber and Faber, 1996. 97-102. Hart, Philip Solomon and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Finding the Teachable Moment: An Analysis of Information-Seeking Behavior on Global Warming Related Websites during the Release of The Day After Tomorrow." Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 3.3 (2009): 355-66. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. ———. "Transmedia Storytelling 101." Confessions of an Aca-Fan. The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. 22 Mar. 2007. 10 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html›. Madaus, George, and Daniel Stufflebeam. "Program Evaluation: A Historical Overview." Evaluation in Education and Human Services 49.1 (2002): 3-18. Manyika, James, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Brad Brown, Richard Dobbs, Charles Roxburgh, and Angela Hung Byers. Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. May 2011 ‹http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/big_data/›. Muraskin, Lana. Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993. 8 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/handbook.pdf›. Nichols, Bill. "Foreword." Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Eds. Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1997. 11-13. Nisbet, Matthew. "Gasland and Dirty Business: Documentary Films Shape Debate on Energy Policy." Big Think, 9 May 2011. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://bigthink.com/ideas/38345›. ———. "Introduction: Understanding the Social Impact of a Documentary Film." Documentaries on a Mission: How Nonprofits Are Making Movies for Public Engagement. Ed. Karen Hirsch, Center for Social Media. Mar. 2007. 10 Sep. 2011 ‹http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/4634/1/docs_on_a_mission.pdf›. Nisbet, Matthew, and Patricia Aufderheide. "Documentary Film: Towards a Research Agenda on Forms, Functions, and Impacts." Mass Communication and Society 12.4 (2011): 450-56. Orszag, Peter. Increased Emphasis on Program Evaluation. Washington: Office of Management and Budget. 7 Oct. 2009. 10 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-01.pdf›. Participant Media. "Our Mission." 2011. 2 Apr. 2011 ‹http://www.participantmedia.com/company/about_us.php.›. Plantinga, Carl. Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Trochim, William, and James Donnelly. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 3rd ed. Mason: Atomic Dogs, 2007. Ubiñas, Luis. "President's Message." 2009 Annual Report. Ford Foundation, Sep. 2010. 10 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/2009-annual-report/presidents-message›. Vladica, Florin, and Charles Davis. "Business Innovation and New Media Practices in Documentary Film Production and Distribution: Conceptual Framework and Review of Evidence." The Media as a Driver of the Information Society. Eds. Ed Albarran, Paulo Faustino, and R. Santos. Lisbon, Portugal: Media XXI / Formal, 2009. 299-319. Whiteman, David. "Out of the Theaters and into the Streets: A Coalition Model of the Political Impact of Documentary Film and Video." Political Communication 21.1 (2004): 51-69. ———. "The Evolving Impact of Documentary Film: Sacrifice and the Rise of Issue-Centered Outreach." Post Script 22 Jun. 2007. 10 Sep. 2011 ‹http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/5517496-1.html›. Winston, Brian. Claiming the Real: The Documentary Film Revisited. London: British Film Institute, 1995. Working Films. "Nonprofits: Working Films." Foundation Source Access 31 May 2011. 5 Oct. 2011 ‹http://access.foundationsource.com/nonprofit/working-films/›.

Political activity is expected to be of interest to a knowledgeable electorate, citizenry or ‘public’. Performance and entertainment have, on the other hand, been considered the domain of the ‘audience’. The line between active electorate and passive audience has been continually blurred, and as more political communication is designed along the lines of entertainment, the less likely it seems that the distinction will become clearer any time soon. The following article will attempt to thoroughly evaluate the contemporary implications of terms related to ‘public’ and ‘audience’, and to suggest a path forward in understanding the now intertwined roles of these two entities. In political commentary of all kinds, the term ‘audience’ has come to be regularly used in place of the more traditionally political terms ‘public’, ‘electorate’, ‘constituency’ or even ‘mass’, ‘mob’ and ‘multitude’. (Bratich 249) This slight alteration of language would seem to suggest an ongoing, and occasionally unintentional debate as to whether or not our increasingly mediated society has become incapable of true political discourse – an audience to be courted and won solely on the basis of visual and aural stimulation. In some instances, the debate goes unacknowledged, with authors using the term interchangeably with that of voter or public. Others seem to be making a more definite statement, as do the authors of Campaign Craft, wherein the term ‘audience’ is often used to refer to the voting population. (Shea and Burton) In either case, it is clear that the ‘public’ and the ‘audience’ are no longer to be considered two entirely separate entities. To understand the significance of this shift, it is necessary to identify the traditional distinctions of these sometimes problematic terms. To do so we must look briefly at how the original and contemporary meanings have developed. Herbert Blau writes that “audiences, such as they are, are nothing like a public, certainly nothing like the capitalised Public of another time” (Blau 22). That “capitalised Public” he refers to is perhaps the ideal state envisioned by Greek and Roman philosophers in which the community, as a whole, is maintained by and for its own members, and each individual plays a significant and specific role in its maintenance. The “audiences”, however, can be popularly defined as “the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event such as a play, film, concert, or meeting” or “the people giving attention to something”. (Soanes & Stevenson) The difference is subtle but significant. The public is expected to take some active interest in its own maintenance and growth, while the audience is not expected to offer action, just attention. The authors of Soundbite Culture, who would seem to see the blurring between audience and public as a negative side effect of mass media, offer this description of the differences between these two entities: Audiences are talked to; publics are talked with. Audiences are entertained; publics are engaged. Audiences live in the moment; publics have both memory and dreams. Audiences have opinions, publics have thoughts. (Slayden & Whillock 7) A ‘public’ is joined by more than their attendance at or attention to a single performance and responsible for more than just the experience of that performance. While an audience is expected to do little more than consume the performance before them, a public must respond to an experience with appropriate action. A public is a community, bound together by activity and mutual concerns. An audience is joined together only by their mutual interest in, or presence at, a performance. Carpini and Williams note that the term ‘public’ is no longer an adequate way to describe the complex levels of interaction that form contemporary political discourse: “people, politics, and the media are far more complex than this. Individuals are simultaneously citizens, consumers, audiences…and so forth” (Carpini & Williams in Bennett & Entman 161). Marshall sees the audience as both a derivative of and a factor in the larger, more political popular body called the “masses”. These masses define the population largely as an unorganised political power, while audiences emerge in relation to consumer products, as rationalised and therefore somewhat subdued categories within that scope. He notes that although the audience, in the twentieth century, has emerged as a “social category” of its own, it has developed as such in relation to both the unharnessed political power of the masses and the active political power of the public (Marshall 61-70). The audience, then, can be said to be a separate but overlapping state that rationalises and segments the potential of the masses, but also informs the subsequent actions of the public. An audience without some degree of action or involvement is not a public. Such a definition provides important insights into the debate from the perspective of political communication. The cohesiveness of the group that is to define the public can be undermined by mass media. It has been argued that mass media, in particular the internet, have removed all sense of local community and instead provided an information outlet that denies individual response. (Franklin 23; Postman 67-69) It can certainly be argued that with media available on such an instant and individual basis, the necessity of group gathering for information and action has been greatly reduced. Thus, one of the primary functions of the public is eliminated, that of joining together for information. This lack of communal information gathering can eliminate the most important functions of the public: debate and personal action. Those who tune-in to national broadcasts or even read national newspapers to receive political information are generally not invited to debate and pose solutions to the problems that are introduced to them, or to take immediate steps to resolve the conflicts addressed. Instead, they are asked only to fulfill that traditional function of the audience, to receive the information and either absorb or dismiss it. Media also blur the audience/public divide by making it necessary to change the means of political communication. Previous to the advent of mass media, political communication was separated from entertainment by its emphasis on debate and information. Television has led a turn toward more ‘emotion’ and image-based campaigning both for election and for support of a particular political agenda. This subsequently implies that this public has increasingly become primarily an audience. Although this attitude is one that has been adopted by many critics and observers, it is not entirely correct to say that there are no longer any opportunities for the audience to regain their function as a public. On a local level, town hall meetings, public consultations and rallies still exist and provide an opportunity for concerned citizens to voice their opinions and assist in forming local policy. Media, often accused of orchestrating the elimination of the active public, occasionally provide opportunities for more traditional public debate. In both Canada and the US, leaders are invited to participate in ‘town hall’ style television debates in which audience members are invited to ask questions. In the UK, both print media and television tend to offer opportunities for leaders to respond to the questions and concerns of individuals. Many newspapers publish responses and letters from many different readers, allowing for public debate and interaction. (McNair 13) In addition, newspapers such as The Washington Post and The Globe and Mail operate Websites that allow the public to comment on articles published in the paper text. In Canada, radio is often used as a forum for public debate and comment. The Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s Cross Country Check Up and Cross Talk allows mediated debate between citizens across the country. Regional stations offer similar programming. Local television news programmes often include ‘person on the street’ interviews on current issues and opportunities for the audience to voice their arguments on-air. Of course, in most of these instances, the information received from the audience is moderated, and shared selectively. This does not, however, negate the fact that there is interaction between that audience and the media. Perhaps the greatest challenge to traditional interpretations of media-audience response is the proliferation of the internet. As McNair observes, “the emergence of the internet has provided new opportunities for public participation in political debate, such as blogging and ‘citizen journalism’. Websites such as YouTube permit marginal political groups to make statements with global reach” (McNair 13). These ‘inter-networks’ not only provide alternative information for audiences to seek out, but also give audience members the ability to respond to any communication in an immediate and public way. Therefore, the audience member can exert potentially wide reaching influence on the public agenda and dialogue, clearly altering the accept-or-refuse model often applied to mediated communication. Opinion polls provide us with an opportunity to verify this shift away from the ‘hypodermic needle’ approach to communication theory (Sanderson King 61). Just as an audience can be responsible for the success of a theatre or television show based on attendance or viewing numbers, so too have public opinion polls been designed to measure, without nuance, only whether the audience accepts or dismisses what is presented to them through the media. There is little place for any measure of actual thought or opinion. The first indications of an upset in this balance resulted in tremendous surprise, as was the case during the US Clinton/Lewinsky scandal (Lawrence & Bennett 425). Stephanopoulos writes that after a full year of coverage of the Monica Lewinsky ‘scandal’, Clinton’s public approval poll numbers were “higher than ever” while the Republican leaders who had initiated the inquiry were suffering from a serious lack of public support (Stephanopoulos 442). Carpini and Williams also observed that public opinion polls taken during the media frenzy showed very little change of any kind, although the movement that did occur was in the direction of increased support for Clinton. This was in direct contrast to what “…traditional agenda-setting, framing, and priming theory would predict” (Carpini & Williams in Bennett & Entman 177). Zaller confirms that the expectation among news organisations, journalists, and political scientists was never realised; despite being cast by the media in a negative role, and despite the consumption of that negative media, the audience refused to judge the President solely on his framed persona (Zaller in Bennett & Entman 255). It was clear that the majority of the population in the US, and in other countries, were exposed to the information regarding the Clinton scandal. At the height of the scandal, it was almost unavoidable (Zaller in Bennett & Entman 254). Therefore it cannot be said that the information the media provided was not being consumed. Rather, the audience did not agree with the media’s attempts to persuade them, and communicated this through opinion polls, creating something resembling a mass political dialogue. As Lawrence and Bennett discuss in their article regarding the Lewinsky/Clinton public opinion “phenomenon”, it should not be assumed by polling institutions or public opinion watchers that the projected angle of the media will be immediately adopted by the public (Lawerence & Bennett 425). Although the media presented a preferred reading of the text, it could not ensure that the audience would interpret that meaning (Hall in Curran, Gurevitch & Harris 343). The audience’s decoding of the media’s message would have to depend on each audience member’s personal experiences and their impression of the media that was presenting the communication. This kind of response is, in fact, encouraging. If the audience relies on mainstream media to provide a frame and context to all political communication, then they are giving up their civic responsibility and placing complete authority in the hands of those actively involved in the process of communicating events. It could be suggested that the reported increase in the perceived reliabilty of internet news sources (Kinsella 251) can be at least partially attributed to the audience’s increasing awareness of these frames and limitations on mainstream media presentation. With the increase in ‘backstage’ reporting, the audience has become hyper-aware of the use of these strategies in communications. The audience is now using its knowledge and media access to decipher information, as it is presented to them, for authenticity and context. While there are those who would lament the fact that the community driven public is largely in the past and focus their attention on finding ways to see the old methods of communication revived, others argue that the way to move forward is not to regret the existence of an audience, but to alter our ideas about how to understand it. It has been suggested that in order to become a more democratic society we must now “re-conceive audiences as citizens” (Golding in Ferguson 98). And despite Blau’s pronouncement that audiences are “nothing like a public”, he later points out that there is still the possibility of unity even in the most diverse of audiences. “The presence of an audience is in itself a sign of coherence”(Blau 23). As Rothenbuhler writes: There is too much casualness in the use of the word spectator…A spectator is almost never simply looking at something. On the contrary, most forms of spectatorship are socially prescribed and performed roles and forms of communication…the spectator, then, is not simply a viewer but a participant in a larger system. (Rothenbuhler 65) We cannot regress to a time when audiences are reserved for the theatre and publics for civic matters. In a highly networked world that relies on communicating via the methods and media of entertainment, it is impossible to remove the role of the audience member from the role of citizen. This does not necessarily need to be a negative aspect of democracy, but instead a step in its constant evolution. There are positive aspects to the audience/public as well as potential negatives. McNair equates the increase in mediated communication with an increase in political knowledge and involvement, particularly for those on the margins of society who are unlikely to be exposed to national political activity in person. He notes that the advent of television may have limited political discourse to a media-friendly sound bite, but that it still increases the information dispensed to the majority of the population. Despite the ideals of democracy, the majority of the voting population is not extremely well informed as to political issues, and prior to the advent of mass media, were very unlikely to have an opportunity to become immersed in the details of policy. Media have increased the amount of political information the average citizen will be exposed to in their lifetime (McNair 41). With this in mind, it is possible to equate the faults of mass media not with their continued growth, but with society’s inability to recognise the effects of the media as technologies and to adjust education accordingly. While the quality of information and understanding regarding the actions and ideals of national political leaders may be disputed, the fact that they are more widely distributed than ever before is not. They have an audience at all times, and though that audience may receive information via a filtered medium, they are still present and active. As McNair notes, if the purpose of democracy is to increase the number of people participating in the political process, then mass media have clearly served to promote the democratic ideal (McNair 204). However, these positives are qualified by the fact that audiences must also possess the skills, the interests and the knowledge of a public, or else risk isolation that limits their power to contribute to public discourse in a meaningful way. The need for an accountable, educated audience has not gone unnoticed throughout the history of mass media. Cultural observers such as Postman, McLuhan, John Kennedy, and even Pope Pius XII have cited the need for education in media. As McLuhan aptly noted, “to the student of media, it is difficult to explain the human indifference to the social effect of these radical forces”(McLuhan 304). In 1964, McLuhan wrote that, “education will become recognised as civil defence against media fallout. The only medium for which our education now offers some civil defence is the print medium”(McLuhan 305). Unfortunately, it is only gradually and usually at an advanced level of higher education that the study and analysis of media has developed to any degree. The mass audiences, those who control the powers of the public, often remain formally uneducated as to the influence that the mediating factors of television have on the distribution of information. Although the audience may have developed a level of sophistication in their awareness of media frames, the public has not been taught how to translate this awareness into any real political or social understanding. The result is a community susceptible to being overtaken by manipulations of any medium. Those who attempt to convey political messages have only added to that confusion by being unclear as to whether or not they are attempting to address an audience or engage a public. In some instances, politicians and their teams focus their sole attention on the public, not taking into consideration the necessities of communicating with an audience, often to the detriment of political success. On the other hand, some focus their attentions on attracting and maintaining an audience, often to the detriment of the political process. This confusion may be a symptom of the mixed messages regarding the appropriate attitude toward performance that is generated by western culture. In an environment where open attention to performance is both demanded and distained, communication choices can be difficult. Instead we are likely to blindly observe the steady increase in the entertainment style packaging of our national politics. Until the audience fully incorporates itself with the public, we will see an absence of action, and excess of confused consumption (Kraus 18). Contemporary society has moved far beyond the traditional concepts of exclusive audience or public domains, and yet we have not fully articulated or defined what this change in structure really means. Although this review does suggest that contemporary citizens are both audience and public simultaneously, it is also clear that further discussion needs to occur before either of those roles can be fully understood in a contemporary communications context. References Bennett, Lance C., and Robert M. Entman. Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Blau, Herbert. The Audience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1990. Bratich, Jack Z. “Amassing the Multitude: Revisiting Early Audience Studies”. Communication Theory 15 (2005): 242-65. Curran, J., M. Gurevitch, and D. Janet Harris, eds. Mass Communication and Society. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1977. DeLuca, T., and J. Buell. Liars! Cheaters! Evildoers! Demonization and the End of Civil Debate in American Politics. New York: New York UP, 2005. Ferguson, Marjorie, ed. Public Communication: The New Imperatives. London: Sage, 1990. Franklin, Bob. Packaging Politics. London: Edward Arnold, 1994. Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Keown, Leslie-Anne. “Keeping Up with the Times: Canadians and Their News Media Diets.” Canadian Social Trends June 2007. Government of Canada. Kinsella, Warren. The War Room. Toronto: Dunduran Group, 2007. Kraus, Sidney. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Lawrence, Regina, and Lance Bennett. “Rethinking Media Politics and Public Opinion: Reactions to the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal”. Political Science Quarterly 116 (Fall 2001): 425-46. Marland, Alex. Political Marketing in Modern Canadian Federal Elections. Dalhousie University: Canadian Political Science Association Conference, 2003. Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. New ed. London: ARK Paperbacks, 1987 [1964]. McNair, Brian. An Introduction to Political Communication. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2007. The Oxford Dictionary of English. Eds. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Rev. ed. Oxford UP, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford UP. 1 Mar. 2008. http://www.oxfordreference.com.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/views/ ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e4525>. Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985. Rothenbuhler, Eric W. Ritual Communication. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1998. Sanderson King, Sarah. Human Communication as a Field of Study. New York: State U of New York P, 1990. Schultz, David A., ed. It’s Show Time! Media, Politics and Popular Culture. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Shea, Daniel, and Michael John Burton. Campaign Craft. 3rd ed. Westport: Praeger, 2006. Slayden, D., and R.K. Whillock. Soundbite Culture: The Death of Discourse in a Wired World. London: Sage, 1999. Stephanopoulos, George. All Too Human. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1999. Webster, James C. “Beneath the Veneer of Fragmentation: Television Audience Polarization in a Multichannel World.” Journal of Communication 55 (June 2005): 366-82. Woodward, Gary C. Center Stage: Media and the Performance of American Politics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. Xenos, Michael, and Kirsten Foot. “Not Your Father’s Internet: The Generation Gap in Online Politics.” Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge: MIT P, 2008. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Mullins, Kimberley. "The Voting Audience." M/C Journal 10.6/11.1 (2008). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/03-mullins.php>. APA Style Mullins, K. (Apr. 2008) "The Voting Audience," M/C Journal, 10(6)/11(1). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/03-mullins.php>.

Political activity is expected to be of interest to a knowledgeable electorate, citizenry or ‘public’. Performance and entertainment have, on the other hand, been considered the domain of the ‘audience’. The line between active electorate and passive audience has been continually blurred, and as more political communication is designed along the lines of entertainment, the less likely it seems that the distinction will become clearer any time soon. The following article will attempt to thoroughly evaluate the contemporary implications of terms related to ‘public’ and ‘audience’, and to suggest a path forward in understanding the now intertwined roles of these two entities. In political commentary of all kinds, the term ‘audience’ has come to be regularly used in place of the more traditionally political terms ‘public’, ‘electorate’, ‘constituency’ or even ‘mass’, ‘mob’ and ‘multitude’. (Bratich 249) This slight alteration of language would seem to suggest an ongoing, and occasionally unintentional debate as to whether or not our increasingly mediated society has become incapable of true political discourse – an audience to be courted and won solely on the basis of visual and aural stimulation. In some instances, the debate goes unacknowledged, with authors using the term interchangeably with that of voter or public. Others seem to be making a more definite statement, as do the authors of Campaign Craft, wherein the term ‘audience’ is often used to refer to the voting population. (Shea and Burton) In either case, it is clear that the ‘public’ and the ‘audience’ are no longer to be considered two entirely separate entities. To understand the significance of this shift, it is necessary to identify the traditional distinctions of these sometimes problematic terms. To do so we must look briefly at how the original and contemporary meanings have developed. Herbert Blau writes that “audiences, such as they are, are nothing like a public, certainly nothing like the capitalised Public of another time” (Blau 22). That “capitalised Public” he refers to is perhaps the ideal state envisioned by Greek and Roman philosophers in which the community, as a whole, is maintained by and for its own members, and each individual plays a significant and specific role in its maintenance. The “audiences”, however, can be popularly defined as “the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event such as a play, film, concert, or meeting” or “the people giving attention to something”. (Soanes & Stevenson) The difference is subtle but significant. The public is expected to take some active interest in its own maintenance and growth, while the audience is not expected to offer action, just attention. The authors of Soundbite Culture, who would seem to see the blurring between audience and public as a negative side effect of mass media, offer this description of the differences between these two entities: Audiences are talked to; publics are talked with. Audiences are entertained; publics are engaged. Audiences live in the moment; publics have both memory and dreams. Audiences have opinions, publics have thoughts. (Slayden & Whillock 7) A ‘public’ is joined by more than their attendance at or attention to a single performance and responsible for more than just the experience of that performance. While an audience is expected to do little more than consume the performance before them, a public must respond to an experience with appropriate action. A public is a community, bound together by activity and mutual concerns. An audience is joined together only by their mutual interest in, or presence at, a performance. Carpini and Williams note that the term ‘public’ is no longer an adequate way to describe the complex levels of interaction that form contemporary political discourse: “people, politics, and the media are far more complex than this. Individuals are simultaneously citizens, consumers, audiences…and so forth” (Carpini & Williams in Bennett & Entman 161). Marshall sees the audience as both a derivative of and a factor in the larger, more political popular body called the “masses”. These masses define the population largely as an unorganised political power, while audiences emerge in relation to consumer products, as rationalised and therefore somewhat subdued categories within that scope. He notes that although the audience, in the twentieth century, has emerged as a “social category” of its own, it has developed as such in relation to both the unharnessed political power of the masses and the active political power of the public (Marshall 61-70). The audience, then, can be said to be a separate but overlapping state that rationalises and segments the potential of the masses, but also informs the subsequent actions of the public. An audience without some degree of action or involvement is not a public. Such a definition provides important insights into the debate from the perspective of political communication. The cohesiveness of the group that is to define the public can be undermined by mass media. It has been argued that mass media, in particular the internet, have removed all sense of local community and instead provided an information outlet that denies individual response. (Franklin 23; Postman 67-69) It can certainly be argued that with media available on such an instant and individual basis, the necessity of group gathering for information and action has been greatly reduced. Thus, one of the primary functions of the public is eliminated, that of joining together for information. This lack of communal information gathering can eliminate the most important functions of the public: debate and personal action. Those who tune-in to national broadcasts or even read national newspapers to receive political information are generally not invited to debate and pose solutions to the problems that are introduced to them, or to take immediate steps to resolve the conflicts addressed. Instead, they are asked only to fulfill that traditional function of the audience, to receive the information and either absorb or dismiss it. Media also blur the audience/public divide by making it necessary to change the means of political communication. Previous to the advent of mass media, political communication was separated from entertainment by its emphasis on debate and information. Television has led a turn toward more ‘emotion’ and image-based campaigning both for election and for support of a particular political agenda. This subsequently implies that this public has increasingly become primarily an audience. Although this attitude is one that has been adopted by many critics and observers, it is not entirely correct to say that there are no longer any opportunities for the audience to regain their function as a public. On a local level, town hall meetings, public consultations and rallies still exist and provide an opportunity for concerned citizens to voice their opinions and assist in forming local policy. Media, often accused of orchestrating the elimination of the active public, occasionally provide opportunities for more traditional public debate. In both Canada and the US, leaders are invited to participate in ‘town hall’ style television debates in which audience members are invited to ask questions. In the UK, both print media and television tend to offer opportunities for leaders to respond to the questions and concerns of individuals. Many newspapers publish responses and letters from many different readers, allowing for public debate and interaction. (McNair 13) In addition, newspapers such as The Washington Post and The Globe and Mail operate Websites that allow the public to comment on articles published in the paper text. In Canada, radio is often used as a forum for public debate and comment. The Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s Cross Country Check Up and Cross Talk allows mediated debate between citizens across the country. Regional stations offer similar programming. Local television news programmes often include ‘person on the street’ interviews on current issues and opportunities for the audience to voice their arguments on-air. Of course, in most of these instances, the information received from the audience is moderated, and shared selectively. This does not, however, negate the fact that there is interaction between that audience and the media. Perhaps the greatest challenge to traditional interpretations of media-audience response is the proliferation of the internet. As McNair observes, “the emergence of the internet has provided new opportunities for public participation in political debate, such as blogging and ‘citizen journalism’. Websites such as YouTube permit marginal political groups to make statements with global reach” (McNair 13). These ‘inter-networks’ not only provide alternative information for audiences to seek out, but also give audience members the ability to respond to any communication in an immediate and public way. Therefore, the audience member can exert potentially wide reaching influence on the public agenda and dialogue, clearly altering the accept-or-refuse model often applied to mediated communication. Opinion polls provide us with an opportunity to verify this shift away from the ‘hypodermic needle’ approach to communication theory (Sanderson King 61). Just as an audience can be responsible for the success of a theatre or television show based on attendance or viewing numbers, so too have public opinion polls been designed to measure, without nuance, only whether the audience accepts or dismisses what is presented to them through the media. There is little place for any measure of actual thought or opinion. The first indications of an upset in this balance resulted in tremendous surprise, as was the case during the US Clinton/Lewinsky scandal (Lawrence & Bennett 425). Stephanopoulos writes that after a full year of coverage of the Monica Lewinsky ‘scandal’, Clinton’s public approval poll numbers were “higher than ever” while the Republican leaders who had initiated the inquiry were suffering from a serious lack of public support (Stephanopoulos 442). Carpini and Williams also observed that public opinion polls taken during the media frenzy showed very little change of any kind, although the movement that did occur was in the direction of increased support for Clinton. This was in direct contrast to what “…traditional agenda-setting, framing, and priming theory would predict” (Carpini & Williams in Bennett & Entman 177). Zaller confirms that the expectation among news organisations, journalists, and political scientists was never realised; despite being cast by the media in a negative role, and despite the consumption of that negative media, the audience refused to judge the President solely on his framed persona (Zaller in Bennett & Entman 255). It was clear that the majority of the population in the US, and in other countries, were exposed to the information regarding the Clinton scandal. At the height of the scandal, it was almost unavoidable (Zaller in Bennett & Entman 254). Therefore it cannot be said that the information the media provided was not being consumed. Rather, the audience did not agree with the media’s attempts to persuade them, and communicated this through opinion polls, creating something resembling a mass political dialogue. As Lawrence and Bennett discuss in their article regarding the Lewinsky/Clinton public opinion “phenomenon”, it should not be assumed by polling institutions or public opinion watchers that the projected angle of the media will be immediately adopted by the public (Lawerence & Bennett 425). Although the media presented a preferred reading of the text, it could not ensure that the audience would interpret that meaning (Hall in Curran, Gurevitch & Harris 343). The audience’s decoding of the media’s message would have to depend on each audience member’s personal experiences and their impression of the media that was presenting the communication. This kind of response is, in fact, encouraging. If the audience relies on mainstream media to provide a frame and context to all political communication, then they are giving up their civic responsibility and placing complete authority in the hands of those actively involved in the process of communicating events. It could be suggested that the reported increase in the perceived reliabilty of internet news sources (Kinsella 251) can be at least partially attributed to the audience’s increasing awareness of these frames and limitations on mainstream media presentation. With the increase in ‘backstage’ reporting, the audience has become hyper-aware of the use of these strategies in communications. The audience is now using its knowledge and media access to decipher information, as it is presented to them, for authenticity and context. While there are those who would lament the fact that the community driven public is largely in the past and focus their attention on finding ways to see the old methods of communication revived, others argue that the way to move forward is not to regret the existence of an audience, but to alter our ideas about how to understand it. It has been suggested that in order to become a more democratic society we must now “re-conceive audiences as citizens” (Golding in Ferguson 98). And despite Blau’s pronouncement that audiences are “nothing like a public”, he later points out that there is still the possibility of unity even in the most diverse of audiences. “The presence of an audience is in itself a sign of coherence”(Blau 23). As Rothenbuhler writes: There is too much casualness in the use of the word spectator…A spectator is almost never simply looking at something. On the contrary, most forms of spectatorship are socially prescribed and performed roles and forms of communication…the spectator, then, is not simply a viewer but a participant in a larger system. (Rothenbuhler 65) We cannot regress to a time when audiences are reserved for the theatre and publics for civic matters. In a highly networked world that relies on communicating via the methods and media of entertainment, it is impossible to remove the role of the audience member from the role of citizen. This does not necessarily need to be a negative aspect of democracy, but instead a step in its constant evolution. There are positive aspects to the audience/public as well as potential negatives. McNair equates the increase in mediated communication with an increase in political knowledge and involvement, particularly for those on the margins of society who are unlikely to be exposed to national political activity in person. He notes that the advent of television may have limited political discourse to a media-friendly sound bite, but that it still increases the information dispensed to the majority of the population. Despite the ideals of democracy, the majority of the voting population is not extremely well informed as to political issues, and prior to the advent of mass media, were very unlikely to have an opportunity to become immersed in the details of policy. Media have increased the amount of political information the average citizen will be exposed to in their lifetime (McNair 41). With this in mind, it is possible to equate the faults of mass media not with their continued growth, but with society’s inability to recognise the effects of the media as technologies and to adjust education accordingly. While the quality of information and understanding regarding the actions and ideals of national political leaders may be disputed, the fact that they are more widely distributed than ever before is not. They have an audience at all times, and though that audience may receive information via a filtered medium, they are still present and active. As McNair notes, if the purpose of democracy is to increase the number of people participating in the political process, then mass media have clearly served to promote the democratic ideal (McNair 204). However, these positives are qualified by the fact that audiences must also possess the skills, the interests and the knowledge of a public, or else risk isolation that limits their power to contribute to public discourse in a meaningful way. The need for an accountable, educated audience has not gone unnoticed throughout the history of mass media. Cultural observers such as Postman, McLuhan, John Kennedy, and even Pope Pius XII have cited the need for education in media. As McLuhan aptly noted, “to the student of media, it is difficult to explain the human indifference to the social effect of these radical forces”(McLuhan 304). In 1964, McLuhan wrote that, “education will become recognised as civil defence against media fallout. The only medium for which our education now offers some civil defence is the print medium”(McLuhan 305). Unfortunately, it is only gradually and usually at an advanced level of higher education that the study and analysis of media has developed to any degree. The mass audiences, those who control the powers of the public, often remain formally uneducated as to the influence that the mediating factors of television have on the distribution of information. Although the audience may have developed a level of sophistication in their awareness of media frames, the public has not been taught how to translate this awareness into any real political or social understanding. The result is a community susceptible to being overtaken by manipulations of any medium. Those who attempt to convey political messages have only added to that confusion by being unclear as to whether or not they are attempting to address an audience or engage a public. In some instances, politicians and their teams focus their sole attention on the public, not taking into consideration the necessities of communicating with an audience, often to the detriment of political success. On the other hand, some focus their attentions on attracting and maintaining an audience, often to the detriment of the political process. This confusion may be a symptom of the mixed messages regarding the appropriate attitude toward performance that is generated by western culture. In an environment where open attention to performance is both demanded and distained, communication choices can be difficult. Instead we are likely to blindly observe the steady increase in the entertainment style packaging of our national politics. Until the audience fully incorporates itself with the public, we will see an absence of action, and excess of confused consumption (Kraus 18). Contemporary society has moved far beyond the traditional concepts of exclusive audience or public domains, and yet we have not fully articulated or defined what this change in structure really means. Although this review does suggest that contemporary citizens are both audience and public simultaneously, it is also clear that further discussion needs to occur before either of those roles can be fully understood in a contemporary communications context. References Bennett, Lance C., and Robert M. Entman. Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Blau, Herbert. The Audience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1990. Bratich, Jack Z. “Amassing the Multitude: Revisiting Early Audience Studies”. Communication Theory 15 (2005): 242-65. Curran, J., M. Gurevitch, and D. Janet Harris, eds. Mass Communication and Society. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1977. DeLuca, T., and J. Buell. Liars! Cheaters! Evildoers! Demonization and the End of Civil Debate in American Politics. New York: New York UP, 2005. Ferguson, Marjorie, ed. Public Communication: The New Imperatives. London: Sage, 1990. Franklin, Bob. Packaging Politics. London: Edward Arnold, 1994. Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Keown, Leslie-Anne. “Keeping Up with the Times: Canadians and Their News Media Diets.” Canadian Social Trends June 2007. Government of Canada. Kinsella, Warren. The War Room. Toronto: Dunduran Group, 2007. Kraus, Sidney. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Lawrence, Regina, and Lance Bennett. “Rethinking Media Politics and Public Opinion: Reactions to the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal”. Political Science Quarterly 116 (Fall 2001): 425-46. Marland, Alex. Political Marketing in Modern Canadian Federal Elections. Dalhousie University: Canadian Political Science Association Conference, 2003. Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. New ed. London: ARK Paperbacks, 1987 [1964]. McNair, Brian. An Introduction to Political Communication. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2007. The Oxford Dictionary of English. Eds. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Rev. ed. Oxford UP, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford UP. 1 Mar. 2008. < http://www.oxfordreference.com.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/views/ ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e4525 >. Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985. Rothenbuhler, Eric W. Ritual Communication. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1998. Sanderson King, Sarah. Human Communication as a Field of Study. New York: State U of New York P, 1990. Schultz, David A., ed. It’s Show Time! Media, Politics and Popular Culture. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Shea, Daniel, and Michael John Burton. Campaign Craft. 3rd ed. Westport: Praeger, 2006. Slayden, D., and R.K. Whillock. Soundbite Culture: The Death of Discourse in a Wired World. London: Sage, 1999. Stephanopoulos, George. All Too Human. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1999. Webster, James C. “Beneath the Veneer of Fragmentation: Television Audience Polarization in a Multichannel World.” Journal of Communication 55 (June 2005): 366-82. Woodward, Gary C. Center Stage: Media and the Performance of American Politics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. Xenos, Michael, and Kirsten Foot. “Not Your Father’s Internet: The Generation Gap in Online Politics.” Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge: MIT P, 2008.

Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understand other constituents of society (cf. Varnelis; Castells; Jenkins et al.). Such dis- and inter-connections signify an imminent and immanent epistemological challenge we must confront: how can we understand inherently multi-faceted subjects, components of which are in constant transformation? For researchers, disciplinary complexity is one of the main implications of this situation. While disciplinary integration may be an effective or vital component in pursuit of knowledge (cf. Nicolescu) it may also impart significant conceptual and pragmatic conflicts. What are possible ways to coalesce multiple dimensions of reality that can lead to conceptually cohesive and useful knowledge production? This issue of M/C Journal attempts to answer this question by looking at different perspectives on the notion of cohesion across topical and disciplinary boundaries. Our premise for exploring ‘cohesion’ in this issue is two-fold: first, there is a need to understand the conceptual and experiential significance of social cohesion in the increasingly urbanised and networked contemporary world. In the 1997 OECD report, Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy, Michalski, Miller, and Stevens attribute ‘strains of the fabric of OECD societies’ to global economic and political changes, as well as the rapid technological progress. The World Bank places social cohesion as a metonym for social capital; they argue that social cohesion is ‘critical for societies to prosper economically and develop sustainably,’ and that it is ‘the glue’ that holds constituents of the society together. While it is true that the need to build bonds between human beings, and to bring together otherwise disparate experiences and aspirations is evermore crucial to a sustainable future for the world, we doubt that the current pervasive view of cohesion as a measurable parameter for ideal harmony and unity. Rather, in this uncertainty we see opportunities for re-examining the existing definitions of cohesion and further shaping different versions of social/community strengthening. If social cohesion is inherent in the relationships between and amongst entities, ideologies or experiences disagreement and difference or transition are as important or integral as shared ideas. Anheier, Gerhards and Romo have re-imagined Bourdieu’s view of positions individuals inhabit within social spaces as a ‘network, or a configuration, of objective relations among positions.’ From this view the merging of individuals or groups into a cohesive whole becomes less important than the coming together, sometimes only briefly, of ideas into a dynamic and complicated matrix – in other words, the shaping of togetherness through temporary adhesive connections amongst individuals managing various such adhesive networks. We are not necessarily questioning the obvious advantages of a unified society. Rather, we are suggesting a need to enquire into new ways of approaching cohesion, and subsequent implications in viewing, governing, and living in society today, and tomorrow. The second reason for considering cohesion is the development of network technologies, which are embedded in everyday life. Network technologies engender and accentuate multiplicities: multifaceted self-identity, multitasking, and multisensorial experience via interactive media, for example. As we transition from the current network era towards that of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp), our social and technological systems and practices become modular-like (Choi, Foth and Hearn), resonating with what Stone calls ‘continuous partial attention.’ Practice of multi-media communication – for example, concurrently watching television while chatting on Skype on the computer and texting on the mobile phone; another example is Habuchi’s notion of ‘telecocoon’ in which a multitude of constant and partial connections with small, insular social relations are maintained through always-on network technologies. The spatio-temporal zone that is made available, created, and extended by network technologies for expression of the self and communication with others is an inherently in-between space bridging what can be generally considered dichotomous. In this environment, it is cohesion that validates a networked entity by giving it a unified form and/or voice amongst its distributed constituents. The scale of such cohesive process varies from small (individual) to large (collective); examples include individual and community, respectively. As Castells (7) notes, while technology is not entirely responsible for social change, it embodies the capacity for change. Cohesion then, is perhaps best understood as inherently transformative. Thus examining cohesion as a phenomenon should not be focused on the ‘connections’ amongst individual entities but should concern what triggers, sustains, and suspends adhesive interactions, and how such processes relates to overall cohesion within the concerned subject. This notion resonates with the connection – access relation in understanding network culture. As Choi asserts, ‘in a network environment where the connection is a primal element, connection itself cannot be the rationale for interaction; rather, it is access – the act of accessing and being accessed – that becomes the prime motive for participation in network interactions’ (104). This issue of M/C Journal brings together diverse articles that explore the dynamic and challenging concept of cohesion in the current era, where technological, cultural, and structural conditions rapidly co-evolve through communicative networks, thereby reshaping the ontological and epistemological dimensions of various societies. The feature article by Holmes Cohesion, Adhesion and Incoherence explores the creation of a cohesive visual identity for a collective via digital and print-media. Her paper illustrates the ways in which Flickr participants communicate with each other, and how it is possible for networks to come together in an organically cohesive way, if only temporarily. Holmes also provides and insight into the process of and obstacles to establishing and maintaining a cohesive group identity. This feature article provides a framework for the issue as whole that shows how cohesive identity is created through ‘negotiation’ confirms our view that it’s in constant transformation. It also serves as a launching pad for the other articles to continue deconstructing cohesion as a cohesive concept. Glover turns the focus to policy making in the cultural sector. In his paper Failed Fantasies of Cohesion he examines the fantasy of cohesion as fundamental to whole-of-government cultural policy-making undertaken within Arts Queensland in the 1990s and 2000s. The emphasis in this paper is the complexity of cohesion as a critical factor in cultural policy making, and also the paradox that cohesion presents. In the quest for cohesion the potential for important and rich dissent can be discouraged. As Glover eloquently argues, when cohesion is lost all is not lost. This embracing of both the flaws in and potential of cohesion is carried in Publish or Perish. Martin puts forward possible strategies for university presses to work as a cohesive force between emerging writers and the writing industry. He examines the inter-relationship between university presses and the broader publishing industry, and asks whether broader access and sustained co-operation between creative writing departments and university publishing houses or presses could result in a new version of cohesion in the Australian literary landscape. He presents a holistic contour of the contemporary literary industry, using the University of Western Australia and the University of Western Sydney as examples of how entities with competing agendas can come together in a mutually beneficial and innovative way. Leder and colleagues bring the focus to the individual techno-social experience, as exemplified in their ToTeM (Tales of Things and Electronic Memory) project. This project addresses social cohesion through combining personal narratives with Web2.0 and tagging technologies to create a network of shared object-related memories. This paper accentuates the pluralistic nature of cohesion and thus calls for a multiplicity of approaches to cohesion. This issue closes with an artistic piece by Kari Gislason. His personal essay Independent People provides an exploration of Iceland’s financial collapse and its disconnection with the European Union, and calls into question whether a cohesive relationship with its neighbours is possible for or even desired by the Icelandic people. This discussion is played out against the backdrop of competing national identities in his own life and the search for unity. It is in this problematising and challenging of cohesion as a static or permanent state of agreement that this issue found its own cohesive thread. References Anheier, Helmut, Jurgen Gerhards, and P. Romo. “Forms of capital and social structure in cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s Social Topography.” The American Journal of Sociology 100.4 (1995) 859-903. Bordieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Review 7.1 (1989) 14-25. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong. "The City, Self, and Connections: Transyouth and Urban Social Networking in Seoul." Youth, Society and Mobile Media in Asia. Eds. Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, Theresa Anderson and Damien Spry. London, New York: Routledge, 2010. 88-107. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong, Marcus Foth, and Greg Hearn. "Site Specific Mobility and Connection in Korea: Bangs (Rooms) between Public and Private Spaces." Technology in Society 31.2 (2009). Habuchi, Ichiyo. "Accelerated Reflexivity." Personal, Portable, Pedestrian : Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. Eds. Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe and Misa Matsuda. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005. 165-82. Jenkins, Henry, et al. "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century". 2006. 6 Nov. 2006. ‹http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/site/c.enJLKQNlFiG/b.2108773/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id=%7BCD911571-0240-4714-A93B-1D0C07C7B6C1%7D&notoc=1 >. Michalski, Wolfgang, Riel Miller, and Barrie Stevens. "Economic Flexibility and Societal Cohesion in the Twenty-First Century." Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy. Ed. OECD. Paris: OECD, 1997. 7-26. Nicolescu, Basarab. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Trans. Karen-Claire Voss. New York: State University of New York Press, 2002. Stone, Linda. "Attention: The *Real* Aphrodisiac." O'Reilly Media Emerging Technology Conference. Varnelis, Kazys. Networked Publics. Ed. Annenberg Center for Communication, University of Southern California. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008. World Bank. "Social Capital: The Glue Holding Society Together". 2001. March 18 2010. ‹http://www.worldbank.org/html/prddr/trans/augsepoct00/boxpage31.htm >.