The state as a key success factor for Self-Regulation? Empirical evidence in brief
Künzler, M (2007). The state as a key success factor for Self-Regulation? Empirical evidence in brief. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 32(3):349-355.
Abstract
The necessity of the state’s involvement in self-regulation is a controversial issue in the debate about Governance. As Puppis (earlier in this section) mentioned, the role of the state varies across the six domains of media governance, but there are hardly any empirical studies about the question whether a state’s involvement is a key success factor for self350 The state as a key success factor for Self-Regulation? regulation. By focusing on three domains of media regulation, namely processes, content, and organizations, some answers will be formulated. What follows is a secondary analysis of two empirical studies, comparing forms of self- and co-regulation in the broadcasting sector in different western states (Jarren et al., 2002; Puppis et al., 2004). The cases were selected so as to include as broad a spectrum of different forms of self-regulation (SR) and co-regulation (CR) as possible. Document analysis and expert interviews were chosen as research methods. The advantages of these two qualitative methods are their openness and flexibility, which allow discovering new aspects not taken into consideration in existing theories, the possibility to take into account a small number of cases, and their ability to make a step in the direction of theorybuilding (Deacon et al., 1999). The interviewees were professionals from self-regulatory organizations, broadcasting companies, and representatives from regulatory agencies, ministries and researchers. Laws, codes of practice, and secondary literature about the organizations under study were analyzed. The case studies were updated by the author in 2006. The following presentation of some of the research results is conducted by comparing four dimensions of forms of co- and self-regulation: The types of media co- and self-regulation are responsible for, the role of the state, the rationales for implementing these forms of governance, and the assessment of self- and co-regulation by the interviewees.
Abstract
The necessity of the state’s involvement in self-regulation is a controversial issue in the debate about Governance. As Puppis (earlier in this section) mentioned, the role of the state varies across the six domains of media governance, but there are hardly any empirical studies about the question whether a state’s involvement is a key success factor for self350 The state as a key success factor for Self-Regulation? regulation. By focusing on three domains of media regulation, namely processes, content, and organizations, some answers will be formulated. What follows is a secondary analysis of two empirical studies, comparing forms of self- and co-regulation in the broadcasting sector in different western states (Jarren et al., 2002; Puppis et al., 2004). The cases were selected so as to include as broad a spectrum of different forms of self-regulation (SR) and co-regulation (CR) as possible. Document analysis and expert interviews were chosen as research methods. The advantages of these two qualitative methods are their openness and flexibility, which allow discovering new aspects not taken into consideration in existing theories, the possibility to take into account a small number of cases, and their ability to make a step in the direction of theorybuilding (Deacon et al., 1999). The interviewees were professionals from self-regulatory organizations, broadcasting companies, and representatives from regulatory agencies, ministries and researchers. Laws, codes of practice, and secondary literature about the organizations under study were analyzed. The case studies were updated by the author in 2006. The following presentation of some of the research results is conducted by comparing four dimensions of forms of co- and self-regulation: The types of media co- and self-regulation are responsible for, the role of the state, the rationales for implementing these forms of governance, and the assessment of self- and co-regulation by the interviewees.
TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.
Künzler, M