5.00 credits
30.0 h + 14.0 h
Q1
Teacher(s)
Patriarche Geoffroy;
Language
French
Prerequisites
The prerequisite(s) for this Teaching Unit (Unité d’enseignement – UE) for the programmes/courses that offer this Teaching Unit are specified at the end of this sheet.
Learning outcomes
At the end of this learning unit, the student is able to : | |
|
|
Content
The teaching unit goes in depth into a series of theoretical and conceptual frameworks of user studies and reception studies, including recent developments in relation to digital media and technologies. The approaches and issues addressed in this teaching unit revolve around the following conceptions of “media use”:
- media use as motivated and selective exposure to media ;
- media use as text-reader interaction;
- media use as a socially and culturally organised activity;
- media use as participation in a collective experience;
- media use as an identity process;
- media use as intervention in a process of socio-technical innovation.
- media use as motivated and selective exposure to media ;
- media use as text-reader interaction;
- media use as a socially and culturally organised activity;
- media use as participation in a collective experience;
- media use as an identity process;
- media use as intervention in a process of socio-technical innovation.
Teaching methods
This teaching unit is composed of lectures and seminar sessions.
During the lectures, the professor elaborates on the course content using visual presentations. Several discussion or application activities are organized as well. The lectures are recorded in order to 'help out' the students who are unable to attend any of the sessions for a legitimate reason (illness, work commitment, etc.).
For the seminar, the students work in sub-groups of 3 or 4 members. The seminar is dedicated to:
- reading in depth a selection of scientific texts. Guiding questions are provided and the texts are discussed in class (at a distance if it is required by the sanitary situation). At least one exam question relates to the texts;
- elaborating a problematization of an initial question related to media/ICT use or reception (to be determined according to the guidelines provided by the teaching assistant). The work in progress is presented orally to the class group and followed by a discussion time (at a distance if it is required by the sanitary situation).
As course material, the students have at their disposal course notes provided by the professor, the visual presentations used for the lectures, detailed guidelines regarding the problematization work, and a copy of the mandatory texts that are the focus of the seminar. The teaching unit is also present on Moodle
During the lectures, the professor elaborates on the course content using visual presentations. Several discussion or application activities are organized as well. The lectures are recorded in order to 'help out' the students who are unable to attend any of the sessions for a legitimate reason (illness, work commitment, etc.).
For the seminar, the students work in sub-groups of 3 or 4 members. The seminar is dedicated to:
- reading in depth a selection of scientific texts. Guiding questions are provided and the texts are discussed in class (at a distance if it is required by the sanitary situation). At least one exam question relates to the texts;
- elaborating a problematization of an initial question related to media/ICT use or reception (to be determined according to the guidelines provided by the teaching assistant). The work in progress is presented orally to the class group and followed by a discussion time (at a distance if it is required by the sanitary situation).
As course material, the students have at their disposal course notes provided by the professor, the visual presentations used for the lectures, detailed guidelines regarding the problematization work, and a copy of the mandatory texts that are the focus of the seminar. The teaching unit is also present on Moodle
Evaluation methods
The assessment method includes an individual exam, which weights for 60% of the final grade, and a sub-group paper consisting in a problematization of a research question, which weights for 40% of the final grade. The weighting remains the same no matter whether the teaching unit I organized face-to-face or at a distance.
The exam covers the content of the lectures and the texts discussed in the seminar sessions.
In a face-to-face situation, the exam is written and include two parts. The first part focuses on the lectures and include closed and open-ended questions (theoretical and “practical”). No material is allowed. The second part focused on the scientific articles that have been discussed during the seminar sessions. Certain questions may ask the student to elaborate on the links between the texts, or between the texts and the lectures. For this part, the students may have with them a copy of the texts and their personal notes on these. Any other material is prohibited.
In distant mode, the exam is also written but only includes open-ended questions (theoretical and “practical”). Certain questions may ask the student to elaborate on the links between the texts, or between the texts and the lectures. The students will be allowed to use all their course material (course notes provided by the professor, personal notes, resources available on Moodle). They can also have with them a copy of the texts and their personal notes on these. Any other material is prohibited.
The group assignment consists in problematizing a research question. 3/4 of the grade is dedicated to the written work and 1/4 of the grade to the oral presentation. This weighting remains the same no matter whether the course is organized face-to-face or at a distance. The group assignment that is considered as ineligible due to serious deficiencies is given a mark of 0/20.
The grade for the group assignment is given according to the following distribution: 3/4 of the points for the paper and 1/4 of the points for the oral presentation. The evaluation of the assignment does not change depending on whether it is done face-to-face or at a distance. Work considered ineligible due to serious deficiencies will be awarded a mark of 0/20.
The group assignment is a personal production. The rules of citation and referencing must be strictly followed. The use of generative AI is accepted as long as it is occasional, limited and explicitly stated. Any part of the work that relies on generative AI must be clearly identified by a footnote specifying which generative AI tool was used and how it was used in the part concerned.
In the case of a failure in January, the student must re-submit the failed component(s) in the second session (the seminar mark is aggregated). If a seminar component is not performed, this automatically results in a 0/20 for the final mark (the marks for the components that were performed are kept provided that they are passed). Similarly, a failed exam will result in a mark of 0/20 in January, with the points from the continuous assessment (seminar) being kept as they are for the second session if the seminar is passed.
More specifically, if the student is required to re-submit the seminar in the second session, and if the oral presentation is successful, the points for the oral presentation will be kept as they are and will be taken into account when resubmitting the paper in the second session. On the other hand, if the paper is to be resubmitted in the second session, the “copy visit” will be the only chance for students to receive feedback on their work. It is therefore strongly encouraged that students who failed the seminar attend the “copy visit”.
Class attendance is checked for the seminar sessions (even at a distance). The student who is absent for a non-justified or “non-legitimate” reason more than twice will get a 0/20 as a final grade for the entire teaching unit in January.
In the case of late arrival (after 1/11), it will no longer be possible for the student to join a sub-group for the first session (this is in order to guarantee the active participation of students in the seminar and the smooth running of the sub-group work). After this date, the student will automatically get a mark of 0/20 for the "seminar section" (and therefore also for the final mark), the evaluation of which will be postponed to the second session (this does not prevent the student from attending the exam). Attendance at the seminar is not taken into account for the September session.
The exam covers the content of the lectures and the texts discussed in the seminar sessions.
In a face-to-face situation, the exam is written and include two parts. The first part focuses on the lectures and include closed and open-ended questions (theoretical and “practical”). No material is allowed. The second part focused on the scientific articles that have been discussed during the seminar sessions. Certain questions may ask the student to elaborate on the links between the texts, or between the texts and the lectures. For this part, the students may have with them a copy of the texts and their personal notes on these. Any other material is prohibited.
In distant mode, the exam is also written but only includes open-ended questions (theoretical and “practical”). Certain questions may ask the student to elaborate on the links between the texts, or between the texts and the lectures. The students will be allowed to use all their course material (course notes provided by the professor, personal notes, resources available on Moodle). They can also have with them a copy of the texts and their personal notes on these. Any other material is prohibited.
The group assignment consists in problematizing a research question. 3/4 of the grade is dedicated to the written work and 1/4 of the grade to the oral presentation. This weighting remains the same no matter whether the course is organized face-to-face or at a distance. The group assignment that is considered as ineligible due to serious deficiencies is given a mark of 0/20.
The grade for the group assignment is given according to the following distribution: 3/4 of the points for the paper and 1/4 of the points for the oral presentation. The evaluation of the assignment does not change depending on whether it is done face-to-face or at a distance. Work considered ineligible due to serious deficiencies will be awarded a mark of 0/20.
The group assignment is a personal production. The rules of citation and referencing must be strictly followed. The use of generative AI is accepted as long as it is occasional, limited and explicitly stated. Any part of the work that relies on generative AI must be clearly identified by a footnote specifying which generative AI tool was used and how it was used in the part concerned.
In the case of a failure in January, the student must re-submit the failed component(s) in the second session (the seminar mark is aggregated). If a seminar component is not performed, this automatically results in a 0/20 for the final mark (the marks for the components that were performed are kept provided that they are passed). Similarly, a failed exam will result in a mark of 0/20 in January, with the points from the continuous assessment (seminar) being kept as they are for the second session if the seminar is passed.
More specifically, if the student is required to re-submit the seminar in the second session, and if the oral presentation is successful, the points for the oral presentation will be kept as they are and will be taken into account when resubmitting the paper in the second session. On the other hand, if the paper is to be resubmitted in the second session, the “copy visit” will be the only chance for students to receive feedback on their work. It is therefore strongly encouraged that students who failed the seminar attend the “copy visit”.
Class attendance is checked for the seminar sessions (even at a distance). The student who is absent for a non-justified or “non-legitimate” reason more than twice will get a 0/20 as a final grade for the entire teaching unit in January.
In the case of late arrival (after 1/11), it will no longer be possible for the student to join a sub-group for the first session (this is in order to guarantee the active participation of students in the seminar and the smooth running of the sub-group work). After this date, the student will automatically get a mark of 0/20 for the "seminar section" (and therefore also for the final mark), the evaluation of which will be postponed to the second session (this does not prevent the student from attending the exam). Attendance at the seminar is not taken into account for the September session.
Other information
For the problematization paper, the students may be required to read scientific texts in English, depending on their research question and the available bibliographic resources.
Online resources
The teaching unit has a course website on Moodle.
Bibliography
Lectures obligatoires :
- Dessinges, C. et Perticoz, L. (2019), « Les consommations de séries télévisées des publics étudiants face à Netflix : une autonomie en question », Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, vol.20, n°1, pp.5-23. DOI : 10.3917/enic.026.0005. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-les-enjeux-de-l-information-et-de-la-communication-2019-1-page-5.htm
- Jauréguiberry, F. (1997), « L'usage du téléphone portatif comme expérience sociale », Réseaux, n°82-83, pp.149-165. URL : https://www.persee.fr/doc/reso_0751-7971_1997_num_15_82_3061
- Nicol, C. et Millette, M. (2022), « Fanfictions audiovisuelles d’Harry Potter : co-création et espaces blancs », Études de communication, vol.59, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2025, consulté le 04 janvier 2023. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/edc.15022. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/edc/15022
- Pasquier, D. (1999), La culture des sentiments. L’expérience télévisuelle des adolescents, Paris, Maison des sciences de l’homme, pp.175-213 (chapitre « Publics et communautés sociales »).
Bibliographie indicative :
- Bilandzic, H., Patriarche, G. et Traudt, P. J. (dir.) (2012), The Social Use of Media: Cultural and Social Scientific Perspectives on Audience Research, Bristol, Intellect.
- Carpentier, N., Schrøder, K.C., et Hallett, L. (dir.) (2014), Audience Transformations. Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, New York, Routledge.
- Certeau, M. de (1990), L'invention du quotidien. 1. Arts de faire, Paris, Gallimard.
- Cervulle, M. et Quemener, N. (2018), Cultural Studies. Théories et méthodes, 2ème éd., Paris, Armand Colin.
- Dayan, D. (1992), « Les mystères de la réception », Le Débat, n°71, pp.146-162.
- Dayan, D. (dossier coord. par) (1993), « A la recherche du public. Réception, télévision, médias », Hermès, n°11/12.
- Esquenazi, J.-P. (2003), Sociologie des publics, Paris, La Découverte.
- Flichy, P. (1995), L’innovation technique. Récents développements en sciences sociales. Vers une nouvelle théorie de l’innovation, Paris, La Découverte.
- Glevarec, H., Macé, E. et Maigret, E. (dir.) (2008), Cultural Studies. Anthologie, Paris, Armand Colin/INA.
- Jauréguiberry, F., et Proux, S. (2011), Usages et enjeux des technologies de communication, Toulouse, Toulouse, Érès.
- Jenkins, H. (1992), Textual Poachers. Television Fans & Participatory Culture, New York & Londres, Routledge.
- Livingstone, S. et Lunt, P. (1993), Talk on television. Audience participation and public debate, Londres, Routledge.
- Lohisse, J., avec la collab. de Patriarche, G., et Klein, A. (2009), La communication. De la transmission à la relation, 4ème éd., Bruxelles, De Boeck.
- Lull, J. (1980), « The social uses of television », Human Communication Research, 1980, vol. 6, n°3, p.197-209.
- Morley D. (1992), Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, Londres, Routledge.
- Picone, I. (2017), « Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/use’ as analytical concepts », Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol.23, n°4, pp.1-13.
- Schrøder, K. C. (1994), « Audience semiotics, interpretive communities and ‘the ethnographic turn’ in media research », Media, Culture & Society, vol.16, pp.337-347.
- Zoonen, L. van (2005), Entertaining the citizen. When politics and popular culture converge, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
- Dessinges, C. et Perticoz, L. (2019), « Les consommations de séries télévisées des publics étudiants face à Netflix : une autonomie en question », Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, vol.20, n°1, pp.5-23. DOI : 10.3917/enic.026.0005. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-les-enjeux-de-l-information-et-de-la-communication-2019-1-page-5.htm
- Jauréguiberry, F. (1997), « L'usage du téléphone portatif comme expérience sociale », Réseaux, n°82-83, pp.149-165. URL : https://www.persee.fr/doc/reso_0751-7971_1997_num_15_82_3061
- Nicol, C. et Millette, M. (2022), « Fanfictions audiovisuelles d’Harry Potter : co-création et espaces blancs », Études de communication, vol.59, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2025, consulté le 04 janvier 2023. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/edc.15022. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/edc/15022
- Pasquier, D. (1999), La culture des sentiments. L’expérience télévisuelle des adolescents, Paris, Maison des sciences de l’homme, pp.175-213 (chapitre « Publics et communautés sociales »).
Bibliographie indicative :
- Bilandzic, H., Patriarche, G. et Traudt, P. J. (dir.) (2012), The Social Use of Media: Cultural and Social Scientific Perspectives on Audience Research, Bristol, Intellect.
- Carpentier, N., Schrøder, K.C., et Hallett, L. (dir.) (2014), Audience Transformations. Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, New York, Routledge.
- Certeau, M. de (1990), L'invention du quotidien. 1. Arts de faire, Paris, Gallimard.
- Cervulle, M. et Quemener, N. (2018), Cultural Studies. Théories et méthodes, 2ème éd., Paris, Armand Colin.
- Dayan, D. (1992), « Les mystères de la réception », Le Débat, n°71, pp.146-162.
- Dayan, D. (dossier coord. par) (1993), « A la recherche du public. Réception, télévision, médias », Hermès, n°11/12.
- Esquenazi, J.-P. (2003), Sociologie des publics, Paris, La Découverte.
- Flichy, P. (1995), L’innovation technique. Récents développements en sciences sociales. Vers une nouvelle théorie de l’innovation, Paris, La Découverte.
- Glevarec, H., Macé, E. et Maigret, E. (dir.) (2008), Cultural Studies. Anthologie, Paris, Armand Colin/INA.
- Jauréguiberry, F., et Proux, S. (2011), Usages et enjeux des technologies de communication, Toulouse, Toulouse, Érès.
- Jenkins, H. (1992), Textual Poachers. Television Fans & Participatory Culture, New York & Londres, Routledge.
- Livingstone, S. et Lunt, P. (1993), Talk on television. Audience participation and public debate, Londres, Routledge.
- Lohisse, J., avec la collab. de Patriarche, G., et Klein, A. (2009), La communication. De la transmission à la relation, 4ème éd., Bruxelles, De Boeck.
- Lull, J. (1980), « The social uses of television », Human Communication Research, 1980, vol. 6, n°3, p.197-209.
- Morley D. (1992), Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, Londres, Routledge.
- Picone, I. (2017), « Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/use’ as analytical concepts », Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol.23, n°4, pp.1-13.
- Schrøder, K. C. (1994), « Audience semiotics, interpretive communities and ‘the ethnographic turn’ in media research », Media, Culture & Society, vol.16, pp.337-347.
- Zoonen, L. van (2005), Entertaining the citizen. When politics and popular culture converge, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
Teaching materials
- Usage et réception des médias - Syllabus
- Usage et réception des médias - Vade-mecum du séminaire
Faculty or entity
ESPB
Programmes / formations proposant cette unité d'enseignement (UE)
Title of the programme
Sigle
Credits
Prerequisites
Learning outcomes
