1.
Mytton G, Diem P, Dam PH van. Media audience research: a guide for professionals [Internet]. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Incorporated; 2016. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=4440204
2.
Lacey N. Media institutions and audiences: key concepts in media studies [Internet]. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2002. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=327969
3.
McKee A. Textual analysis: a beginner’s guide [Internet]. London: Sage Publications; 2003. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=254647
4.
Sconce J. Haunted media: electronic presence from telegraphy to television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2000.
5.
Radway JA. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy, and popular literature [Internet]. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1991. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=880363
6.
Kavka M. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
7.
Duffy BE. Remake, remodel: women’s magazines in the digital age. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; 2013.
8.
Alasuutari P. Rethinking the media audience: the new agenda. London: Sage; 1999.
9.
Ross K, Nightingale V. Media and audiences: new perspectives [Internet]. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press; 2003. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=295455
10.
Long P, Wall T. Media studies: texts, production, context [Internet]. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2012. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=812615
11.
Eagleton T. Ideology [Internet]. Vol. Longman critical readers. London: Longman; 1994. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1746767
12.
Gorton K. Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion [Internet]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2009. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=536997
13.
Cantril H, Gaudet H, Herzog H, Welles O. The invasion from Mars: a study in the psychology of panic : with the complete script of the famous Orson Welles broadcast. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1982.
14.
Williams K. Effects What Effects chapter 7. In: Understanding Media Theory. Arnold; 2003.
15.
McLeod D, Wise D, Perryman M. Thinking about the media: A review of theory and research on media perceptions, media effects perception and their consequences. Review of Communication REsearch. 2017;Volume 5.
16.
Abercrombie N, Longhurst B. Changing audiences, changing paradigms of research Chapter one. In: Audiences: a sociological theory of performance and imagination [Internet]. London: Sage; 1998. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1024126
17.
Webster, James G. Audience, The. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media [Internet]. 1998;42. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jbem42&collection=journals&page=190
18.
Abercrombie N, Longhurst B. Audiences: a sociological theory of performance and imagination [Internet]. London: Sage; 1998. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1024126
19.
Schrøder KC. Convergence of Antagonistic Traditions? The Case of Audience Research. European journal of communication. 1987;2(1):7–31.
20.
Barker M, Petley J. Introduction: from bad research to good. In: Ill effects: the media violence debate [Internet]. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2001. Available from: http://le.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=5665221790002746&institutionId=2746&customerId=2745
21.
Livingstone SM. Making sense of television: the psychology of audience interpretation. 2nd ed. Vol. International series in social psychology. London: Routledge; 1998.
22.
Gauntlett D. Ten things wrong with the "effects model.”. In: Approaches to audiences: a reader. London: Arnold; 1998.
23.
Redman P, Open University. Attachment: sociology and social worlds. Vol. Making social worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press in association with the Open University; 2008.
24.
Nightingale V. Studying the television audience: the shock of the real. London: Routledge; 1996.
25.
Tulloch J. The implied audience in soap opera production: Everyday Rhetorical Strategies among television professionals. In: Rethinking the media audience: the new agenda [Internet]. London: Sage; 1999. p. 151–78. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=226264
26.
Gerbner et al G. Growing up with television: The Cultivation Perspective. In: Media effects: advances in theory and research [Internet]. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2009. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10274244
27.
Blackman L, Walkerdine V. Mass hysteria: critical psychology and media studies. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 2000.
28.
Barker M, Petley J. Ill effects: the media violence debate [Internet]. 2nd ed. Vol. Communication and society [Routledge]. London: Routledge; 2001. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=84561
29.
Michael O’Shaughnessy. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 1994;97:44–8.
30.
Mayer V. The Places Where Audience Studies and Production Studies Meet. Television & New Media. 2016 Dec;17(8):706–18.
31.
Gray J. Reviving audience studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 2017 Jan;34(1):79–83.
32.
Hermes J, van den Berg A, Mol M. Sleeping with the enemy: Audience studies and critical literacy. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2013 Sep;16(5):457–73.
33.
Behrenshausen BG. The active audience, again: Player-centric game studies and the problem of binarism. New Media & Society. 2013 Sep;15(6):872–89.
34.
Athique A. The dynamics and potentials of big data for audience research. Media, Culture & Society. 2018 Jan;40(1):59–74.
35.
Das R. Audiences: a decade of transformations – reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 2017 Nov;39(8):1257–67.
36.
Ross K, Playdon P. Black marks: minority ethnic audiences and media. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2001.
37.
Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture [Internet]. 2014; Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2014-33471-001&site=ehost-live
38.
Sconce J. The Voice from the Void. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 1998 Aug;1(2):211–32.
39.
Kavka M. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
40.
Jackson RL, Sage reference on-line. Encyclopedia of identity [Internet]. London: SAGE; 2010. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/identity/SAGE.xml
41.
Rosengren k. E. Uses and Gratifications: A Paradigm Outlined. In: The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications; 1974. p. 269–86.
42.
Shanahan J, Morgan M. Television and its viewers: cultivation research and theory [Internet]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=5001729
43.
Michael O’Shaughnessy. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 1994;97:44–8.
44.
Elliott P. Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative. In: The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications; 1974. p. 249–68.
45.
Seiter ellen. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 1990;4(1).
46.
Palmgreen p, Wenner LA, Rosengren KE. Uses and gratifications research: the past ten years. In: Media gratifications research: current perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985. p. xx–xxx.
47.
Ruggiero TE. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society. 2000 Feb;3(1):3–37.
48.
Redman P, Open University. Attachment: sociology and social worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press in association with the Open University; 2008.
49.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience [Internet]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1880204
50.
Bainbridge C, Ward I, Yates C. Television and psychoanalysis: psycho-cultural perspectives [Internet]. London: Karnac; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1574555
51.
Seiter ellen. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 1990;4(1).
52.
Rosengren K. Chapter 2 - Combinations, comparisons and confrontations: towards a comprehensive theory of audience research. In: The audience and its landscape. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press; 1996. p. 23–51.
53.
Seiter E. Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power. London: Routledge; 1989.
54.
Brooker W, Jermyn D. The audience studies reader. London: Routledge; 2003.
55.
Modleski T. Loving with a vengeance: mass-produced fantasies for women. New York: Methuen; 1984.
56.
Hall S. Encoding/ decoding. In: Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79 [Internet]. London: Hutchinson in association with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham; 1980. p. 117–28. Available from: http://le.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=5665769750002746&institutionId=2746&customerId=2745
57.
Ang I. On the politics of empirical audience research. In: Media and cultural studies: keyworks [Internet]. Rev. ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2006. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=239901
58.
Hall S. Reflections upon the Encoding/Decoding Model: An Interview with Stuart Hall. In: Viewing, reading, listening: audiences and cultural reception. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press; 1994. p. 253–74.
59.
Ang I, Couling D. Watching Dallas: soap opera and the melodramatic imagination [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 1996. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10763823
60.
Radway JA. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy and popular literature [Internet]. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press; 1991. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=880363
61.
Ginsburg FD, Abu-Lughod L, Larkin B. Media worlds: anthropology on new terrain [Internet]. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10058549
62.
Hobson D. Crossroads: the drama of a soap opera. London: Methuen; 1982.
63.
Gillespie M. Television, ethnicity and cultural change. Vol. Comedia. London: Routledge; 1995.
64.
Liebes T, Katz E. The export of meaning: cross-cultural readings of Dallas. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1993.
65.
Helen Wood. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society,. 29:75–103.
66.
Martin J. Barker. The Lord of the Rings and ‘Identification’: A Critical Encounter. European Journal of Communication, [Internet]. 20:353–78. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0267323105055262
67.
Tincknell E, Raghuram P. Big Brother: Reconfiguring the `active’ audience of cultural studies? European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2002 May 1;5(2):199–215.
68.
Victor Costello. Cultural Outlaws: An Examination of Audience Activity and Online Television Fandom. Television & New Media,. 8:124–43.
69.
Elizabeth Jane Evans. Character, audience agency and transmedia drama. Media, Culture & Society,. 30:197–213.
70.
Skeggs B, Wood H. The labour of transformation and circuits of value ‘around’ reality television. Continuum. 2008 Aug;22(4):559–72.
71.
Brand New You | Kanopy [Internet]. Available from: https://le.kanopy.com/video/brand-new-you-makeover-television-and-american-dream
72.
Skeggs B, Thumim N, Wood H. ‘Oh goodness, I am watching reality TV’. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2008 Feb;11(1):5–24.
73.
Jin D. New Korean Wave: Transnational Cultural Power in the Age of Social Media [Internet]. Baltimore: University of Illinois Press; 2016. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=4443546
74.
Livingstone S, Das R. The End of Audiences? Theoretical echoes of reception amidst the uncertainties of use. In: A companion to new media dynamics [Internet]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 104–22. Available from: http://le.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=5665206730002746&institutionId=2746&customerId=2745
75.
Cavalcante A, Press A, Sender K. Feminist reception studies in a post-audience age: returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies. 2017 Jan 2;17(1):1–13.
76.
Kavka M. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
77.
Wasko J. Reality TV: Performance, Authenticity, and Television Audiences. In: A companion to television [Internet]. Malden, Mass: Blackwell; 2005. p. A-Hill. Available from: http://le.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=5665769740002746&institutionId=2746&customerId=2745
78.
Paddy Scannell. Big Brother as a Television Event. Television & New Media,. 3:271–82.
79.
Piper H. Understanding Reality Television * Reality TV - Audiences and Popular Factual Television * Reality TV - Realism and Revelation. Screen. 2006 Jan 1;47(1):133–8.
80.
Dovey J. Freakshow: first person media and factual television [Internet]. London: Pluto Press; 2000. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=2001153
81.
Skeggs B, Wood H. Reality television and class. London: BFI; 2011.
82.
Skeggs B, Wood H. Reacting to reality television: performance, audience and value [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2012. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=957761
83.
Couldry N. The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon’. In: Media audiences. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
84.
Gillespie M. Television, ethnicity and cultural change. Vol. Comedia. London: Routledge; 1995.
85.
Wood H. What Reading the Romance Did for Us. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2004 May 1;7(2):147–54.
86.
Ong JC. Watching the Nation, Singing the Nation: London-Based Filipino Migrants’ Identity Constructions in News and Karaoke Practices. Communication, Culture & Critique. 2009 Jun;2(2):160–81.
87.
Skeggs B, Thumim N, Wood H. ‘Oh goodness, I am watching reality TV’. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2008 Feb;11(1):5–24.
88.
Skeggs B, Wood H. Turning it on is a class act: immediated object relations with television. Media, Culture & Society. 2011 Sep;33(6):941–51.
89.
Skeggs B, Wood H. Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value [Internet]. Florence: Taylor & Francis Group; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=957761
90.
Skeggs B, Wood H. Reality television and class. London: BFI; 2011.
91.
Sender K, Sullivan M. Epidemics of will, failures of self-esteem: Responding to fat bodies in                              and. Continuum. 2008 Aug;22(4):573–84.
92.
Sender K. Reconsidering Reflexivity: Audience Research and Reality Television. The Communication Review. 2015 Jan 2;18(1):37–52.
93.
Readdy T, Ebbeck V. Weighing in on NBC’s The Biggest Loser. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2012 Dec;83(4):579–86.
94.
Sender K. The makeover: reality television and reflexive audiences [Internet]. New York: New York University Press; 2012. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814740699.001.0001
95.
Sender K. Queens for a Day:                              and the Neoliberal Project. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 2006 Jun;23(2):131–51.
96.
Redman P, Maples W, Open University. Good essay writing: a social sciences guide. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.
97.
Bonnett A. How to argue: a student’s guide [Internet]. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2001. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=5185704
98.
Pears R, Shields GJ. Cite them right: the essential referencing guide [Internet]. 12th edition. New York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=6992940
99.
Lowes R, Peters H, Turner MC. The international student’s guide: studying in English at university [Internet]. Vol. Sage study skills. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE; 2004. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10218078
100.
Ferrucci P, Painter C. Print Versus Digital. Journal of Communication Inquiry. 2017 Apr;41(2):124–39.
101.
Madianou M, Miller D. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2013 Mar 1;16(2):169–87.
102.
Madianou M. Smartphones as Polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2014 Apr;19(3):667–80.
103.
Ytre-Arne B. ‘I want to hold it in my hands’: readers’ experiences of the phenomenological differences between women’s magazines online and in print. Media, Culture & Society. 2011 Apr;33(3):467–77.
104.
Das R, Sonia L. The End of Audiences? Theoretical echoes of reception amidst the uncertainties of use. In: A companion to new media dynamics [Internet]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. Available from: http://le.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=5665880050002746&institutionId=2746&customerId=2745
105.
Hartley J, Burgess J, Bruns A. A companion to new media dynamics [Internet]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=531267
106.
Mirca Madianou. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, [Internet]. 16:169–87. Available from: http://ics.sagepub.com/search?author1=Madianou&fulltext=Polymedia:%20Towards%20a%20new%20theory%20of%20digital%20media%20in%20interpersonal%20communication&pubdate_year=2013&volume=16&firstpage=169&submit=yes
107.
Mediatization and the ‘molding force’ of the media [Internet]. Available from: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/commun.2012.37.1.issue-1/commun-2012-0001/commun-2012-0001.xml
108.
Hepp A. Cultures of mediatization [Internet]. Cambridge: Polity; 2012. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1180925
109.
Ian Hutchby. Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology [Internet]. 2001;35(2):441–56. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42856294?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
110.
Miller D. Tales from Facebook [Internet]. Cambridge: Polity; 2011. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=571931
111.
Jenkins H. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. Updated and with a new afterword. New York, N.Y.: New York University Press; 2008.
112.
Dallas S. On the Audience Commodity and its work. In: Approaches to media: a reader. London: Arnold; 1995.
113.
Toynbee J. The Media’s View of the Audience. In: Media Production. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006. p. 91–133.
114.
Long P, Wall T. Media studies: texts, production, context [Internet]. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2012. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=812615
115.
Lee McGuigan. Consumers: The Commodity Product of Interactive Commercial Television, or, Is Dallas Smythe’s Thesis More Germane Than Ever? The Journal of Communication Inquiry. 2012 Oct 1;36(4).
116.
Ang, Ien. Desperately Seeking the Audience [Internet]. Routledge; 1991. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=165716
117.
Webster JG, Phalen PF, Lichty LW. Ratings analysis: the theory and practice of audience research. 3rd ed. Vol. LEA’s communication series. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; 2006.
118.
Gitlin T. Inside prime time. Rev. ed. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 2000.
119.
Greene, Kira. TV’s test pilots. Broadcasting & Cable [Internet]. 2000;130(30). Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bah&AN=3364522&site=ehost-live
120.
Hayes, Dade dhayes@nbmedia.com. Inside TV’s Secret Lab. (cover story). Broadcasting & Cable [Internet]. 2015;145(19):4–6. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bah&AN=102711548&site=ehost-live
121.
P M. Made to Order and Standardized Audiences: forms of reality in audience measurements. In: Audience making: how the media create the audience. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1994. p. 57–74.
122.
Serials Solutions Article Linker - [Internet]. Available from: http://gl9sn3dh2u.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.title=Audience+Economics&rft.au=PHILIP+M.+NAPOLI&rft.date=2003-09-25&rft.pub=Columbia+University+Press&rft_id=info:doi/10.7312%2Fnapo12652&rft.externalDocID=napo12652&paramdict=en-US
123.
Twitter to drive TV Ratings beyond an ‘assumption’ of engagement [Internet]. B and T Weekly. 7AD. Available from: http://www.bandt.com.au/media/twitter-to-drive-tv-ratings-beyond-an-assumption-o
124.
Neilsen Launches ‘Neilsen Twitter TV Ratings’ [Internet]. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=263c30ed-675a-4554-859f-e35ae5e4887b%40sessionmgr120&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bwh&AN=bizwire.c51050908
125.
Radway JA. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy, and popular literature [Internet]. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1991. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=880363
126.
Livingstone sonia. Relationships between media and audiences: Prospects for future audience reception studies. In: Media, ritual, and identity [Internet]. London: Routledge; 1998. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=169411
127.
Morley D. Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. The Communication Review. 2006 Jul;9(2):101–21.
128.
Barker M. I Have Seen the Future and It Is Not Here Yet ...; or, On Being Ambitious for Audience Research. The Communication Review. 2006 Jul;9(2):123–41.
129.
Seiter E. Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power. London: Routledge; 1989.
130.
Birgitta Höijer. Ontological Assumptions and Generalizations in Qualitative (Audience) Research. European Journal of Communication, [Internet]. 23:275–94. Available from: http://ejc.sagepub.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/search?author1=Hoijer&fulltext=Ontological%20Assumptions%20and%20Generalizations%20in%20Qualitative%20(Audience)%20Research&pubdate_year=2008&volume=23&firstpage=275&submit=yes
131.
Arild Fetveit. Anti-essentialism and reception studies: In defense of the text. International Journal of Cultural Studies,. 4:173–99.
132.
David Buckingham. `Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society,. 31:633–52.
133.
Cavalcante A, Press A, Sender K. Feminist reception studies in a post-audience age: returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies. 2017 Jan 2;17(1):1–13.
134.
Tse T. Reconceptualising prosumption beyond the cultural turn : passive fashion consumption in Korea and China. journal of Consumer Culture. 2018;o (o) 1.
135.
Bird SE. ARE WE ALL PRODUSERS NOW? Cultural Studies. 2011 Sep;25(4–5):502–16.
136.
Sonia Livingstone. The Challenge of Changing Audiences: Or, What is the Audience Researcher to Do in the Age of the Internet? European Journal of Communication, [Internet]. 19(1):75–86. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323104040695
137.
Nancy Thumin. Self-Representation and Digital Culture. European Journal of Communication,. 2013;28(6):729–30.
138.
Thumim N. Self-representation and digital culture [Internet]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=990162
139.
Henry Jenkins. The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies,. 7:33–43.
140.
Morley D. Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. The Communication Review. 2006 Jul;9(2):101–21.
141.
Jermyn D, Holmes S. The Audience is Dead; Long Live the Audience!: Interactivity, ‘Telephilia’ and the Contemporary Television Audience. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies. 2006 Mar 1;1(1):49–57.
142.
Hartley J, Burgess J, Bruns A, editors. The End of Audiences? In: A Companion to New Media Dynamics [Internet]. Chichester, [England]: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/reader.action?docID=3422436&ppg=126
143.
Press AL. Audience Research in the Post-Audience Age: An Introduction to Barker and Morley. The Communication Review. 2006 Jul;9(2):93–100.
144.
Ranjana Das. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication, [Internet]. 26:343–60. Available from: http://ejc.sagepub.com/search?author1=Das&fulltext=Converging%20Perspectives%20in%20Audience%20Studies%20and%20Digital%20Literacies:%20Youthful%20Interpretations%20of%20an%20Online%20Genre&pubdate_year=2011&volume=26&firstpage=343&submit=yes
145.
The communication review (Yverdon, Switzerland). 2006;9(2):123–41. Available from: http://gl9sn3dh2u.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=I+have+seen+the+future+and+it+is+not+here+yet+...%3A+Or%2C+on+being+ambitious+for+audience+research&rft.jtitle=The+Communication+Review&rft.au=Barker%2C+M&rft.date=2006&rft.eissn=1547-7487&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=123&rft.epage=141&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=CAX0290060002004&paramdict=en-US
146.
José van Dijck. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society,. 31:41–58.
147.
Hartley J, Burgess J, Bruns A. A companion to new media dynamics [Internet]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=3422436
148.
Lapsley R. Psychoanalytic Criticism. In: The Routledge companion to critical theory. London: Routledge; 2006.
149.
O’Shaughnessy M. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 1994;97.
150.
Mansfield N. Lacan : The Subject is Language. In: Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway [Internet]. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 2000. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=286495
151.
Whitehouse-Hart J, SpringerLink (Online service). Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience [Internet]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137465146
152.
Kavka M. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
153.
Manley J, Crociani-Windland L. Social dreaming, associative thinking and intensities of affect [Internet]. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=5497847
154.
Rose G. Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. 3rd ed. London: SAGE; 2012.
155.
Meissner, W W. Notes on identification. I. Origins in Freud. The Psychoanalytic quarterly [Internet]. 39(4):563–89. Available from: https://librarysearch.le.ac.uk/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_medline4921741&context=PC&vid=44UOLE_NUI&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,W.W.%20Meissner,%201970.%20Notes%20on%20Identification%20I.%20Origens%20in%20Freud,%20Psychoanalytic%20Quarterly,%2039,%20563-589.%20&pcAvailability=false
156.
Sandler J, Sigmund Freud Center for Study and Research in Psychoanalysis (Universiṭah haʻIvrit bi-Yerushalayim). Projection, identification, projective identification [Internet]. London: Karnac Books; 1988. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=709550
157.
Pink S. Doing visual ethnography: images, media and representation in research [Internet]. 2nd ed. London: SAGE; 2007. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=LeicesterU&isbn=9781446296035
158.
Claydon E, Whitehouse-Hart J. Overcoming’ the ‘Battlefield of the Mind’: A Psycho-linguistic Examination of the Discourse of Digital-Televangelists Self-Help Texts’. Language and Psychoanalysis [Internet]. 2018;7 (2) 2-28. Available from: http://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/article/view/2824
159.
Campbell HA, La Pastina AC. How the iPhone became divine: new media, religion and the intertextual circulation of meaning. New Media & Society. 2010 Nov;12(7):1191–207.
160.
Campbell H. Digital religion: understanding religious practice in new media worlds [Internet]. London: Routledge; 2013. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1097827
161.
Campbell H, Garner S. Networked theology: negotiating faith in digital culture [Internet]. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic; 2016. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=5248646
162.
Campbell H, Grieve GP, editors. Playing with religion in digital games [Internet]. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=1680203
163.
Tsuria R, Yadlin-Segal A, Vitullo A, Campbell HA. Approaches to digital methods in studies of digital religion. The Communication Review. 2017 Apr 3;20(2):73–97.
164.
Xu S, Campbell HA. Surveying digital religion in China: Characteristics of religion on the Internet in Mainland China. The Communication Review. 2018 Oct 2;21(4):253–76.
165.
Morgan D. Religion and media: A critical review of recent developments. Critical Research on Religion. 2013 Dec;1(3):347–56.
166.
Lundby K. PATTERNS OF BELONGING IN ONLINE/OFFLINE INTERFACES OF RELIGION. Information, Communication & Society. 2011 Dec;14(8):1219–35.
167.
Rippen A. Internet: Implications and Future Possibilities’. In: Muslims And The New Information And Communication Technologies Notes From An Emerging And Infinite Field [Internet]. Springer; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1636818
168.
Hoover SM, Clark LS. Practicing religion in the age of the media: explorations in media, religion, and culture [Internet]. New York: Columbia University Press; 2002. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=895172
169.
Bolongaro KAM. Pauline Hope Cheong, Peter Fischer-Nielsen, Stefan Gelfgren & Charles Ess (Eds.): Digital Religion, Social Media and Culture: Perspectives, Practices and Futures. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2012. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research. 2013 Dec 21;29(55).
170.
Cheong PH. Digital religion, social media, and culture: perspectives, practices, and futures. Vol. v. 78. New York: Peter Lang; 2012.
171.
Lofton K. Religion and the American Celebrity. Social Compass. 2011 Sep;58(3):346–52.
172.
Nikolas Coupland. The Handbook of Language and Globalization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics) [Internet]. Wiley-Blackwell; 10AD. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=4041769
173.
Stephen Parker. Winnicott’s object relations theory and the work of the Holy Spirit. Journal of Psychology and Theology [Internet]. Available from: http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA192863906&v=2.1&u=leicester&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w
174.
Harris J, Watson E. The Oprah phenomenon [Internet]. Updated edition. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky; 2007. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/reader.action?docID=1920897&ppg=15
175.
Glad B, Beradt C. The Third Reich of Dreams. The American Political Science Review. 1969 Jun;63(2).
176.
Glad B, Beradt C. The Third Reich of Dreams. The American Political Science Review. 1969 Jun;63(2).
177.
Whitehouse-Hart J, SpringerLink (Online service). Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience [Internet]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137465146
178.
O’Shaughnessy M. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 1994;97.
179.
Hills M. Michael Jackson Fans on Trial? "Documenting” Emotivism and Fandom in. Social Semiotics. 2007 Dec;17(4):459–77.
180.
Melissa A. ClickSuzanne Scott. The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom (Routledge Media and Cultural Studies Companions) [Internet]. Routledge; 1 edition; 9AD. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=5122937
181.
Gorton K. Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion [Internet]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2009. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=536997