See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/346010378

THE ENCODING/DECODING MODEL REVISITED

Conference Paper · May 2011

CITATIONS READS

15 29,788

1 author:

Sven Ross
Stockholm University
3 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sven Ross on 18 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE ENCODING/DECODING MODEL REVISITED

Paper presented at the ICA Conference

“Communication @ the Center”

Philosophy of Communication Division

International Communication Association

May 2011, Boston, USA

Sven Ross
Department of journalism, media and communication
Stockholm University
 THE ENCODING/DECODING MODEL REVISITED

ABSTRACT

Stuart Hall´s encoding/decoding model has been enormously influential in the field of
reception. At the same time the model has been much discussed and some critics have noted
the conflation of the encoded meaning and ideological tendency. However, few attempts have
been made to modify or replace the model. In this paper I shall present one attempt to modify
Hall’s model. First I distinguish between the model proper and ‘the typology’, i e Hall’s
partition of different decoding positions: dominant, negotiated, and oppositional. Hall
assumed that news texts mostly are encoded within the dominant ideology. By dividing also
the encoded meaning into the dominant, negotiated and oppositional we get a richer
combination of encoding and decoding positions. Hall’s typology can be interpreted as both
as ideological positions or as ‘text-relative’, i e decoding positions can understood as relative
the encoded meaning, regardless what meaning that is.
 THE ENCODING/DECODING MODEL REVISITED

Stuart Hall’s article 'Encoding/decoding' (Hall 1980/1973) is, for good reasons, widely
regarded as a classic statement on the theory of meaning production and reception within
cultural studies. It is elevated as one of the 'canonic texts of media research' (Katz et al 2003),
and the encoding/decoding model is one of the four communication models presented in
McQuail’s widely used textbook on mass communication theory, together with the
transmission model, the ritual model and the publicity model (McQuail 2010). At the same
time Hall´s model has been discussed, praised and criticized from 1981 and on (Morley 1981;
Wren-Lewis 1983; Pillai 1992; Moores 1993; Hagen 1995; Corner 1996; Nightingale 1996;
Schrøder 2000; Gurevich and Scannell 2003; Ross and Nightingale 2003; Barker 2006;
Morley 2006; Michellle 2007; Philo 2008).
Why then another article about the encoding/decoding model? It is still presented in
textbooks (Longhurst et al 2008; Baran and Davis 2009; Long and Wall 2009; McQuail
2010), it is still used in research (Murphy 2005, Worthington 2008) and it is still regarded as
containing unsolved problems (Morley 2006; Michelle 2007; Philo 2008). Much more space
has been used to discuss or criticize the model than attempts to modify it or formulate
alternative models. One exception is Schrøder's multidimensional model (Schrøder 2000,
2003), another is Michelle’s ‘composite multidimensional model’ (Michelle 2007). Others
have proposed alternative approaches rather than alternative models (Pillai 1992;
Abercrombie and Longhurst 1998; Couldry 2004; Atkinson and Dougherty 2006; Barker
2006). The intention here is not to give a full account of the strengths and weaknesses of the
encoding/decoding model but instead to pose the question how we can go on and overcome
some of the problems with the model. First I will shortly recapitulate Hall’s model and some
of the comments following it. Then I will suggest two alternative ways to modify Hall’s
typology of decoding positions in order to overcome on the one hand the conflation of
ideological standpoint and relation to the encoded meaning in Hall’s model, and on the other
hand the restriction to texts encoded within the dominant ideology. By giving some empirical
examples I try to show how the modified typology can help us see, and label, other kinds of
decodings than when using Hall’s original typology. Before the conclusion I will also say a
few words about some of the other alternative models and approaches.

Hall’s encoding/decoding model

Hall wanted to formulate an alternative to the linear transmission model (sender – message –
receiver) and argued that seeing communication as a process of meaning production including
semiotic concepts as codes and signs give a more fruitful model. As a matter of fact the
graphic model looks quite similar to the transmission model (see Nightingale 1996; Gurevich
and Scannell 2003). The terms 'encoder' and 'decoder' had actually been used earlier in some
versions of the transmission model, e g by Schramm (1954). But the accompanying
assumptions are different. Hall is drawing on a semiotic framework, where the concept of
code is central. One difference is Hall’s stronger emphasis on meaning, first as encoding,
producing 'meaning structure 1' and then as decoding, when the receiver produces 'meaning
structure 2' drawing on frameworks of knowledge (see figure 1). And the encoding and
decoding processes are seen as distinct 'moments' that are relatively independent from each
other. One could argue that the traditional transmission model did not in itself assume that
sender and receiver saw the world in the same way, but the focus on meaning and discourse is
without doubt much stronger in Hall’s model. Another important difference was that the
model was formulated within the context of ideological processes rather than the general
distribution of information. This was made especially clear by the formulation of what I will
call the typology, three hypothetical decoding positions: dominant-hegemonic, negotiated and
oppositional. As a matter of fact the typology is often, maybe mostly, regarded as an
integrated part of the encoding/decoding model. Laughey (2007: 62) has included the
typology in his somewhat modified version of Hall's graphic model, and Sturken (2009:72f)
goes directly to the typology without even mentioning the model proper.

Figure 1. Hall’s encoding/decoding model

programme as
→ ‘meaningful’ discourse →

encoding decoding
→ meaning meaning →
structures 1 structures 2
frameworks frameworks
of knowledge of knowledge
--------- ---------
relations relations
of production of production
---------- ----------
technical technical
infrastructure infrastructure

(Hall 1980: 130)

One important characteristic was that one could not beforehand assume that the encoded and
the decoded meaning should correspond. That depended on the frameworks of knowledge or
codes within which the programme was encoded respectively decoded. This is sometimes
regarded as the most important feature of the model (e g McQuail 2010: 74). A problematic
feature is what exactly 'the programme as meaningful discourse' is. According to the graphic
model it seems to be something different from both the encoded and the decoded meaning. At
least it clearly exists before decoding. As Nightingale comments, it could be interpreted as
'produced by one of two different groups: the production team or the academic researcher, or
both' (Nightingale 1996: 31). One solution to this, in line with Wren-Lewis (1983) arguments,
could be to replace it with 'the programme as a structure of signifiers'. Then it could be said to
be meaningful in the sense of providing the material for interpretation, i e the structure of
signifiers, but at the same time you don't have to assume any specific interpretation before the
audience' decoding (except for the encoded meaning, 'meaning structure 1'). A related debate
concerns one of the most discussed concepts in Hall’s text, 'the preferred meaning' (or
'preferred reading'). Hall defined it as:

'... there exists a pattern of 'preferred readings', and these both have the
institutional/political/ideoogical order imprinted in them and have themselves
become institutionalized. The domains of ‘preferred meanings’ have the whole

2
 social order embedded in them as a set of meanings, practices and beliefs' (Hall
1980: 134).

Is the preferred reading some meaning inherent in the text, the analyst's reading, or a majority
reading? (Morley 1981). One approach is that the researcher constructs a reasonable preferred
meaning from the text. Others argue that it must be a property of the audience (Wren-Lewis
1983: 184; Pillai 1992) some kind of 'normal' or majority reading. A more radical position is
to abandon the concept altogether and admit that there is no privileged interpretation.
However, in a later interview Hall argued that the preferred meaning is more a property of the
text.

And preferred reading is simply a way of saying if you have control of the
apparatus of signifying the world, if you’re in control of the media, you own it,
you write the texts – to some extent it has a determining shape. Your decodings
are going to take place somewhere within the universe of encoding. (Hall 1994:
261)

So here there is a convergence between the dominant ideology and the encoding intentions
and practices of the sender. What Hall wanted to say was that meaning is not wholly arbitrary,
it is strongly influenced by the encoding, but it is not wholly determined either (Hall 1994:
261 f).

The typology

Central to the arguments put forth here, but seldom discussed, is the distinction between what
I will call 'the model proper', i e the model shown in figure 1, and what I will call 'the
typology', i e Hall’s categories of three 'hypothetical positions from which decodings of a
televisual discourse may be constructed' (Hall 1980: 136). Hall argues that decoding could be
done from three kinds of audience positions. The first he calls the dominant-hegemonic,
which means that a message is decoded accorded to the same code as it was encoded. It is
important to note here that Hall assumes that e g news are produced within the dominant
ideology.

When the viewer takes the connoted meaning from, say, a television newscast or
current affaairs programme full and straight, and decodes thje message in terms of
the reference code in wich it has been encoded, we might say that the viewer is
operating inside the dominant code. This is the ideal-typical case of 'perfectly
transparent communication' (Hall 198: 136)

One variety of the dominant code is the professional code:

This is the position (...) which the professional broadcasters assume when
encoding a message which has already been signified in a hegemonic manner.
(Hall 1980: 136)

The professional code deals with technical solutions when producing e g a news item, but
within the framework of the dominant hegemony. The second position he calls the negotiated
code. It accepts the hegemonic definition of the world on a general level but is critical at a
more specific level. After describing the nature of the hegemonic viewpoint in some detail,
Hall goes on:

3
 Decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and
oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic
definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted,
situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules – it operates with
exceptions to the rule. (Hall 198: 137)

The third position, the oppositional code, means that the interpreter reads the message with
the help of a radically different frame of meaning.

Finally, it is possible for a viewer perfectly to understand both the literal and the
connotative inflection given in a discourse but to decode the message in a globally
contrary way. (Hall 1980: 137f)

Hall here mentions the example of interpreting the reference to 'national interest' as meaning
'class interest' (Hall 1980:138).
The typology was probably equally important as the model proper for the success, as the
typology gave the researchers some categories to use in the analysis of reception interviews,
categories which were politically relevant and allowed for different empirical results. The
typology was the distinctive feature which defined what Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998)
call the Incorporation/Resistance Paradigm, where focus was upon the extent to which media
audiences were incorporated into the dominant ideology, of if their interpretations resisted
such incorporation. The conclusions was not given beforehand which gave a sense of
openness in relation to e g Althusserian Screen theory. However, from the beginning there
were some problems with the applications of the three decoding positions.
One important characteristic of Hall’s model is that the encoded meaning is assumed to
be encoded within the dominant ideology. That is, the (encoded) ideological tendency of any
message is taken for granted and is not contingent. One reason for this may be that the model
was specifically formulated to deal with television news and not intended to be a general
communication model. But this assumption leads to a possible confusion regarding the three
decoding positions – are they primarily ideological positions or positions relative to the
encoded position (whatever it is)? For Hall himself this is not a problem because he assumes
as default option a dominant-hegemonic encoding. Then for example an oppositional
decoding is both opposed to the dominant ideology and opposed to the encoded meaning of
the text. But if we assume other encoding possibilities, like a reception analysis of a text
encoded within a radical framework, for example an independent film criticizing the
prevailing social system, it becomes problematic. If the reader understands the text and agrees
with it he or she is probably oppositional in relation to the dominant ideology of society but
not oppositional to the message of the text. And the other way round, if you read it from a
dominant-hegemonic ideological position you will be oppositional in relation to the text, but
not in relation to the dominant ideology.
Hall's typology was inspired by Frank Parkin's division of three types of class
consciousness (Parkin 1971), which can lead us to think that Hall’s typology is primarily
ideological. The term 'dominant-hegemonic' also signals an ideological stance, while the
terms 'negotiated' and 'oppositional' can by themselves be seen either as ideological or relative
to the encoded meaning irrespective which code the text has been encoded with. Gurevich and
Scannell argue that Hall’s typology should be regarded as semiological in contrast with
Parkin’s, which they call sociological (Gurevich and Scannell 2003: 240). By 'semiological'
they mean that Hall use the typology 'to identify different modes of decoding and meaning
making'. This clarification does not in itself explain if they see it as primarily ideological or
relative to the encoded meaning. Hall also writes about the dominant-hegemonic position as

4
decoding 'the message in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded' (Hall
1980: 136). Hall's formulations clearly give support for both interpretations of the typology.
The three positions are described both in terms of ideological position and in relation to the
encoded meaning of the text (which I will call 'text-relative').
The numerous authors that have commented upon the encoding/decoding model
usually don't discuss any possible contradiction between the ideological and the text-relative
dimensions of the typology (one exception is Michelle 2007). This is probably because Hall's
assumption of news as generally encoded within the dominant code is accepted or taken for
granted. Both dimensions are usually mentioned or at least implied, often with the dominant
position defined in terms of ideology and producers intention, while the negotiated and
oppositional positions are defined in text-relative terms, as deviations from the preferred
reading, which in turn is defined in terms of the dominant-hegemonic position (Baran and
Davis 2009: 245; Long and Wall 2009: 247).
A problematic more often discussed in relation to the typology is the difference
between understanding the encoded meaning of a text and if the reader agrees or disagrees
with the ideological message (e g Morley 1981; Pillai 1992; Schrøder 2000; Morley 2006;
Michelle 2007; Philo 2008). Hall admitted that there could be cases of literal
misunderstanding but he wanted to turn questions of comprehension into questions of using
the dominant code or not (Hall 1980: 135). Yet he nevertheless made the distinction himself
between comprehension and decoding within the oppositional code in the last paragraph of
the text (Hall 1980: 137 f). The problem is, as the critics has pointed out, that there is no
formal place for comprehension in the model except for being subsumed within the three
decoding positions.

Unsolved problems

Thus there still seem to be some unsolved problems with the model. In a comment on
'unanswered questions' in audience research David Morley, referring to the
encoding/decoding model, mentions 'the need to disentangle comprehension and evaluation'.
But he also hesitates somewhat because of the risk that questions of cultural power could be
evacuated by such a move. Morley also raises the question of the problematic status of
'oppositional reading' with on the one hand political forms of opposition but also audiences
that refuse to engage with certain media texts. And dominant readings in one context can be
oppositional in another, e g consumerist readings of Dallas in eastern Europe in the 1980s.
'All of this is to suggest that there are serious problems still to be resolved in developing the
original insights generated by the encoding/decoding model - but it is also to recognize that
the model, despite its limitations, still has much to offer' (Morley 2006: 111). To Morley's list
we can add the problem of the two-dimensional character of the typology and the restriction
to texts encoded within the dominant ideology.

Two alternative typologies

In order to deal with the dilemma of texts that are not clearly dominant-hegemonic I shall
present another attempt to go beyond Hall. This is not an alternative to 'the model proper' but
rather a reworking, in two versions, of the typology by expanding it also to the encoding
level. By doing this we can handle texts that are not clearly 'dominant-hegemonic'. The first
step is to distinguish between the model proper (the graphic model) and the typology, i e

5
Hall’s partition of different reception positions: dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and
oppositional. Hall assumed in 'Encoding/decoding' that television programmes mostly are
encoded within the dominant ideology.
Hall himself opens up for this differential treatment of encoding in the end of the 1980
version of Encoding/decoding: “One of the most significant political moments (they also
coincide with crisis points within the broadcasting organizations themselves, for obvious
reasons) is the point when events which are normally signified and decoded in a negotiated
way begin to be given an oppositional reading” (Hall 1980: 138, my emphasis). In the later
interview he was actually asked about how the concept of preferred meaning works with texts
that work against the dominant meaning system. Hall answers that over a longer period of
time you 'tend to get hegemonic messages more frequently'. But he also admits that content is
more variable than the model presupposes. 'This model does make the media institutions
sound rather homogeneous in their ideological character, and they are not. It’s not sufficiently
attentive to that' (Hall 1994: 263). This was noted also by Worthington (2008) who argues
that it is 'equally important to acknowledge the multiplicity of institutional and individual
voices involved in encoding, resulting in a mixture of meanings available in the preferred
reading, some of which may reinforce dominant discourses while other challenge them.'
(Worthington 2008: 347)
The second step is to split up the typology of decoding positions into two versions. We
saw earlier that the three positions could be seen both as ideological positions and as ‘text-
relative’, i e in the sense if you decode the message (whatever it is) in accordance with the
encoded meaning or not.
As mentioned earlier the concepts of ‘programme as meaningful discourse’ and
‘preferred meaning’ are problematic. But I will here, for the sake of the argument, put this
problem in brackets and suppose that we can talk about an encoded meaning. If we also do the
same partition between dominant-hegemonic, negotiated and oppositional regarding the
encoded meaning, we can cross-tabulate the encoding and the decoding typologies and get a
more complex typology consisting of nine distinct combinations of encoding and decoding
positions. This leaves room for the possibility that 'oppositional' texts (in the encoded mode)
can be neutralized by a reader decoding from a dominant-hegemonic ideological position.
Some empirical examples of this will be given later. First we do the cross-tabulation using
'the ideology version' of the decoding typology, i e as three types of ideological positions. See
figure 2 below.
The dominant-hegemonic encoding column corresponds to Hall's typology, while the
negotiated and oppositional encoding columns introduces two additional types of encoding-
decoding combinations, modes of viewing that has no place in Hall’s conceptual space. The
two upper right cells, 'neutralization', mean that media texts encoded within a negotiated or
oppositional framework is decoded within the frame of a dominant ideology. For example, a
TV program conveying gross inequalities in society could be interpreted by a conservative
viewer not as a report on social reality but as evidence of 'leftist bias' among TV journalists.
Another viewer may decode the program more in line with the encoded meaning and thus
take an oppositional stand ideologically but not oppositional in relation to the text (acceptance
of critique). So, it may be the case that as well as media texts encoded within the dominant
ideology may be interpreted in an oppositional way, texts which could be said to be encoded
from an oppositional position may in some cases be neutralized because they are decoded
from the point of view of the dominant ideology. Readers can of course also neutralize the
probably more common phenomenon of negotiated encoded texts.

6
Figure 2. The modified encoding/decoding typology (ideology version)

ENCODING
POSITIONS
Dominant-hegemonic Negotiated Oppositional
encoding encoding encoding
(Hall’s assumed (partly critical (a radical text)
mode) text)
Dominant- Dominant-hegemonic Dominant- Dominant-
hegemonic reading of dominant- hegemonic hegemonic
position hegemonic text reading of reading of
negotiated text oppositional
text
=Neutralization =Neutralization
DECODING Negotiated Negotiated reading Negotiated Negotiated
POSITIONS position of dominant- reading of reading of
(ideological) hegemonic text negotiated text oppositional
text
Oppositional Oppositional Oppositional Oppositional
position reading of dominant- reading of reading of
hegemonic text negotiated text oppositional text
=Amplification of =Agreement with
critique oppositional text

If we instead interpret the typology as not ideological positions but mainly being about
agreement or opposition with the encoded meaning of the text, regardless of the ideological
tendency of the text, we have to modify the encoding/decoding matrix somewhat. For one
thing we need to change the term 'dominant-hegemonic' if it only is about agreement with the
encoded meaning whatsoever. I will call this 'text-acceptance'. I will also change the term
'oppositional' to 'text-oppositional' in order to remind the reader that it is another type of
opposition than opposition against the dominant ideology (even if they often coincide
empirically). See figure 3.
We see here that ´neutralization' moved down to the lower right cell. It here means that you
do not decode in line with the text. Text-oppositional decodings (which goes against the
encoded meaning) can of course be made from a wide range of ideological positions
depending on which kind of text we are talking about.
The modified typology defines 'neutralization' as the rejection of oppositional texts by
decoders applying the dominant-hegemonic code at reception or by 'text-oppositional'
rejection of oppositional texts. If we define 'text-oppositional' as not only depending on using
other ideological codes than the encoded meaning but also including other types of
neutralization, e g 'distraction', 'non-comprehension', 'indifference' and 'program construction
awareness' we get a richer space of different types of decodings.

7
Figure 3. The modified encoding/decoding typology (text-relative version)

ENCODING
POSITIONS
Dominant-hegemonic Negotiated Oppositional
encoding encoding encoding
(Hall’ assumed mode) (partly critical (radical text)
text)
Text-accepting Text-acceptance Text-acceptance Text-acceptance of
position of dominant- of negotiated oppositional
hegemonic text text text

DECODING Text- Negotiation of Negotiation of Negotiation of

POSITIONS negotiation dominant-hegemonic negotiated oppositional
(text-relative) position text text text

Text- Text-oppositional Text-oppositional Text-oppositional

oppositional reading of dominant- reading of reading of
position hegemonic text negotiated oppositional text
text =Neutralization

Some empirical examples

Neutralization can be made in different ways, both from ideological and text-oppositional
views. I shall here give only a few examples from a reception analysis studying the reception
of aspects of social class in Swedish television (Ross 2008). One programme that was used
was the Swedish realist serial Three Loves. Most of the informants regarded it as a very
realistic programme, and one even called it a 'social reportage', and some noticed the class
hierarchy in the programme. There was also a dinner scene were some businessmen and
politicians were planning to fool the local peasants of their water rights, which led one
informant to wonder if it was like this it happened in reality. However, another informant
neutralized this scene by interpreting the whole programme in relation to old Swedish movies,
it is just entertainment:

- They talked about something then... Water power or... Made some plans about
how to get hold of these rivers from the farmers or whatever it was. The cheapest
way. But these thoughts didn’t really come to me. But it was more...yes,
entertainment. I don’t think I... When I see something like this I don’t think very
much, I more kind of sit and rest my eyes. (Tina, middle class)

Another neutralizing strategy is to focus on other aspects than seemingly obvious class
differences or conflicts. For example, in another scene in Three Loves a young couple with
different class background quarrel about money. Several informants said that the different
class background was especially salient in this scene. Other informants focused on their
personalities instead. Carl e g recognized the difference during the interview but did not think
about it while watching.

- Yes, there is obviously a difference between their financial resources and this
apartment well….

8
 - In this scene, is it… Did it activate some thoughts or ideas or associations?
- … Not when I saw it, no I don’t think so. No, you think more about the persons
so to say. Identify with the situation (Carl, middle class)

Regarding the US prime-time soap Falcon Crest the class differences can be made harmless
by focusing on the lack of realism, and on the genre conventions. Rich people conspiring
against each other are what you expect in this kind of serial. 'It’s only a serial…' one female
worker says, it is nothing to take serious or that you should relate to reality.
In the case of TV news there are cases where suspicion against the journalists can be
invoked in order to downplay critique against companies or authorities. E g in a news item
dealing with economic problems in a Swedish company and the risk for unemployment for
the workers the journalist ended the item by asking the CEO about his salary (which was very
high). Especially the male middle class informants were quite upset by this interview
question, which was regarded as unfair and irrelevant considering the main content of the
story.
I do not argue that these mentioned programmes were encoded from within an
'oppositional' ideological framework. But also mainstream television fiction and news can
contain elements that at least for some viewers can stimulate critical thoughts about society.
In that sense we can talk of 'negotiated' elements in these programmes, and then also of some
kinds of neutralization in decodings.

Another strategy

However, one could argue that the modification of the typology presented here draws on a
weak part of Hall's framework. It assumes that we can identify one encoded meaning, or
preferred reading, prior to decoding. In practice we use it as a shorthand for what the
researcher thinks is the encoded meaning. This is also what Hall admits in the later interview.
The preferred reading is in the text, but you must do a relatively 'objective' textual analysis to
find it, but you can never be sure about it (Hall 1994: 266). This meaning tends to be an
abstraction, a summary of the overall message of the text. One possibility is to define several
preferred readings depending on the level of interpretation. E g one more denotative, another
more connotative, and these do not necessarily be in conflict.
If we don't accept any notions of preferred meaning we can go back to Hall's approach
but regard the typology as a purely ideological approach. We can still use the typology but
without comparing decodings with any specific encoded or preferred meaning. The responses
to a news item could then be classified as 'dominant', 'negotiated', 'oppositional' or some other
categories that could be added, purely in relation to some ideological map (this is in line with
Schrøder's evaluation dimension), if ideology is your main concern. This can still be
interesting. But then the typology ought to be more specific about what the dominant,
negotiated or oppositional is. Hall admits, again, that these categories are underdeveloped.
And we ought to add more categories to the typology. I e Morley (1980) identified several
types of oppositional decodings. These different types ought to be given different category
names rather than being merged into one concept.
The 'text-relative' typology would then be irrelevant if there is no specific encoded
meaning. Of course one could still talk about intended meanings, as used in hermeneutics, but
there can be several intentions and also unintentional signifiers, and we are still restricted to
the researcher's interpretation or guess of intentions (if we do not ask the producers).

9
Other approaches

Despite the questions about the encoding/decoding model that was raised since the 1980s few
attempts have been made to modify or replace it. One notable exception is Schrøder’s
multidimensional model which solves some of the problems with Hall’s model (Schrøder
2000). It is a different kind of model than Hall’s, Schrøder calls it dimensional while Hall’s is
a process model. Schrøder’s model do not include the encoding part, it is only a reception
model. He does not specify the process of interpretation but instead sets up six dimensions of
reception that ought to be considered in reception analyses. They are:

• Motivation: What is the interests, motives, relevance of the text for the receiver?

• Comprehension: To what extent do the reader understand the text in a basic sense,
relative either to the senders intention or other readers interpretations?

• Discrimination: Are recipients aware of the media texts ‘constructedness’?

• Position: The subjective attitude towards the perceived textual position.

• Evaluation: The ‘objective’ domain of social discourse. The analyst relates readings to
ideological positions.

• Implementation: Are media used as a political resource? Do readings influence action,

conceived in broad sense including e g talk in everyday life?

In a later version, published in Danish, Schrøder has dropped the Evaluation dimension
because it is a researchers category rather than a reception category (Schrøder 2003).
Schrøder reminds us of the remarks Morley made early about the encoding/decoding model:
that it did not differentiate between several types of decoding: 'attentiveness, recognition of
relevance, of comprehension, and of interpretation and response' (Morley 1981: 5). This is to
some extent solved in Schrøder’s model. As this model is of a different kind it doesn’t really
replace Hall’s 'model proper', instead in a way it presupposes it. I think it should more be seen
as an alternative to Hall’s typology, with the difference that Schrøder’s model have more
dimensions and thus also could be of more general use, e g for both critical research and for
studies with other aims. The main advantage is that it separates comprehension, position and
discrimination.
Michelle’s (2007) ‘composite multidimensional model’ is also a dimensional model
rather than a process model. This is probably the most elaborated attempt to construct an
alternaltive framework to the encoding/decoding model, drawing on both Hall, Schrøder and
others. She distinguishes between transparent, referential, mediated and discursive modes of
reception, where Hall´s typology is subsumed under the discursive mode, i e seeing the text as
a message. However, what I call Hall´s model proper is not included. One similarity to the
analysis put forth in this paper is that Michelle distinguishes between positional level, i e
response in relation to the message, and evaluation (borrowed from Schrøder), i e the
ideological level in an 'objective' sense. The positional level is close to my concept of text-
relative decoding, as it is defined in relation to the preferred meaning ot the text, whatever the
ideological message of the text is (Michelle 2007: 211). However, by keeping the name
'dominant-hegemonic' for the ’agreement-with-the-text' position (whatever the position of the
text is) the confusing possibility remains that for example a socialist reading of a socialist text
will be called ’dominant-hegemonic’. Michelle argues that Hall's model conflate responses to

10
textual form with response to textual content (Michelle 2007: 183). I would agree that the
model does not clearly separate them, but my argument is rather that Hall's typology conflates
responses to the preferred or intended meaning with responses in relation to ideological
meanings.
A few other reception theorists have tried to replace Hall's model not with another
model but with another research approach. Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998) proposed
nothing less than another paradigm. They situated the encoding/decoding model within what
they call The Incorporation/Resistance Paradigm, IRP, and argued that it has fullfilled an
important function but by the time was hampered with some limitations. The paradigm is
according to them succeeded by the Spectacle/Performance Paradigm, SPP, focusing more on
processes of performance both in the media and among the audiences in their everyday life
context. Media audiences are now more interactive and perform media input in their daily life.
Atkinson and Dougherty (2006) take their point of departure from the
Spectacle/Performance Paradigm, but argue that it does not take account of questions of
power and ideology in a sufficient way. Instead they modify the paradigm into what they call
the Resistance/Performance Paradigm, RPP. This paradigm can deal with oppositional groups
like social justice movements. This is interesting because they are an unusual case dealing
with 'oppositional' texts, i e the kind of texts that I argue cause trouble for the
encoding/decoding model.
Couldry (2004) proposes a somewhat similar approach, seeing media as 'practices',
meaning that media research ought to be much broader than focusing on interpretation of
specific texts. His point of departure is not the media but society, especially social practices in
general. The aim is 'to decentre media research from the study of media texts or production
structures (important though these are) and to redirect it onto the study of the open-ended
range of practices focused directly or indirectly on media' (Couldry 2004: 117). The question
in relation to audiences is then what 'are people doing in relation to media across a whole
range of situations and contexts?' (Couldry 2004: 119).
These three approaches point in new directions for audience research relative to Hall's
model but it is hard to see them as alternatives to the encoding/decoding model. They are
alternatives in the sense that they shift the research questions to other areas. If the SPP, RPP
or practices paradigms are more interesting than the encoding/decoding model (or Schrøder's
or Michelle’s models) depends on what you want to do or know. Looking at he development
within audience research it cannot be said that any of these has produced a new paradigm that
resembles the influence of the encoding/decoding model, even if they raise important
questions. Yet it is true that the encoding/decoding model is not that dominant any more. The
rise of internet and interactivity, citizen journalism etc is raising questions about the blurred
border between audiences and producers. But questions of interpretation, and questions of
ideology and comprehension will always be important (or ought to be) even if audiences also
perform and produce, and even if the everyday context of media use also is important.

Conclusion

The influence of Hall’s model is undisputed. It stimulated, with the help of Morley’s The
‘Nationwide’ Audience (1980), a new field of audience research, reception analysis. But Hall
himself saw 'Encoding/decoding' as an unfinished first attempt to formulate an alternative to
the transmission model.

I didn't think of it as generating a model which would last for the next twenty-
five years for research. I don't think it has the theoretical rigor, the internal

11
 logical and conceptual consistency for that. ... It suggests an approach; it opens
up new questions. It maps the terrain. But it's a model which has to be worked
with and developed and changed. (Hall 1994: 255)

The ambiguities, and other researchers different decodings of the model did not prevent it’s
use in empirical reception research. Maybe the relative vagueness made it possible for
different researchers to adapt it in a way that suited themselves, even if it sometimes caused
some confusion among researchers.
If we see the model and the typology as a unit it should mainly be understood as a part
of the critical research project. As such it has filled its function even if e g Philo argues that it
had quite negative effects by overestimating oppositional decodings (Philo 2008). One can
argue that this does not follow from the model itself but is more a consequence of how it was
used (or decoded) by other researchers. The model in itself makes no proposition that
oppositional decodings are especially common. However, many reception researchers focused
on this, probably for other reasons, but the model of course inspired them. But Radway also
found 'oppositional' interpretations without being influenced by Stuart Hall or the
encoding/decoding model (Radway 1984).
More trouble starts when you try to use it as a general communication model for all
kinds of research questions, which is sometimes the case in media education. The model
proper can be used as general model but the typology is not always useful if you want to study
aspects where ideology is not on the agenda. Then Schrøder’s or Michelle’s multidimensional
models could be useful alternatives. And if ideology is at stake but the texts used are not
clearly dominant-hegemonic you have to reflect upon the nature of the typology, and different
ways of understanding, accepting and rejecting texts. The two alternative typologies
presented here may be of some help then.
Models are simple maps, their function is to help us see phenomena which, for some
reason, may be regarded as more important than things that is not included in the model.
However, if models are too simple they can lead us astray, and make us overlook things that
are equally interesting. And if they are too complex they will be impractical to use. The two
9-cell typologies presented here are complex, but if we use them selectively we can use at
least one concept derived from it, neutralization, in empirical research (in addition to Hall’s
concepts) and let it direct our attention to certain interpretations that does not seem to exist
when you use Hall's original typology. And neutralizations can be of some social significance,
as well as dominant-hegemonic and oppositional decodings.

References
Abercrombie, N and Longhurst, B (1998) Audiences. A Sociological Theory of Performance
and Imagination. London: Sage.
Atkinson, J. and Dougherty (2006) ‘Alternative Media and Social Justice Movements: The
Development of a Resistance Performance Paradigm of Audience Analysis. Western
Journal of Communication 70: 64-88.
Baran, S. and K. Davis (2009) Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and
Future. 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.
Barker, M. (2006) 'I have seen the future and it is not here yet…; Or, on being ambitious for
audience research', Communication Review 9: 123-141.
Corner, J. (1996) 'Reappraising Reception: Aims, Concepts and Methods', pp 280-304 in J.
Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Couldry, N. (2004) 'Theorising Media as Practice'. Social Semiotics 14(2): 115-132.

12
Gurevich, M. and P. Scannell (2003) 'Canonization Achieved? Stuart Hall’s
‘Encoding/Decoding’', pp 231-47 in E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes & A. Orloff (eds)
Canonic Texts in Media Research. Cambridge: Polity Press,.
Hagen, I. (1995) 'Stuart Hall: Encoding/Decoding'. Norsk Medietidskrift, nr 1 1995
Hall, S. (1973) 'Encoding and Decoding in the Televisual Discourse'. Stencilled Paper No 7.
Birmingham: CCCS.
Hall, S. (1980) 'Encoding/decoding', pp 128-38 in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis
(eds) Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson.
Hall, S. (1994) 'Reflections upon the Encoding/Decoding Model: An Interview with Stuart
Hall', pp 253-74 in J. Cruz and J. Lewis (eds) Viewing, Reading, Listening. Audiences and
Cultural Reception. Boulder: Westview Press.
Katz, E., J. D. Peters, T. Liebes & A. Orloff (eds) (2003) Canonic Texts in Media Research.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Laughey, D (2007) Key Themes in Media Theory. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Long, P. and T. Wall (2009) Media Studies. Texts, Production and Context. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Longhurst, B., G. Smith, G. Crawford, M. Ogborn, with E. Baldwin and S. McCracken (2008)
Introducing Cultural Studies. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
McQuail, D. (2010) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, 6th ed. London: Sage.
Michelle, C (2007) ‘Modes of reception: A consolidated analytical framework’,
Communication Review 10: 181-222.
Moores, S. (1993) Interpreting Audiences. London: Sage.
Morley, D. (1980) The ’Nationwide’ Audience. London: BFI.
Morley, D. (1981) '’The Nationwide Audience’ - A Critical Postscript'. Screen Education. No
39: 3-14.
Morley, D. (2006) 'Unanswered Questions in Audience Research', Communication Review 9:
101-21.
Murphy, P. D. (2005) 'Fielding the Study of Reception: Notes on ‘Negotiation’ for Global
Media Studies', Popular Communication 3(3): 167-180.
Nightingale, V. (1996) Studying Audiences: The shock of the real. London & New York:
Routledge.
Parkin, F. (1971) Class Inequality and Political Order. London: McGibbon & Kee.
Philo, G. (2008) 'Active Audiences and the Construction of Public Knowledge'.
Journalism Studies 9(4): 535-44.
Pillai, P. (1992) 'Rereading Stuart Hall´s Encoding/Decoding Model', Communication Theory
2(3): 221-233.
Ross, K. and V. Nightingale (2003) Media and Audiences: New Perspectives. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Ross, S (2008) Klasstolkningar. En receptionsanalys av hur klassaspekter uppfattas I Tre
kärlekar, Falcon Crest och TV-nyheter. (Class Interpretations. The Reception of Class
Dimensions in Three Loves, Falcon Crest and TV News). Stockholm: Stockholm
University.
Schramm, W (1954) ‘How communication works’, in Schramm (ed) The Process and Effects
of Mass Communication. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
Schrøder, K. (2000) 'Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional
model of mass media reception', European Journal of Cultural Studies 3(2): 233-258.
Schrøder, K. (2003) 'Generelle aspekter ved mediereception?', Mediekultur No 35: 63-73
Sturken, M. (2009) Practices of Looking. An Introduction to Visual Culture. 2nd ed. New
York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13
 Worthington, N. (2008) 'Encoding and Decoding Rape News: How Progressive Reporting
Inverts Textual Orientations', Women's Studies in Communication 31(3): 344-67.
Wren-Lewis, J. (1983) 'The encoding/decoding model: criticisms and developments for
research on decoding'. Media, Culture & Society 5: 151-69.

14

View publication stats