While it might sound like an affectation to appear more intelligent, I really do hold a Ph.D., unlike some who used the title for fun (Dr. Demento, Dr. Don Rose, etc.). Mine is in Mass Media from Michigan State, and I wrote a dissertation (“A Model of Radio Listener Choice”) that won the inaugural Ken Harwood Outstanding Dissertation Award from the Broadcast Education Association (BEA) in 1990.
Last week, The New York Times reported that the number of students admitted to Ph.D. programs this year fell by 15% at major research universities. The article blamed reduced federal research funding, although it wasn’t clear whether the decline was only in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) or across all disciplines.
Regardless of the number of Ph.D. students entering this coming fall, there are plenty of academics who conduct research as part of their duties, much of which appears either in scholarly journals or is presented at academic conferences. The BEA, founded in 1955, holds an annual conference in conjunction with the NAB Show in Las Vegas. Hundreds of papers are presented, and if you’re interested, go to beaweb.org.
Academic Journals and Peer Review
Some academic journals exist in our field. The oldest is the quarterly Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media (JOBEM), started in 1957, as well as the semi-annual Journal of Radio and Audio Media (JRAM), which I had a very small part in helping to start back in the early ’90s. The founding editor, Dr. Frank Chorba, who was teaching at Washburn University in Topeka, got in touch and asked for help. I found a massive $250 in my budget as research director of Birch/Scarborough and sent it along. Eventually, BEA took on sponsorship of the journal, and after a later name change, it began publishing twice a year.
Both journals are peer-reviewed. What that means is that you send in your manuscript, and it’s read by three reviewers who should know something about the topic. The review is blind — in other words, the authors’ names are removed to prevent bias. If the reviewers like the paper, possibly suggesting changes, it will be published in a later edition.
What the Research Shows
Would any of the research in these journals be useful for your operation? The answer is a full-throated “maybe.” The most recent issue of JRAM focused on podcasting. Some of the articles would be considered “esoteric” at best by US radio and podcast pros. The most recent JOBEM has articles on everything from NBA 2K players to AI and media bias.
What sent me down this path was a paper covering JRAM’s content: “Mapping Three Decades of Radio and Audio Scholarship: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis of the Journal of Radio Studies and Journal of Radio and Audio Media (1997-2025).” Nothing like a short, catchy title, and like many books, there apparently is a worldwide law requiring a colon in the title (I deliberately did not use one in my dissertation title, and it’s a wonder that I graduated without it!). The authors are Dr. Bradley Freeman and Dr. Padma Pillai of Sunway University in Malaysia.
The article uses a “bibliometric” approach, a form of content analysis, of 570 peer-reviewed articles in JRAM. What stood out for me were the trends. It’s no surprise that US-focused articles have declined over the years as the journal’s stature has grown. Since 2008, about half of the articles concerned the US, down from over 60% in the earlier period.
For business-oriented types, articles that the authors placed in the categories of “Broadcast industry and production practices” or “Audiences and listening practices” have been a relatively small part of the journal’s articles. That’s unfortunate. I believe academia has something to add to our knowledge of audiences and how to improve the radio/audio business.
There are some very good academics in our universities who could offer new thoughts and ideas. But in my view, the business folks and the teachers don’t spend enough time together. There are some local connections, but those often relate to getting experience for students, which is a fine thing. But let’s move to the next level.
Time for an Industry-Funded Research Fund
The NAB used to sponsor a broadcast research grant program. It started in 1967, and the last announcement I can find is from 2007. It may be moribund, no doubt the victim of budget cuts, and when it existed, many of the studies never saw much publicity beyond the initial announcement of the awards. I have first-hand experience, as my dissertation was funded by an NAB research grant.
Good research costs money, and there are academics who know how to do excellent research but don’t have the resources. Perhaps I’m dreaming, but can our industry draw up a list of our biggest issues, publicize a request for proposals, and put some dollars behind it? Convene a committee of execs, pick a winner or two, set timelines, and make sure the results are presented such that everyone in audio can have access. Yeah, I’m dreaming, but couldn’t we benefit from some outside research that can help our industry?
Building a war chest for this project won’t be cheap. To start out, I’d put in a grand. That’s not much, but any initiative has to start somewhere.
Correction: The RAYBAUM Act
Last week, I mentioned the RAYBAUM Act in my column and joked about the name.
I was unaware that the act was named for Ray Baum. Baum was a former majority leader in the Oregon House of Representatives. He also served as a vice president of government relations for the NAB, and a member of Congressman Greg Walden’s staff. He had a strong interest in telecommunications and 911 services. The act was passed shortly after Ray passed away from prostate cancer in 2018.
Thanks to Dan McDonald at NAB for pointing this out. My apologies.
Let’s meet again next week.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
