the future of radIo studIes
Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
inTroducTion
Radio has long been an invisible medium, unseen but ever present in our 
lives. Despite the increased visibility and materiality conferred on radio and 
soundwork via emergent digital platforms, radio studies as a discipline has 
continued to share something of the medium’s invisibility within the scholarly 
universe, either missing completely from media studies curricula, scattered 
widely among different departments – communication, journalism, music, art, 
literature, and more – or subsumed into more generalized explorations into 
sound and the sonic environment. 
However, the digital revolution has affected radio studies as it has other 
media, not only opening up the field to new forms of soundwork – podcasts, 
streaming radio, digital music services, online audio – but providing new sites 
and sources for radio and sound scholarship, as well, including online journals, 
newsletters and blogs1, radio curation sites2, research databases3, permanent 
web interfaces for traditional radio outlets, and last but not least, audio archives. 
These proliferating digital platforms with their global reach have the poten-
tial to make radio studies truly transnational for the first time since Rudolf 
Arnheim celebrated the medium’s boundary-transcending potential in 1936 – 
before the nationalist fervors of the twentieth-century worked to confine and 
control it (Arnheim 1936). Now, as radio scholar Kate Lacey has written, we can 
not only “listen in” but “listen out,” forming new connections and potential 
1 | Such as Radio Survivor (http://www.radiosurvivor.com/), Sounding Out! (https://soundstudies-
blog.com/) and Hot Pod (https://www.hotpodnews.com/).
2 | For instance, the Public Radio Exchange (PRX: http://www.prx.org/) and the Third Coast Interna-
tional Audio Festival (http://thirdcoastfestival.org/).
3 | These include the Media History Digital Library, a database of radio (and f ilm and television) trade 
publications (http://mediahistoryproject.org/) and more recently, a searchable podcast database 
launched by Jeremy Morris at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Podcastre (http://podcastre.org/).
302 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
publics that stretch geographical and cultural limitations (Lacey 2013). While 
this new connectivity has undoubtedly already taken place in the realms of ra-
dio production and consumption, in this chapter we examine whether it has 
been translated to scholarly studies of radio. We argue that it is beginning to do 
so, but that such translation remains in its nascent stages. 
Our chapter both marks this crucial transition and seeks to inspire further 
exploration, pointing to opportunities for transmedia, transnational, and trans-
disciplinary investigations as the way ahead for radio studies. In particular, as 
Golo Föllmer and Alec Badenoch write in the introduction to this book, “[f]or 
radio scholars it aims to provide both inspiration and concrete tools for break-
ing through the methodological nationalism that in many ways still structures 
our research.” In this chapter we argue for the development of new approaches 
to researching and teaching radio that are as malleable and accommodating as 
the medium itself, encompassing radio’s historical depth as well as contempo-
rary practices. We draw upon our experience as co-editors of the Radio Jour-
nal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media (Intellect Press) since 
2015, which has given us a special window onto the breadth and focus of radio 
research today, and as co-chairs of the closing plenary session convened at the 
international Transnational Radio Conference in Utrecht, Netherlands, in 2016. 
The chapter begins with a brief historic overview of the field of study, high-
lighting the role of archives in providing important access to scholars of radio. 
The next part delves deeper into the interdisciplinary nature of radio studies, 
illustrated through a mapping of the disciplinary belonging and methodologies 
of five years of scholarship published from 2012 to 2016 in the Radio Journal. 
This analysis demonstrates the breadth of practices and disciplines intersect-
ing with the study of radio even though most studies are done within national 
borders. It then considers some case studies that demonstrate new develop-
ments in the field of radio studies and how these might be extended and adapt-
ed by other scholars. Finally, the chapter looks at how practice-led research 
methodologies are opening up pathways into radio studies for scholars and stu-
dents wanting to combine the making of radio and audio content with critical 
analysis. We also point out some of the continuing obstacles to transnational 
and transdisciplinary media research, hoping to raise awareness among future 
generations of scholars and inspire new directions for research and instruction.
rAdio’s Missing hisTory
As noted above, 21st century radio has escaped its former definitional boundar-
ies as well as its national ones. The uses and meanings of radio have expanded 
and multiplied. Yet radio’s history remains largely obscured, overshadowed for 
decades by the expansion of television and film studies, themselves relatively 
The Future of Radio Studies 303
new fields. At the very moment that radio emerged as a dominant medium 
mid-century, riding on the crest of two decades of innovation and recognized 
as the central voice of nations and peoples during World War II and the period 
of reconstruction that followed, television eclipsed it in the 1950s and never 
looked back. Radio persevered, but as a secondary medium devoted increasing-
ly to music, woven invisibly into everyday life. Radio research and scholarship, 
just beginning to flourish in the 1950s, quickly took a back seat to its more vis-
ible competitors. Not until the 1990s did scholarship on radio revive, receiving 
further stimulation as digital forms and practices opened up the field.  
The loss of a sense of radio’s history, and the subsequent failure to develop 
a coherent set of critical tools with which to analyse and understand its unique 
contributions to culture and society, is particularly acute in the United States 
and other countries that lack a strong central public broadcaster. Commercial 
broadcasters had little interest in preserving their programs or in encourag-
ing criticism and review, especially when they held no ongoing rights in the 
programs they broadcast: advertisers, who both produced and owned the pro-
grams, were not in the media business and did not regard their radio efforts 
as any more important than last year’s Ovaltine sales. It is only through illegal 
copying and under-the-radar circulation by organizations of amateurs that US 
radio programs of the 30s through the 50s survived at all (Patterson 2016). And 
many of them remain locked away still, buried in uncatalogued audio-visual 
collections in scattered archives, quietly decaying on long-outdated tape stock – 
though a few recent initiatives promise to do much to correct this neglect and 
open up the US archive to scholars around the world, as discussed below.
Public service broadcasters typically did far more to encourage critical re-
view of radio programs – as, for instance, in the long-running BBC publication 
The Listener – and made greater efforts to archive their work and preserve their 
history, but often found themselves faced with economizing imperatives and 
unfortunate administrative decisions. However, public broadcasters were also 
more apt to revive and re-circulate their archival programs, a practice that many 
have now made routine and broadly accessible via digital sites. To give just one 
example, besides supporting its own radio drama and documentary traditions 
even after the advent of television, the BBC has done more to keep historical 
American radio drama alive than any US broadcaster, frequently offering new 
interpretations of classic American soundwork and providing an internation-
ally-accessible platform for listeners to hear them1. This points to the fact that, 
while research tends to concentrate on national radio traditions, transnational 
flows of audio influence and culture have existed since the earliest days and can 
be found in the archives.
1 | BBC Radio Four Extra, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4extra. 
304 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
inTerdisciplinAriTy
Radio studies is by nature interdisciplinary. It attracts scholars from a range of 
different fields, studying radio through diverse theoretical and methodologi-
cal approaches. Rather than attracting a clearly defined group of ‘radio schol-
ars’ per se, radio can often be a focal point for academics who see themselves 
primarily as belonging in other areas. Although there are some institutional 
places housing a more substantial group of radio scholars, such as the Centre 
for Media History at Macquarie University in Sydney, in most cases studying 
radio can be an individual pursuit with few local colleagues. 
To illustrate the interdisciplinary aspect of radio scholarship we undertook 
an audit of a sample of recent scholarship published in the Radio Journal, map-
ping the different methodological approaches used and different academic dis-
ciplines involved. The aim of this research is to measure the interdisciplinar-
ity (in both volume and range) that characterizes current radio studies. Radio 
Journal’s current co-editors are based in the USA and in Australia, one with 
a research background based in Journalism, the other in Media Studies, re-
flecting the journal’s international and interdisciplinary aspirations. Writing 
in the introduction to the first issue in 2003, the founding editor Ken Garner 
acknowledged this agenda in choosing a title that includes nods to radio, audio, 
broadcast and international studies. “A mischievous reading of our full title 
could suggest we want to have our cake and eat it too. [...] A critic might com-
ment that we are not so much sitting on the fence, as trying to face all four 
points of the compass simultaneously” (Garner 2003: 5). Radio Journal pub-
lishes two issues per year featuring approximately six new articles in each. The 
sample we selected for study included all 57 original articles (editorials, book 
reviews and conference reports were excluded) published in the journal over a 
five-year period (2012-2016), which covered the editorial changeover from for-
mer editor Tim Wall to the current team of Hilmes and Lindgren. 
Reading articles, identifying their methodologies and nominating academ-
ic disciplines is inevitably a subjective and somewhat arbitrary process. This is 
further complicated by the hybrid nature of all media (especially in a digital era) 
and the diverse origins of media and communications as a broad topic of schol-
arship, which differs greatly from institution to institution and from country to 
country. For example, here psychoanalysis is counted as a methodology, but for 
some academics and institutions it is a field unto itself. Similarly, radio studies 
and screen studies are counted as distinct disciplines, but for some scholars 
they are more routinely thought of as sub-sets of media, cultural or literary 
studies programs. (Never mind the additional debate about what to call a field 
of study in the first place.)
We attempted to counter-balance the subjective nature of this approach in a 
number of ways. Firstly, since the premise of this audit was to assess the extent 
The Future of Radio Studies 305
of radio studies’ interdisciplinary nature, the articles were tagged with as many 
disciplines (e.g. media studies and education) or methodological approaches 
(e.g. psychoanalysis and focus groups) as were applicable. Secondly, we gave 
precedence to the methodological and disciplinary contexts explicitly self-iden-
tified by the authors themselves, in the body of the article, in their biographies 
and author-provided keywords, and implicitly identified in literature reviews, 
theoretical frameworks and list of references. 
The articles primarily fell into two or more of the following broad disciplin-
ary categories: radio studies, media studies, journalism, critical/cultural stud-
ies (including studies of popular music, gender, and race), historical studies, 
education and communications. Other disciplines identified included linguis-
tics, management, economics and commerce, and psychology. 
Disciplines Totals
radio studies 32
media studies 31
other 11
historical studies 11
critical/cultural studies 10
communications 8
journalism 7
education 4
Grand Total 114
Table 1: Overview of the most common disciplinary categories of articles published 
in the Radio Journal 2012-2016.
The methodological approaches present in the sample encompass quantitative 
analysis (varied); historical analysis (mostly involving new archival research); 
qualitative methodologies comprising one-on-one interviews, focus-groups, 
surveys and case studies; studies of production practices including practice-
based research, participant observation and media ethnography; studies of 
content and aesthetics including psychoanalysis, textual analysis (close study 
of a radio program, podcast or their para-texts2), content analysis (study of phe-
nomena across a large sample of texts); and other analytical approaches self-
identified by the authors but unique to their article including ‘self-ethnogra-
phy’, ‘cluster analysis’ and ‘website audit’. ‘Media analysis (general)’ was used 
to identify extensive critical analysis of radio industries, aesthetics, audiences 
2 | Para-texts includes all associated extra-texts interconnected with a primary text (eg press-releas-
es, websites, social media, fan media etc).
306 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
and social contexts which was not based on new empirical data or close study 
of content.
Methodologiers/Approaches Totals
interviews 29
media analysis (general) 15
quantitative analysis 9
textual analysis 8
case studies 8
historical analysis 7
focus groups 6
surveys 6
other 5
content analysis 5
practice-based research 5
discourse analysis 4
psychoanalysis 4
media ethnography 4
participant observation 3
self-ethnography 1
Grand Total  119
Table 2: list of methodological approaches identified in studies published in the 
Radio Journal 2012-2016.
The audit also captured authors’ institutional affiliations and country loca-
tion, which provide a sense of the geographic distribution of research. It clearly 
demonstrates the preponderance of scholarship emerging from the UK and 
Australia, followed by the US, Spain and Italy, as illustrated by the table below. 
This raises questions about where studies of radio from other countries are 
published, particularly those from non-English speaking countries and which 
strategies can be employed to support more linguistically and geographically 
diverse scholarship in international journals such as the Radio Journal. These 
are important questions for the community of radio scholars to explore further.
Countries Total
UK 19
Grand Total 69
The Future of Radio Studies 307
Countries Total
Australia 17
USA 9
Spain 4
Italy 3
China 2
Denmark 2
Germany 2
Ireland 2
Canada 1
Columbia 1
New Zealand 1
Portugal 1
Sweden 1
Greece 1
Scotland 1
Poland 1
Malawi 1
Grand Total 69
Table 3: list of authors’ institutional affiliations and country location for articles 
published in the Radio Journal 2012-2016.
Authors and their affiliations were weighted equally, regardless of co-author-
ships. It is noteworthy that the majority of articles are single-authored. Only 
one article had more than two authors, having emerged out of a large cross-
European research project with ten authors from ten different institutions and 
eight countries. This article titled “Radio formats and social media use in Eu-
rope – 28 case studies of public service practice” was excluded from the final 
tally because it was a singular phenomenon; however, it is worth noting its sig-
nificance in the context of this book identifying the relevance of transnational 
research of radio. The very fact that it is an outlier is perhaps indicative of the 
need to encourage more large-scale transnational collaborations. 
Based on a selection of articles from only one English-language journal, 
this sample is in no way comprehensive. It does not, for example, include re-
search being published in book form, as conference papers, in other dedicated 
radio and broadcast journals, in non-dedicated media and communication 
journals (where one might presume a high degree of interdisciplinarity) and of 
course, in audio form (since some researchers are also practitioners). It is, how-
308 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
ever, a large sample of new research published in one of the very few dedicated 
peer-reviewed international journal platforms for radio-related scholarship. It 
includes 57 articles by more than 65 different authors working across more 
than 50 institutions and 20 countries. As such it is an indicative sample of the 
interdisciplinary nature of the field of study and the variety of methodological 
practices scholars employ in pursuing their study of radio. It also illustrates the 
individual nature of writing about radio, with the lion’s share of articles single-
authored. Some recent European collaborations point to the potential for joint 
transnational research approaches; however, judging from scholarship in Radio 
Journal over the past five years, this has not been common practice. 
TrAnsnATionAlizing rAdio hisTory: MeThods 
And Tools 
New digital archives are opening up the borders of radio studies like never 
before. Though still in their early stages, digital sound sites that not only pre-
serve radio heritage but make transnational access an immediate, casual event 
(compared to arduous visits to physical archives still largely necessary) have 
provoked ambitious, large-scale projects that further promise to place sound 
on an equivalent status as visual evidence in world cultural history. The LARM 
Radio Research Archive in Denmark (Statsbiblioteket, n.d.), the Radio Pres-
ervation Task Force in the US (Library of Congress, n.d.), the pan-European 
Europeana Sounds project (Europeana Sounds, n.d.) are just a few projects 
aimed at preserving and making accessible sound histories formerly locked 
behind national and institutional walls. Other digital innovations highlight 
the perseverance of contemporary radio as a live, streaming medium, such 
as the recently-launched Radio Garden3 featuring a clickable globe that al-
lows access to current broadcasts around the world. And taking advantage of 
the visual materiality that digital platforms add to sound media, Radio Atlas4 
brings us something long desired by radio scholars and listeners everywhere: 
carefully crafted subtitled radio, translating radio programs produced in vari-
ous languages into English, as their original sound plays on digital screens. 
As more cross-translations occur, this gives us for the first time the ability to 
hear an original production while being able to understand its meaning. It also 
begins to open up radio and soundwork to the deaf and hard-of-hearing com-
munity, an enormous social contribution.
The field of radio scholarship is clearly changing. In terms of outlets for 
publication, until recently only two academic journals existed that focused spe-
3 | http://radio.garden/
4 | http://www.radioatlas.org/
The Future of Radio Studies 309
cifically on radio-centered research: the Radio Journal (founded in 2003 by the 
UK-based Radio Studies Network, now a part of the Media, Communications, 
and Cultural Studies Association of the UK [MeCCSA]) and the Journal of Ra-
dio & Audio Media (founded in 1992 as the Journal of Radio Studies, a publi-
cation of the US-based Broadcast Education Association). Two recent online 
open-access journals have appeared dedicated to analyses of radio and audio 
forms: RadioDocReview critiquing radio documentaries/podcasts and the Eu-
ropean Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA) publi-
cation Radio, Audio and Society. Increasing literacy about radio production is 
encouraged through online websites and resources dedicated to understanding 
radio production, eg. HowSound’s (PRX, 2017) podcast about radio storytelling 
and website portals like Transom.org (Transom, n.d.) providing useful how-to 
guides to production as well as critical analyses of productions. Traditionally 
print-based outlets such as New York Times and other print/online publica-
tions are turning to audio to innovate and expand to new audiences. They rec-
ognise the power of hearing stories told in audio forms and the growing inter-
est in audio as premium communication platform:
There’s something about audio: a growing trend in media, it offers the distinctive intimacy 
of hearing journalists and others giving voice to their f indings, opinions and experiences. 
(New York Times, 2017)
According to the British Library’s Future of Radio report (2016), radio listening 
remains steady and has not been affected as intensely as have audiences for the 
digitally disrupted newspaper, television and music industries (British Library 
2016: 8). Furthermore, the experts consulted for the 2016 report believe this 
trend will continue with no major reduction in consumption of speech and 
music programming in the next 20 years (British Library 2016: 8).
As outlined in the audit above, studies of a single national space have domi-
nated recent submissions to the Radio Journal, but it is significant that in our 
special issue on podcasting (April 2016), a far more transnational approach 
applied across the majority of work published. However, there is much still 
to be discovered by deep focus on national audio cultures and institutions, as 
exhibited particularly well in Enric Castelló and Marta Montagut’s 2015 article 
on Documentos RNE, a documentary series on Spanish National Radio that 
uses archival radio elements to construct – and to challenge – national memory 
of historical events (Castelló and Montagut 2015: 5-21). Such a meta-historical 
approach to radio history – critically re-examining the radio archive and re-
articulating it to current concerns and interpretations – provides an example 
of a research method that is at once national and transnational: it reveals deep 
meanings in a specific national media culture while providing an example of 
how such an analytical approach can be used by researchers in other national 
310 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
and institutional situations. Other researchers focus on ways of analysing the 
persistent ephemerality of the radio experience, such as Katrine Pram-Nielsen 
and Jacob Kreutzfeld’s interrogation of newly-accessible digital archives to pro-
vide insights into a moment of live radio experimentation in London in 1998. 
Combining an analysis of archival metadata itself, alongside preserved mem-
ories and recordings of never-repeated community events in sound, their re-
search provides a model for a new way of connecting the cultural space of radio 
to the study of the past (Nielsen and Kreutzfeldt 2016: 159-175). Physical events 
can evoke transnational experience as well, as Zita Joyce explores in her article 
on the way that community radio stations responded to the Christchurch, New 
Zealand earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, illuminating radio’s frequently crucial 
role in emergency situations around the globe (Joyce 2015: 57-73). While such 
articles may focus on a particular national or regional context, they highlight 
essential qualities of radio’s cultural and social roles that apply across traditions 
and borders. Their chosen methodologies, shared with a transnational commu-
nity of scholars, help to build a toolbox of critical methods long lacking in this 
neglected field. Further, by their emphasis on the processes and conditions of 
sound-based communication – the semiotic flexibility, ephemerality, and time-
based ‘live’ nature of radio broadcasting that persists into the digital age – they 
point to the necessity of innovating new ways to understand and to study radio 
as it exists today.
new prAcTice pAThwAys To The sTudy of rAdio And 
insTiTuTionAl oBsTAcles 
One of the most notable developments in the pedagogy of radio and sound-
work is the increase of practice-led (also referred to as practice-based) research 
frameworks that may provide potential future pathways for the field. In Aus-
tralia, practice-led PhDs in the humanities have been growing fast, with an 80 
per cent increase in enrollment in Australian universities between 1997 and 
2007 (Adams et al, 2015). This movement builds on a recent definition by the 
Australian Research Council of what constitutes research: 
Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge 
in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and 
understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent 
that it is new and creative. (Australian Research Council 2015: 3)
Along these lines, students can opt to generate research by producing in-
depth radio and audio pieces, accompanied by an exegesis where the practi-
cal component is critiqued and analyzed within a relevant theoretical content. 
The Future of Radio Studies 311
This growing interest in practice-led Masters and PhD studies indicates that we 
might see the next generation of radio and sound scholars adopt more diverse 
forms of scholarly work. In the US, Northwestern University in Chicago has 
recently introduced a Masters program in Sound Arts and Industries, the first 
new sound-based graduate program to emerge in decades, emphasizing both 
practice and research. Older graduate programs, mostly in Journalism schools, 
have revamped their radio and audio curriculum to keep up with renewed stu-
dent interest in the field.
In Australia, development of a recognized research assessment framework 
has opened the research door for scholars and students wanting to explore ra-
dio by combining practice and theoretical analysis, where the production of ra-
dio documentaries, for example, becomes a site for exploration as well as a non-
text based platform for sharing research (Lindgren 2014). The incorporation of 
practice as a recognized aspect of research in Australia was strengthened and 
articulated in the 2015 research statement by the Journalism Education and 
Research Association of Australia (JERAA) stating, 
Journalism practice is the process by which information is independently researched, gath-
ered, analysed, synthesised and published, or by which innovative approaches to journal-
ism are developed. The Excellence in Research for Australia framework (ERA) acknowledges 
in-depth, original journalism practice and publication as equivalent to traditional research 
outputs. (JERAA, 2017)
The Australian example is not, however, uncomplicated for radio studies. The 
above statement covers journalism but, as highlighted in the audit of 57 Radio 
Journal articles presented above, journalism is not one of the most common 
disciplinary lenses used in radio research. To complicate the situation in Aus-
tralia further, the research assessment framework separates the study of jour-
nalism and creative arts on one side from communication, media and cultural 
studies on the other through different research codes. This type of research 
assessment exercise is well-known to scholars in the UK (although with a dif-
ferent model from Australia), where it is referred to as Research Excellence 
Framework (REF). 
This administratively-created separation between research fields in Austra-
lia and elsewhere becomes a sorting mechanism for how research performance 
is assessed and ranked. The assessment is important for individual scholars 
and for institutional reputation, affecting the ability to attract research fund-
ing within a particular field. Furthermore, the Australian research framework 
splits studies and practice, locating practice-led work in journalism and cre-
ative arts with its provisions for recognizing practice as research, whereas the 
most relevant field for radio studies, media studies, does not commonly include 
practice-led research in its research assessment. These disparities clearly point 
312 Michele Hilmes and Mia Lindgren
to a need for more transnational conversation about radio’s place in the evolv-
ing academic universe, particularly in post-graduate instruction and training.
conclusion
Although the Australian example above is nation-based, it does highlight more 
generally some of the challenges faced by a field of study dispersed across dis-
ciplines and methodologies, particularly in a rapidly changing media ecology. 
It also reminds us of the value of creating and maintaining strong scholarly 
networks and publishing opportunities that encourage interdisciplinary and 
multi-modal studies of soundwork. It prompts us to reflect on what we un-
derstand radio studies to be and how we imagine the field of study might de-
velop in a fast-moving media environment. How can we continue to develop 
the field? What mechanisms are required to support a vibrant radio studies 
field in a fragmented and changing environment? Rather than diminishing 
in popularity, radio, always the most versatile of media, continues to showcase 
agility in adapting to change. The podcasting boom is one example, illustrating 
a growing interest in forms of audio narratives from audiences, practitioners 
and scholars. It appears radio is holding strong, assisted by digital technolo-
gies making radio and audio content sharable to transnational listeners. This 
chapter has suggested that despite the obstacles, there is plenty of potential for 
radio scholars to utilise this changing environment to undertake innovative 
transnational and cross-institutional research that can extend our knowledge 
of this dynamic medium. 
references
Arnheim, Rudolf (1936): Radio: An Art of Sound. Boston: Da Capo.
Australian Research Council (2015): “State of Australian University Research.” Vol-
ume 1, ERA National Report, March 2, 2018, http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/de-
fault/files/filedepot/Public/ERA/ERA%202015/ERA_2015_National_Report/
ERA2015_Introduction.pdf
British Library (2016): “The Future of Radio.” March 2, 2018, https://www.bl.uk/proj-
ects/the-future-of-radio
Castelló, Enric/Montagut, Marta (2015): “Radio, memory and conflict: Reconstructing 
the past in Documentos RNE”. In: The Radio Journal: International Studies in 
Broadcast and Audio Media, 13/1-2, pp. 5-21. 
Europeana Sounds (n.d.): “Europe’s sound heritage at your fingertips.” March 2, 2018, 
http://www.europeanasounds.eu/about
The Future of Radio Studies 313
Garner, Ken (2003): “Editorial.” In: the Radio Journal: International Studies in Broad-
cast and Audio Media,1/1, pp. 5-7.
Journalism Education & Research Association of Australia [JERAA], (2017): “Re-
search.” March 2, 2018, http://jeaa.org.au/research/
Joyce, Zita (2015): “RadioQuake: Getting back ‘on air’ after the Christchurch earthquakes.” In: 
The Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 13/1-2, pp. 57-73. 
Lacey, Kate (2013): Listening Publics: The Politics and Experience of Listening in the 
Digital Age, London: Polity.
Library of Congress (n.d.): “National Recording Preservation Plan.” March 2, 2018, 
https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-recording-preservation-plan/about-this-
program/radio-preservation-task-force/
Lindgren, Mia (2014): “Radio journalism as research—a Ph.D. model.” In: The Radio 
Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 12/1-2, pp. 169 - 182. 
Lyndall, Adams/Kueh, Christopher/ Newman-Storen, Renée/Ferguson, Neil (2015): 
“Capturing Creative Practice, study of HDR student at ECU in Perth.” March 2, 
2018, http://acuads.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Adams-Kueh-et-al.pdf 
New York Times (2017): “Off the Press.” a monthly newsletter for Times subscribers, February.
Patterson, Eleanor (2016): “Radio Redux: The Persistence of Soundwork in the Post-
Network Era.” PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Pram-Nielsen, Katrine/Kreutzfeld, Jacob (2016): “The Resonance 107.3 FM radio art 
collection: Towards an archive methodology of radio as resonance.” In: The Radio 
Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 14/2, pp. 159-175.
PRX (2017): “HowSound.” March 2, 2018, https://www.prx.org/series/32401-howsound
Statsbiblioteket (n.d.) LARM Audio Research Archive. https://en.statsbiblioteket.dk/
about-the-library/news/larm-audio-research-archive
Transom (n.d.): “A Showcase and Workshop for New Public Radio.” March 2, 2018, 
http://transom.org/