What’s so funny? Audiences of women’s stand-up comedy and layered referential viewing: Exploring identity and power

References

• Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, S. C., & Hernandez, A. A. (2009). “Laughing matters”: The comedian as social observer, teacher, and conduit of the sociological perspective. Teaching Sociology, 37(4), 335–352. doi:10.1177/0092055X0903700403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1933). Movies and conduct. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
   Google Scholar
• Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Colorblind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bore, I. K. (2010). (Un)funny women: TV comedy audiences and the gendering of humour. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 139–154. doi:10.1177/1367549409352272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcante, A., Press, A., & Sender, K. (2017). Feminist reception studies in a post- audience age: Returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies, 17(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/14680777.2017.1261822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–170). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Claessens, N., & Dhoest, A. (2010). Comedy taste: Highbrow/lowbrow comedy and cultural capital. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 7(1), 49–72.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, E. (2007). Is it something he said: The mass consumption of Richard Pryor’s culturally intimate humor. The Communication Review, 10(3), 223–247. doi:10.1080/10714420701528065
   Google Scholar
• Dow, B. J. (1996). Prime-time feminism: Television, media culture, and the women’s movement since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903 /2007). The souls of black folk. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fingerson, L. (1999). Active viewing: Girls’ interpretations of family television programs. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(4), 389–418. doi:10.1177/089124199129023497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, S., & Kuipers, G. (2013). The divisive power of humor: Comedy, taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology, 7(2), 179–195. doi:10.1177/1749975513477405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. R. (2004). Performing marginality: Humor, gender, and cultural critique. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, A. L., & Linders, A. (2016). The impact of comedy on race and ethnic discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 86(2), 241–269. doi:10.1111/soin.12112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Love, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London, UK: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Jhally, S., & Lewis, J. M. (1992). Enlightened racism: The cosby show, audiences, and the myth of the American dream. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2013). Focus groups: From structured interviews to collective conversations. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Liebes, T. (1990). Interacting with ‘Dallas’: Cross cultural readings of American TV. Canadian Journal of Communication, 15(1), 45–66.
   Google Scholar
• Kein, K. (2015). Recovering our sense of humor: New directions in feminist humor studies. Feminist Studies, 41(3), 671–681. doi:10.15767/feministstudies.41.3.671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–121. doi:10.1111/shil.1994.16.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koziski, S. (1984). The standup comedian as anthropologist: Intentional cultural critic. The Journal of Popular Culture, 18(2), 57–76. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1984.1802_57.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krefting, R. (2014). All joking aside: American humor and its discontents. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuipers, G. (2006). Television and taste hierarchy: The case of Dutch television comedy. Media, Culture & Society, 28(3), 359–378. doi:10.1177/0163443706062884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1986). Patterns of involvement in television fiction: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Communication, 1(2), 151–171. doi:10.1177/0267323186001002004
   Google Scholar
• Lockyer, S. (2015). Performance, expectation, interaction, and intimacy: On the opportunities and limitations of arena stand-up comedy for comedians and audiences. The Journal of Popular Culture, 48(3), 586–603. doi:10.1111/jpcu.12285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love, M. (2017, February 14). 50 best stand-up comics of all time. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/50-best-stand-up-comics-of-all-time-w464199
   Google Scholar
• Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 16(2), 79–98. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01475.x
   Google Scholar
• Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of reception: A consolidated analytical framework. The Communication Review, 10(3), 181–222. doi:10.1080/10714420701528057
   Google Scholar
• Mintz, L. E. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation. American Quarterly, 37(1), 71–80. doi:10.2307/2712763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz, L. E. (2008). Humor and popular culture. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 281–302). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Morley, D. (1980). The nationwide audience: Structure and decoding. London, UK: British Film Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Park, J. H., Gabbadon, N. G., & Chernin, A. R. (2006). Naturalizing racial differences through comedy: Asian, black, and white views on racial stereotypes in Rush Hour 2. Journal of Communication, 56, 157–177. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00008.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perks, L. G. (2012). Three satiric television decoding positions. Communication Studies, 63(3), 290–308. doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.678925
   Google Scholar
• Press, A. L. (1991). Women watching television: Gender, class, and generation in the American television experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radway, J. A. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. (2015). Self-heckle: Russell Kane’s stand-up comedy as an example of ‘comedic sociology. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 15(3), 561–580.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. (1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44(1), 7–13. doi:10.1111/soin.1974.44.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stillion, J. M., & White, H. (1987). Feminist humor: Who appreciates it and why? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 219–232. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00785.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swink, R. S. (2017). Lemony Liz and likeable Leslie: Audience understandings of feminism, comedy, and gender in women-led television comedies. Feminist Media Studies, 17(1), 14–28. doi:10.1080/14680777.2017.1261832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warr, D. J. (2005). “It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things”: Analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 200–225. doi:10.1177/1077800404273412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, H. (2005). Texting the subject: Women, television, and modern self-reflexivity. The Communication Review, 8(2), 115–135. doi:10.1080/10714420590947692
   Google Scholar
• Zerubavel, E. (1996). Lumping and splitting: Notes on social classification. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 421–433. doi:10.1007/BF02408386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar