Negotiating generic hybridity: Audience engagement with the office

Continuum

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 33-42

  Bore, Inger Lise Kalviknes ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958191763     PISSN: 10304312     EISSN: 14693666     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10304310802570882     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Brabazon, Tara. 2005. 'What have you ever done on the telly?' The Office, (post) reality television and (post) work. International Journal of Cultural Studies 8, no. 1: 101-17.
2. Cooper, Evan. 2003. Decoding Will and Grace: Mass audience reception of a popular network situation comedy. Sociological Perspectives 46, no. 4: 513-33.
3. Corner, John. 2002. Performing the real: Documentary diversions. Television & New Media 3, no. 3: 255-69.
4. Davis, Wendy. 2008. Playing the television field: Kath and Kim and the changing face of TV comedy. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22, no. 3: 353-61.
5. Feuer, Jane. 2001. Situation comedy, part 2. In The television genre book, ed. Glen Creeber, 67-70. London: BFI.
6. Gray, Jonathan. 2006. Watching with the Simpsons: Television, parody, and intertextuality. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Green, Judith, and Laura Hart. 1999. The impact of context on data. In Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, ed. Jenny Kitzinger and Rosaline S. Barbour, 21-35. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.
8. Hartley, John. 2001. Situation comedy, part 1. In The television genre book, ed. Glen Creeber, 65-70. London: BFI.
9. Hutcheon, Linda. 1985. A theory of parody. New York: Methuen.
10. Jermyn, Deborah. 2004. In love with Sarah Jessica Parker: Celebrating female fandom and friendship in Sex and the City. In Reading Sex and the City, ed. Kim Akass and Janet McCabe, 201-18. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
11. Jhally, Sut, and Justin Lewis. 1992. Enlightened racism: The Cosby Show, audiences, and the myth of the American dream. Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press.
12. Juhasz, Alexandra, and Jesse Lerner. 2006. Introduction: Phony definitions and troubling taxonomies of the fake documentary. In F is for phoney: Fake documentary and truth's undoing, ed. Alexandra Juhasz and Jesse Lerner, 1-35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13. Kuipers, Giselinde. 2006. Television and taste hierarchy: The case of Dutch television comedy. Media, Culture and Society 28, no. 3: 359-78.
14. Lewis, Justin. 2004. The meaning of real life. In Reality TV: Remaking television culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 288-302. New York and London: New York University Press.
15. Miller, Jeffrey S. 2000. Something completely different: British television and American culture.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Mills, Brett. 2004. Comedy verite: Contemporary sitcom form. Screen 45, no. 1: 63-78.
17. -. 2005. Television sitcom. London: BFI.
18. Moy, Patricia, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess. 2005. Priming effects of late night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18, no. 2: 198-210.
19. Neale, Steve, and Frank Krutnik. 1990. Popular film and television comedy. London and New York: Routledge.
20. Roscoe, Jane, and Craig Hight. 2001. Faking it: Mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
21. Tyler, Melissa, and Laurie Cohen. 2007. Management in/as comic relief: Queer theory and gender performativity in The Office. Gender, Work and Organization: OnlineEarly Articles, Vol. 15, no. 2.