Technical artifacts as intermediaries?!

Technical artifacts as intermediaries

On the interplay between journalism, audience(s) and technology

Nele Heise, M. A.

Hans Bredow Institute, July 26th 2012

Outline

1. About me

2. Perspectives on the ermergence and role of (media) technology

3. Technical artifacts as intermediaries?!

4. What now?

Heise | Technical intermedaries 2

About me

Education

– 2005-2011: Study of Communication Sciences and History at Erfurt University– since October 2011: Junior Researcher at the Hans Bredow Institute – PhD candidate and associated member of the Graduate School Media and

Communication

Research

– Main interests (at the moment): online communication, practices and prerequisites of online participation, appropriation of technology

– previous research on World of Warcraft, Wikipedia, GayRomeo, muslim blogs, social movements and cyber activism, ethics of internet research, social aspects of technological change


Where to start?

- research context: DFG funded project „(Re-)Discovery of the Audience“, together with Wiebke, Jan & Julius

- initial ideas for my PhD: „active audience(s)“ what is activity?

- Dissertation project: media appropriation and participation via technical artifacts as a mode of audience activity, specifically: „radio activity“

I will carry out case studies regarding the radio/broadcasting „dispositif“ and

different levels of participation, i.e. conventional radio stations, web radio, community radio, podcasts and amateur radio operators

- Today: focus on my presentation „Making and Shaping the News“ @ Internet Research 13.0 (October 2012)


Theoretical perspectives

The role of technical artifacts in (media) communication

- Shortcomings of previous research on the emergence of technology Technological vs. Social Determinism Diffusion of Innovation vs. Social Shaping of Technology

- integrative approaches: „mutual shaping“ perspective (Boczkowski): simultaneous pursuit of interdependent

technological and social transformations, the ongoing character of this process, importance of the historical context in which it unfolds

„molding forces“ of media (Hepp): media exert a certain „pressure“ on the way we communicate – effects of the material structure and the potentiality of action offered by media aren‘t direct, they become concrete via certain forms of communication

(technological) objects and things as „actors“ and „participants“ (Latour) – media as „mediators“, to some extent shaping processes of communication


Technical artifacts as intermediaries?

- original meaning:“An intermediary (or go-between) is a third party that offers intermediation services between two trading parties. … Typically the intermediary offers some added value to the transaction that may not be possible by direct trading.”

- some functions of (electronic) intermediaries: information aggregating, facilitating and matching, scanning and information processing, gatekeeping and brokering, knowledge processing and combination/recombination


What if we understand technical artifacts as intermediaries between journalism and audience(s)? And what role do these intermediaries play in the processes of producing, distributing, perceiving and processing journalistic content?

Technical artifacts as intermediaries!


Technical ArtifactsInterfaces

InfrastructureHardware (devices)Software (programs)

Algorithms

DesignFunction Purpose

Journalism Audience(s)producing stories e.g. via crowd-sourcing, gathering of audience material or data-driven storytelling

distributing contente.g. via social media channels and search engines

monitoring / quantifying audiencese.g. user rankings on news sites

mutual observation and imitation among media organizations

Generating content actively with regard to journalistic products, e.g. discussion boards, re-mixing and mash-ups or commenting media content in SNS

processing of news as a social experience, e.g. sharing activities, shared spaces

perceiving journalistic products: social navigation, interactive tools, personalized newse.g. RSS-feeds, newsletters

An Example


The good old „Tagesschau“: From „Ivory Tower“ …


… to „Getting in Touch“ and „sharing spaces“ with the News

An Example

What now?

- Refining and extending the model and applying it to a case study presentation at this year‘s „Internet Research 13.0“ in Manchester

Is „intermediary“ the adequate notion? Are technical artifacts able to „act“? (autonomy of technical artifacts) Consequences of technical intermediaries remaining „black boxes“ for both,

journalists and users How are technical intermediaries shaping the role of the audience (as

consumer, producer, citizen) and participatory practices? this question is central to my PhD project with its focus on „radio activity“


References

• Anderson, Chris W. (2011). Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US newsrooms. Journalism 12 (5), pp. 550-566.

• Boczkowski, Pablo J. (2004). The Mutual Shaping of Technology and Society in Videotex Newspapers: Beyond the Diffusion and Social Shaping Perspectives. The Information Society, 20 (4), pp. 255-267.

• Boczkowski, Pablo J. (2009). Technology, Monitoring, and Imitation in Contemporary News Work. Communication, Culture & Critique, Vol. 2., pp. 39-59.• Hepp, Andreas (2012). Mediatization and the ‘Molding Force’ of the Media. Communications, 37 (1), pp. 1-28. • Howells, Jeremy (2006): Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35 (5), pp. 715-728.• MacKenzie, D., Wajcman, J. (Eds.) (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd ed. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.• Nielsen, Rasmus K. (2012): How Newspapers Began to Blog. Recognizing the Role of Technologists in Old Media Organizations’ development of New Media

Technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 15 (6), pp. 959-978. • Sarkar, Mitra Barun / Butler, Brian / Steinfield, Charles (1995): Intermediaries and Cybermediaries: A Continuing Role for Mediating Players in the Electronic

Marketplace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1 (3). Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue3/sarkar.html (25 July 2012).• Sarrica, Mauro (2010): ICTs Meanings and Practices: Contributions from the Social Representations Approach. The Journal of Community Informatics, 6 (3).

Available at: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/731/612 (25 July 2012).• Schmidt, J. (2011). Das neue Netz. Merkmale, Praktiken und Folgen des Web 2.0 [The New Net. Characteristics, Practices and Consequences of Web 2.0].

2nd ed. Konstanz: UVK Verlag.• Silverstone, Roger / Haddon, Leslie (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and Everyday

Life. In R. Mansell & R. Silverstone (Eds.). Communication by design. The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Thurman, Neil (2011). Making ‘The Daily Me’: Technology, economics and habit in the mainstream assimilation of personalized news. Journalism 12 (4), pp. 395-415.

• Wehner, Josef (2010). „Numerische Inklusion“ – Wie die Medien ihr Publikum beobachten [“Numerical Inclusion“ – How Media Observe Their Audience]. In T. Sutter & A. Mehler (Eds.). Medienwandel als Wandel von Interaktionsformen [Media Change As Change in Forms of Interaction] (pp. 183-210). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.


Thanks for your attention!

Nele Heise, M. A.

Hans Bredow InstituteWarburgstraße 8-10

20354 [email protected]

@neleheise@jpub20team


First steps


An extended model on social aspects of technological change which I elaborated in 2009

Technical artifacts as intermediaries?!

Education

Transcript of Technical artifacts as intermediaries?!