Building
Bridges
Pathways
to
a
Greater
Societal
Significance
for
Audience
Research
Edited
by
Geoffroy
PATRIARCHE
Helena
BILANDZIC
Nico
CARPENTIER
Cristina
PONTE
Kim
C.
SCHRØDER
Frauke
Z ELLER
January
2 014
-‐
ISBN
978-‐2-‐9601157-‐9-‐6
1
http://www.cost.eu
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu
This
publication
is
supported
by
COST.
COST
–
European
Cooperation
in
Science
and
Technology
is
an
intergovernmental
framework
aimed
at
facilitating
the
collaboration
and
networking
of
scientists
and
researchers
at
European
level.
It
was
established
i n
1971
by
19
member
countries
and
currently
includes
35
member
countries
across
Europe,
and
Israel
as
a
cooperating
state.
COST
funds
pan-‐European,
bottom-‐up
networks
of
scientists
and
researchers
across
all
science
and
technology
fields.
These
networks,
called
‘COST
Actions’,
promote
international
coordination
of
nationally-‐funded
research.
By
fostering
the
networking
of
researchers
at
an
international
level,
COST
enables
break-‐through
scientific
developments
leading
to
new
concepts
and
products,
thereby
contributing
to
strengthening
Europe’s
research
and
innovation
capacities.
COST’s
mission
focuses
in
particular
on:
•
Building
capacity
by
connecting
high
quality
scientific
communities
throughout
Europe
and
worldwide;
•
•
Providing
networking
opportunities
for
early
career
investigators;
Increasing
the
impact
of
research
on
policy
makers,
regulatory
bodies
and
national
decision
makers
as
well
as
the
private
sector.
Through
its
inclusiveness,
COST
supports
the
integration
of
research
communities,
leverages
national
r esearch
investments
and
addresses
issues
of
global
relevance.
Every
year
thousands
of
European
scientists
benefit
from
being
involved
in
COST
Actions,
allowing
the
pooling
of
national
r esearch
funding
to
achieve
common
goals.
As
a
precursor
of
advanced
multidisciplinary
research,
COST
anticipates
and
complements
the
activities
of
EU
Framework
Programmes,
constituting
a
‘bridge’
towards
the
scientific
communities
of
emerging
countries.
In
particular,
COST
Actions
are
also
open
to
participation
by
non-‐European
scientists
coming
from
neighbour
countries
(for
example
Albania,
Algeria,
Armenia,
Azerbaijan,
Belarus,
Egypt,
Georgia,
Jordan,
Lebanon,
Libya,
Moldova,
Montenegro,
Morocco,
the
Palestinian
Authority,
Russia,
Syria,
Tunisia
and
Ukraine)
and
from
a
number
of
international
partner
countries.
COST’s
budget
for
networking
activities
has
traditionally
b een
provided
by
successive
EU
RTD
Framework
Programmes.
COST
is
currently
executed
by
the
European
Science
Foundation
(ESF)
through
the
COST
Office
on
a
mandate
by
the
European
Commission,
and
the
framework
i s
governed
by
a
Committee
of
Senior
Officials
(CSO)
r epresenting
all
its
35
member
countries.
2
The
COST
Action
IS0906
‘Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies’
(2010-‐2014)
is
coordinating
research
efforts
into
the
key
transformations
of
European
audiences
within
a
changing
media
and
communication
environment,
identifying
their
complex
interrelationships
with
the
social,
cultural
and
political
areas
of
European
societies.
A
range
of
interconnected
but
distinct
topics
concerning
audiences
are
being
developed
by
four
Working
Groups:
(1)
New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
i n
the
media;
(2)
Audience
interactivity
and
participation;
(3)
The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships;
and
(4)
Audience
transformations
and
social
integration.
COST is supported by the EU RTD
ESF provides the COST Office
Framework programme
through an EC contract
3
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
By
Geoffroy
Patriarche,
Helena
Bilandzic,
Nico
Carpentier,
Cristina
Ponte,
Kim
C.
Schrøder
and
Frauke
Zeller
PART
I.
NEW
MEDIA
GENRES,
MEDIA
LITERACY
AND
TRUST
IN
THE
MEDIA
The
anticipated,
co-‐creative,
and
co-‐designed
nature
of
researcher-‐stakeholder
relationships:
Building
bridges
with
stakeholders ..............................................................................................................................14
By
Jakob
Bjur,
Göran
B olin
and
Lars
Nyre
Overcoming
the
barriers
of
access,
newsworthiness
and
organisational
forms
of
academy
and
stakeholders:
Report
from
the
stakeholder-‐academy
deliberations
on
19
September
2013 ........30
By
Göran
Bolin
and
Jakob
Bjur
PART
II.
AUDIENCE
INTERACTIVITY
AND
PARTICIPATION
Introduction
to
part
II...........................................................................................................................................................35
By
Nico
Carpentier
and
Maria
Francesca
Murru
The
social
relevance
of
participatory
theory............................................................................................................37
By
Nico
Carpentier
and
P eter
Dahlgren
Media,
democracy
and
civil
Society:
The
challenge
of
digital
media ...........................................................53
By
Peter
Lunt
Emerging
topics
in
the
research
on
digital
audiences
and
participation:
An
agenda
for
increasing
research
efforts ........................................................................................................................................................................66
By
Francesca
Pasquali,
José-‐Manuel
N oguera
Vivo
and
Mélanie
B ourdaa
Stakeholders
and
academia:
Different
modes
of
interaction...........................................................................75
By
Manuel
José
Damasio
and
Paula
Cordeiro
Building
Bridges
on
Media,
Interaction
and
Audience
Participation...........................................................87
By
Igor
Vobic
PART
III.
THE
ROLE
OF
MEDIA
AND
ICT
USE
FOR
EVOLVING
SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS
‘Old’
&
‘New’
Media:
Theoretical
and
Technological
Perspective..................................................................92
By
J.
Ignacio
Gallego
and
Brian
O'Neill
4
Methods
and
software
for
studying
social
media
and
social
network
sites.............................................99
By
Jakob
Linaa
Jensen
Media
and
generations:
An
overview
of
the
main
topics
and
of
their
relevance
for
the
stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................................................................105
By
Andra
Siibak
and
Nicoletta
Vittadini
The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships:
WG3
report
based
on
the
‘Building
bridges’
discussion
in
Belgrade,
19.09.2013.....................................................................................112
By
Frauke
Zeller
PART
IV.
AUDIENCE
TRANSFORMATIONS
AND
SOCIAL
INTEGRATION
Media,
citizenship
and
social
diversity.....................................................................................................................119
By
Alexander
Dhoest
Transforming
Societies
–
Transforming
Families...............................................................................................126
By
Sascha
Trültzsch-‐Wijnen
Audience
Transformations
and
Social
I ntegration:
B uilding
Bridges
and
Making
a
Real
Difference
in
the
World
-‐
Report
of
WG4
Dialogue
with
Stakeholders,
B elgrade,
September
10th,
2013.....131
By
Dafna
Lemish
5
INTRODUCTION
Geoffroy
Patriarche,
Belgium,
geoffroy.patriarche@usaintlouis.be
Chair
of
the
Action
Helena
Bilandzic,
Germany,
helena.bilandzic@phil.uni-‐augsburg.de
Vice-‐chair
of
the
Action
Nico
Carpentier,
Belgium,
nico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Chair
of
Working
Group
2
‘Audience
interactivity
and
p articipation’
Cristina
Ponte,
Portugal,
cristina.ponte@fcsh.unl.pt
Chair
of
Working
Group
4
‘Audience
transformations
a nd
social
integration’
Kim
C.
Schrøder,
Denmark,
kimsc@ruc.dk
Chair
of
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
in
the
media’
Frauke
Zeller,
Canada,
fraukezeller@gmail.com
Chair
of
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
u se
for
evolving
social
relationships’
One
of
the
key
objectives
of
the
COST
framework
as
appearing
in
its
Mission
Statement
is
‘Increasing
the
impact
of
research
on
policy
makers,
regulatory
bodies
and
national
decision
makers
as
well
as
the
private
sector’1.
The
public
value
of
COST
Actions
is
also
explicit
in
the
way
they
are
defined:
‘bottom-‐up
science
and
technology
networks
open
to
researchers
and
stakeholders
(…)’2.
This
is
to
say
that
COST
puts
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
the
public
value
of
COST
Actions
–
they
should
feed
social,
technological
and
policy
innovation.
The
COST
Action
IS0906
‘Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies’
has
taken
this
i mperative
of
societal
value
very
seriously.
The
COST
Action
‘Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies’
(2010-‐14)
has
been
coordinating
research
efforts
into
the
key
transformations
of
European
audiences
within
a
changing
media
and
communication
environment,
identifying
their
complex
interrelationships
with
the
social,
cultural
and
political
areas
of
European
societies.
A
range
of
interconnected
but
distinct
topics
concerning
audiences
have
been
developed
by
four
Working
Groups:
(1)
New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
i n
the
media;
(2)
Audience
interactivity
and
participation;
(3)
The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships;
and
(4)
Audience
transformations
and
social
integration.
For
more
information
about
the
Action,
see
the
project
website
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu.
Obviously,
the
primary
target
group
of
the
Action
is
the
scholarly
(and
educational)
community.
However,
one
of
the
tasks
of
the
Action
participants
as
initially
labelled
in
the
work
plan
was
‘to
reflect
on
the
significance
of
their
research
results
for
civil
society,
industry
and
policy
players
in
the
field,
and
provide
them
with
insightful
recommendations
for
their
future
1
COST
website,
http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/mission.
Accessed
2 8
November
2013.
2
COST
w ebsite,
http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/how_cost_works.
Accessed
28
November
2013.
Emphasis
by
the
authors.
6
activities
and
responsibilities’3.
Thus
the
Action
also
had
among
its
target
groups
policy
makers,
regulatory
bodies,
media
industries
and
professionals,
civil
society
(including
community
media)
and
the
public
at
large.
The
report
Building
Bridges
is
one
the
Action’s
main
responses
to
the
q uestion
why,
how
and
for
whom
academic
audience
research
has
(or
could
have)
public
value.
Addressing
this
question
raised
important
challenges
in
terms
of
how
a
large
network
of
319
audience
researchers
coming
from
33
countries
and
having
mostly
an
academic
background
could
make
a
relevant
contribution
on
this
front.
In
the
beginning
of
the
Action,
it
was
not
clear
how
to
proceed
–
even
the
very
focus
of
the
task
was
rather
vague.
As
a
consequence,
the
Action
decided
to
follow
an
incremental
route,
exploring
different
areas
and
channels
of
interaction
with
non-‐
academic
groups
and
thereby
redefining
the
focus
and
the
working
method
along
the
way.
Thus
Building
Bridges
was
part
of
a
broader
and
eclectic
effort
to
liaise
with
non-‐academic
groups
and
create
opportunities
for
dialogues.
Many
Action
participants
were
involved
in
this
process.
Among
them,
one
or
more
Liaison
Officers
within
each
Working
Group
have
provided
advice
and
support
for
the
organisation
of
round
tables
with
stakeholder
representatives
and
the
preparation
of
‘building
bridges’
outputs.
Thus
these
activities
and
outputs
wouldn’t
have
been
possible
without
the
contributions
of
Uwe
Hasebrink
(WG1),
François
Heinderyckx
(WG1),
Sonia
Livingstone
(WG1),
Bozena
Mierzejewska
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
the
industry),
Birgit
Stark
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
the
industry),
Lucia
Vesnic-‐Alujevic
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
policy
makers),
Mélanie
Bourdaa
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
civil
society),
Ana
Milojevic
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
journalists),
José
Manuel
Noguera
Vivo
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
the
academia),
Igor
Vobic
(WG2,
Liaison
Officer
for
young
scholars),
Stanislaw
Jedrzejewski
(WG3)
and
Piermarco
Aroldi
(WG4).
ENGAGING
IN
A
DIALOGUE
The
COST
Action
initiated
a
dialogue
with
non-‐academic
stakeholders
immediately
during
the
first
period
of
activity
in
order
to
f amiliarize
ourselves
with
their
interests
and
points
of
view.
For
this
purpose,
the
Action
organised
two
plenary
round
tables
–
‘Media
literacy:
Ambitions,
policies
and
measures’
and
‘Audience
research:
Academic
and
non-‐academic
approaches
and
cooperation
possibilities’
–
in
the
context
of
the
first
Action
conference
in
Zagreb,
in
April
20114.
These
round
tables
involved
representatives
of
policy
makers
(European
Commission),
regulatory
bodies
(Ofcom),
associations
of
viewers
and
listeners
(European
Association
for
Viewers’
Interests/EAVI),
market
research
companies
(TNS),
research
departments
in
media
companies
(VRT,
MTV
International)
and
specialized
research
institutes
(International
Central
Institute
for
Youth
and
Educational
Television/IZI).
This
exploratory
phase
continued
during
the
second
period
of
activity
with
a
plenary
round
table
on
‘The
role
of
audience
research
within
mediatised
societies:
A
dialogue
between
3
Memorandum
of
Understanding:
http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/isch/Actions/IS0906.
4
See
the
conference
webpage
at:
h ttp://www.cost-transforming-audiences.eu/node/97.
The
report
o f
the
roundtable
on
media
literacy
is
available
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/223.
7
academic
researchers
and
stakeholders
from
different
societal
groups’,
which
was
held
in
Brussels
i n
April
20125.
The
panel
brought
together
representatives
of
the
European
P latform
of
Regulatory
Authorities/EPRA,
the
VRT
Research
Department
(Flemish
public
broadcasting)
and
the
European
Alliance
of
Listeners
and
Viewers
Associations/EURALVA,
as
well
as
the
European
Policy
Manager
of
Facebook.
These
exploratory
round
tables
have
provided
insights
into
the
‘different
worlds’
inhabited
by
academic
and
non-‐academic
groups,
into
the
opportunities
and
difficulties
of
liaising
with
non-‐academic
stakeholders,
into
some
possible
common
interests
and
desirable
areas
of
further
discussion/cooperation,
and
into
the
differences
and
similarities
among
the
non-‐academic
groups.
Most
importantly,
this
exploratory
exercise
resulted
in
a
re-‐definition
of
the
Action’s
‘Developing
recommendations’
objective
as
it
was
initially
planned
in
the
beginning
of
the
Action.
This
re-‐definition
had
three
interrelated
aspects:
•
The
term
‘recommendations’,
although
often
used
in
policy
circles,
was
found
to
be
problematic,
as
it
might
imply
the
idea
that
the
Action
(and
hence
academia)
is
in
a
position
to
tell
the
different
stakeholders
what
they
should
do
–
although
the
Action
was
not
invited
to
make
such
kinds
of
statements
and
has
much
to
learn
from
non-‐
academic
stakeholders
themselves.
Thus
there
was
a
consensus
to
avoid
a
top-
down
approach
to
the
liaison
with
the
non-‐academic
groups.
•
Another
related
issue
is
that
producing
and
sharing
knowledge
that
has
some
societal
significance
is
useless
if
there
is
an
insufficient
or
unbalanced
relationship
between
academics
and
other
stakeholders
in
the
field.
In
this
respect,
the
term
‘dissemination’
was
seen
as
problematic
as
well:
it
might
imply
the
idea
of
a
linear
transmission
of
‘results’
or
‘findings’
and
does
not
leave
room
for
dialogue
and
building
relations.
On
the
contrary,
academic
research
can
gain
greater
societal
significance
if
academic
and
non-‐academic
stakeholders
get
better
acquainted
with
each
other
and
if
stakeholders
are
involved
in
the
different
phases
of
the
research
process,
and
not
only
as
‘receivers’
of
k nowledge.
•
A
third
aspect
that
was
debated
among
the
Action
membership
is
the
societal
role
of
academics.
There
was
indeed
a
concern
among
many
Action
members
about
the
normative
assumption
that
the
Action
(and
academic
audience
research
in
general)
must
collaborate
with
non-‐academic
groups.
What
is
at
stake
here
is
the
critical
stance
of
audience
research,
which
as
such
does
not
impede
interacting
and
collaborating
with
non-‐academic
groups,
but
should
be
preserved
as
part
of
academics’
role
in
society.
These
considerations
provided
a
new
ground
for
the
‘Developing
recommendations’
objective,
which
was
re-‐framed
metaphorically
as
‘Building
bridges
with
stakeholders’
–
with
a
focus
on
creating
r elations
and
dialogue,
developing
a
b etter
mutual
knowledge
of
the
different
stakeholders’
‘inhabited
worlds’
(here
academia
is
considered
as
one
stakeholder
among
others)
and
exploring
different
areas/modes
of
interactions/collaborations.
This
report,
as
the
main
deliverable
for
this
task,
is
obviously
a
direct
output
of
this
‘building
bridges’
perspective.
We
5
See
the
event
webpage
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1354.
8
will
detail
below
how
this
approach
was
put
into
play
in
the
very
writing
process.
The
plenary
round
table
with
invited
stakeholder
representatives
that
was
held
in
Belgrade
(September
2013)
was
guided
by
the
same
principle:
the
Research
&
Learning
Group
at
BBC
Media
Action,
the
Association
of
Consumers
of
Audiovisual
Media
i n
Catalonia/TAC
and
the
Studies
&
Research
department
of
the
French-‐speaking
Belgian
High
Authority
for
Audiovisual
Media
(CSA)
were
invited
to
elaborate
on
the
significance
of
their
own
activities
for
academic
audience
r esearch,
as
part
of
a
panel
entitled
‘Bringing
the
outside
in’6.
I n
addition,
the
societal
significance
of
audience
research
is
one
of
the
overarching
themes
of
the
Action
Final
Conference
in
Ljubljana,
Slovenia,
on
5-‐7
February
20147.
In
addition
to
these
Action-‐wide
activities
and
outputs,
the
Action,
through
one
of
its
Working
Groups,
has
carried
out
more
specific
‘bridging’
activities.
Working
Group
1
has
developed
an
on-‐going
dialogue
with
a
range
of
non-‐academic
stakeholders
(including
mainly
policy
makers,
regulatory
authorities
and
associations
of
viewers
and
listeners)
in
the
field
of
media
literacy.
I n
addition
to
the
‘Media
literacy’
round
table
i n
Zagreb,
this
was
done
through
a
special
issue
on
‘Critical
insights
in
European
media
literacy
research
and
policy’
in
Medijske
studije/Media
Studies,
addressing
the
policy
implications
of
media
literacy
research8,
a
meeting
in
Brussels
on
‘Media
literacy
research
and
policy
in
Europe:
A
review
of
recent,
current
and
planned
activities’,
again
with
different
stakeholder
representatives
(September
2013)9,
and
the
mapping
project
‘Comparative
Analysis
of
Media
and
Information
Education
Policies
in
Europe’,
the
r esults
of
which
will
be
presented
to
the
European
Parliament.
Another
specific
area
where
the
Action,
through
Working
Group
2,
has
sustained
a
substantial
dialogue
with
stakeholders
related
to
audience
interactivity
and
participation.
Through
five
collections
of
interviews
and
essays,
Working
Group
2
has
explored
diverse
aspects
of
interactivity
and
participation
from
a
range
of
academic
and
non-‐academic
points
of
view,
the
latter
including
journalists,
policy
makers,
civil
society
representatives,
media
company
representatives
and
media
practitioners10.
Four
of
these
collections
of
interviews/essays
have
been
published
in
the
academic
journal
Participations.
Journal
of
Audience
and
Reception
Studies11.
The
aim
of
the
whole
exercise
was
to
improve
the
mutual
knowledge
on
each
other’s
perspective
on
i nteractivity
and
participation.
A
PARTICIPATORY
WRITING
PROCESS
The
Building
Bridges
report
as
such
i s
the
result
of
a
long
participatory
process
involving
many
contributors
inside
and
outside
the
academia.
This
process
is
r epresented
i n
Figure
1.
6
See
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1029.
7
See
the
conference
webpage
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1030.
8
The
special
issue
is
available
online
at:
http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=7793.
9
More
information
about
the
meeting
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1354.
An
extensive
report
of
the
meeting
is
available
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1683.
10
Available
o nline
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/303.
11
Available
o nline
at:
http://www.participations.org/Volume%2010/Issue%201/contents.htm.
9
As
a
first
step
(November
2012),
the
Steering
Group
of
the
Action
issued
a
call
to
all
Action
members
for
individual
reports
on
‘How
has
my
research
been
useful,
or
could
be
useful,
for
which
stakeholders
in
the
field?’
This
was
an
Action-‐wide
call,
which
was
thus
circulated
among
the
membership
of
each
of
the
four
Working
Groups.
The
call
was
successful:
95
individual
reports
were
submitted
(step
2,
March
2013),
addressing
a
wide
range
of
issues
from
different
perspectives
and
covering
relations
with
an
equally
wide
range
of
stakeholders
among
state,
civil
society,
i ndustry
and
the
public
at
large.
As
it
turned
out,
because
collaborative
relationships
with
stakeholders
in
the
media
and
information
technology
industry
were
scarce,
this
kind
of
collaboration
is
somewhat
underrepresented
in
the
f ollowing
stages
of
the
Action’s
bridge-‐building
process.
For
the
third
step,
the
Task
Force
leaders
within
the
Working
Groups
prepared
a
draft
report
on
the
specific
topic(s)
of
their
Task
Force,
using
the
individual
reports
as
sources
of
inspiration
and
exemplary
cases.
This
resulted
in
10
so-‐called
‘Task
Force
reports’
(one
cross-‐TF
report
for
WG1,
four
TF
reports
for
WG2,
three
TF
r eports
for
WG3
and
two
TF
reports
for
WG4)
that
were
presented
and
discussed
in
Working
Group
parallel
sessions
during
the
Action
meeting
i n
Tampere,
Finland,
i n
April
2013.
For
the
fourth
step,
the
Task
Forces
finalised
their
respective
reports,
taking
into
account
the
discussions
in
Tampere.
A
special
emphasis
was
put
on
focusing
the
report
on
the
societal
significance
of
the
work
carried
out
within
the
Task
Forces
and
on
keeping
the
style
easily
accessible
for
a
wider
public.
The
final
Task
Force
reports
were
then
presented
and
discussed
in
the
Belgrade
meeting
(September
2013)
in
four
Working
Group
workshops
with
13
representatives
of
non-‐academic
target
groups
serving
as
discussants12.
The
stakeholder
representatives
were
invited
by
the
Task
Forces
and
Working
Groups
according
to
their
thematic
needs
and
interests.
The
objective
of
these
sessions
was
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
non-‐academic
stakeholders
think
about
the
societal
significance
of
audience
research
from
their
own
perspective
–
and
more
generally
to
create
a
dialogue
on
why,
how
and
for
whom
audience
research
has
or
should
have
some
kind
of
societal
significance
outside
the
academia.
The
Working
Groups
reported
about
their
respective
‘building
bridges’
discussions
in
a
final
plenary
session.
The
responses
from
the
discussants
provided
the
material
for
one
additional
report
per
Working
Group
–
a
so-‐called
‘dialogue
report’
that
aimed
to
synthesise
the
issues
discussed
during
the
Belgrade
sessions
and
to
integrate
the
stakeholders’
points
of
view
(step
5).
For
the
sixth
and
final
step,
all
the
contributions
(the
‘Task
Force
reports’
and
the
‘dialogue
reports’)
were
assembled
to
form
the
complete
and
final
report.
The
structure
of
Building
Bridges
reflects
the
structure
of
the
Action:
the
report
has
four
parts
corresponding
to
the
four
Working
Groups
and
including
each
the
Task
Force
reports
(one
cross-‐TF
report
for
WG1)
and
the
WG
dialogue
report.
12
See
the
programme
at:
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/1029.
10
Figure
1.
Building
Bridges:
A
participatory
process
This
participatory
writing
process
was
only
possible
thanks
to
COST
networking
through
the
Action,
which
provided
a
platform
for
academic
and
non-‐academic
groups
with
different
interests,
backgrounds
and
points
of
view
to
dialogue
in
a
very
open
way
and
on
a
regular
basis.
AN
INVITATION
TO
CONTINUE
THE
DIALOGUE
Collectively,
the
contributions
in
this
report
address
various
aspects
of
the
researcher-‐
stakeholder
relationships
that
can
b e
grouped
into
three
thematic
clusters:
•
WHO?
What
is
a
‘stakeholder’,
who
are
the
(academic
and
non-‐academic)
stakeholders
for
audience
research
and
what
are
their
distinct
interests
and
perspectives
–
in
other
words,
which
‘worlds’
do
they
inhabit?
Stakeholders
include
many
different
groups
within
the
industry,
the
state,
civil
society
and
the
public
at
large
–
e.g.
mainstream
media,
journalism
outlets,
small
and
medium
size
enterprises,
policy
makers,
regulatory
authorities,
public
sector
developers,
community
media
organisations,
minority
associations,
schools,
universities,
etc.
11
•
WHAT?
WHY?
What,
in
the
view
of
the
Action
members,
are
key
questions
relevant
to
stakeholders
and
for
which
a
dialogue
or
even
some
kind
of
collaboration
between
academic
and
non-‐academic
groups
is
desirable?
Why
are
these
questions
i mportant
and
what
are
the
resources
that
research
funders
could
specifically
offer
in
order
to
address
them?
These
questions
are
developed
through
the
lens
of
the
main
topics
covered
by
the
Action,
i.e.
media
and
information
literacy,
media
policy
and
regulation,
media
design
and
co-‐production,
public
engagement
in
politics,
participation
in/through
the
media,
audience
and
participation,
the
transition
from
old
to
new
media,
social
media
and
social
network
sites,
generations
and
media,
children
and
media,
and
inclusion
in
the
public
sphere
in
relation
to
media
uses
of
diverse
social
groups.
For
all
these
topics,
the
report
provides
an
overview
of
the
work
accomplished
with
the
Task
Forces
–
i ncluding
people
and
institutions
that
can
serve
as
resources
for
stakeholder
groups
outside
the
academia
–
and
argues
for
the
societal
significance
of
academic
audience
research.
•
HOW?
This
report
asked
what
kinds
of
bridges
have
been
or
could
be
developed
with
different
stakeholders.
It
provides
an
analysis
of
different
models
of
interaction
(also
described
as
tensions)
between
academic
and
non-‐academic
stakeholders
and
of
the
different
kinds
of
r elevance
or
usefulness
that
academic
audience
research
has
(or
could
have)
for
other
groups
in
society.
Building
Bridges
also
discusses
the
barriers
to
researcher-‐stakeholder
relationships
and
some
possible
solutions
to
overcome
them.
The
report
Building
Bridges
shows
that
there
are
many
mutual
benefits
to
be
reaped
from
the
multiple
forms
of
collaboration
that
exist
or
could
exist
between
academic
researchers
and
stakeholders
in
societal
organizations,
in
the
commercial
world
of
media
and
ICTs,
and
in
regulatory
bodies
close
to
the
policy-‐making
process.
However,
as
we
see
it,
it
is
important
for
the
advancement
of
audience
research
as
an
agent,
sometimes
critical,
of
human
enlightenment
about
the
media/society
nexus
that
it
continues
to
rest
on
a
solid
base
of
interest-‐free
knowledge
objectives.
In
some
contexts
–
which
appear
to
be
on
the
rise
–
it
is
becoming
mandatory,
and
a
prerequisite
of
obtaining
funding
from
funding
bodies
at
the
national
and
supra-‐national
levels,
that
r esearch
applications
do
not
only
promise
to
deliver
‘public
value’
in
a
broad
sense
but
must
be
endorsed
by
outside
agents
driven
by
specific
organizational
or
commercial
interests.
We
suggest
that
public
value
should
not
be
seen
too
narrowly
as
utilitarian,
but
also
as
a
f actor
that
advances
disinterested
human
k nowledge.
Building
Bridges
is
all
about
the
role(s)
of
academics
–
especially
here
audience
researchers
–
in
society,
which
should
not
be
seen
as
homogenous
but
as
composed
of
different
(yet
interrelated)
fields.
Thanks
to
the
participatory
writing
process
explained
above,
this
question
has
been
asked
from
multiple
points
of
view.
While
one
could
have
anticipated
strongly
opposing
views
between
academic
and
non-‐academic
groups,
it
appears
on
the
contrary
that
there
are
many
converging
perspectives
–
i ncluding
on
differences
and
disagreements.
This
new
common
ground
is
an
achievement
in
itself
and
provides
a
new
basis
for
continuing
further
the
dialogue
across
societal
groups
‘having
a
stake’
in
audience
research.
12
PART
I.
New
Media
Genres,
Media
Literacy
and
Trust
in
the
Media
13
THE
ANTICIPATED,
CO-‐CREATIVE,
AND
CO-‐DESIGNED
NATURE
OF
RESEARCHER-‐
STAKEHOLDER
RELATIONSHIPS:
BUILDING
BRIDGES
WITH
STAKEHOLDERS
Jakob
Bjur,
Sweden,
jakob.bjur@jmg.gu.se
Vice
chair
of
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
a nd
trust
in
the
media’
and
leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
‘Cross-‐media
challenges’
in
WG1
Göran
Bolin,
S weden,
goran.bolin@sh.se
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
2
on
‘New
media
genres
as
texts
a nd
practices’
in
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
in
the
media’
Lars
N yre,
Norway,
Lars.Nyre@infomedia.uib.no
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
3
‘Trust
in
the
media’
in
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
in
the
media’
INTRODUCTION
This
essay
accounts
for,
and
to
a
certain
extent
also
discusses
how
researchers
within
Working
Group
1
(WG1)
of
the
COST
Action
‘Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies’
can
build
bridges
towards
various
types
of
stakeholders
i n
society.
Our
views
upon
stakeholders
emanate
from
Jürgen
Habermas’s
(1968/1972)
classical
discussion
on
knowledge
and
interest,
and
that
the
interest
in
knowledge
will
determine
the
kind
and
character
of
research.
A
stakeholder
is
thus
a
person,
group
or
organization
that
is
possibly
affected
by
the
results
of
academic
research.
They
hold
a
‘stake’,
that
is,
a
share
or
interest
in
what
we
find
out
about
reality.
We
should
also
distinguish
between
the
interests
or
stakes
the
stakeholder
perceives
of,
and
the
interests
or
stakes
that
the
researcher
perceives
of
or
think
should
be
relevant,
and,
lastly,
what
actually
is
relevant.
These
three
perspectives
might,
or
might
not,
overlap,
and
it
is
the
aim
of
the
following
to
try
to
sort
these
perspectives
out
based
on
individual
reports
given
by
the
WG’s
members.
We
should
also
stress
from
the
beginning
that
the
present
report
emphasizes
the
opportunities
for
building
bridges,
the
ways
in
which
research
can
have
an
impact
in
the
wider
society,
rather
than
the
barriers
that
both
researchers
and
stakeholders
face
when
trying
to
establish
liaisons.
In
the
following
report
entitled
‘Report
from
stakeholder-‐academy
deliberations,
WG1,
19
September
2013’,
we
have
dealt
more
with
these
barriers.
THE
HISTORY
OF
STAKEHOLDER-‐RESEARCHER
RELATIONSHIPS
The
relationship
between
academic
media
and
communication
research
and
the
knowledge
produced
within
the
media
b usiness
itself
has
always
been
an
uneasy
one.
One
of
the
first
to
problematize
this
relationship
was
Paul
Lazarsfeld
(1941)
in
his
seminal
article
on
‘administrative
and
critical
communications
research’,
where
he
posed
the
two
varieties
of
research
as
both
opposed
and
at
the
same
time
dependent
on
each
other.
The
difference
between
the
two,
argued
Lazarsfeld,
i s
that
14
administrative
research
[…]
is
carried
through
in
the
service
of
some
kind
of
administrative
agency
of
public
or
private
character
[while]
critical
research
is
posed
against
the
practice
of
administrative
research,
requiring
that,
prior
and
in
addition
to
whatever
special
purpose
is
to
be
served,
the
general
role
of
our
media
of
communication
in
the
present
social
system
should
be
studied.
(Lazarsfeld
1941:
8f)
Lazarsfeld
drew
up
this
distinction
partly
on
personal
grounds,
as
the
difference
between
his
fellow
European
in
exile
in
the
USA,
Theodor
Adorno,
and
himself.
In
Lazarsfeld’s
view,
Adorno
was
the
critical
scholar,
while
he
considered
himself
carrying
out
administrative
research
on
the
grounds
of
the
radio
i ndustry
financing
his
r adio
r esearch
institute
(see
Glander
2000).
The
article
is
usually
used
in
academic
debate
for
marking
distance
towards
administrative
research,
but
one
of
the
main
points
of
Lazarsfeld
was
that
the
two
types
of
research
needed
each
other:
critical
research,
typically
asking
more
general,
philosophically
oriented
questions,
needed
the
empirical
input
in
order
to
be
of
social
relevance,
while
administrative
research
needed
the
theoretical
input
from
critical
research
in
order
not
to
stagnate
and
just
r epeat
self-‐evident
data.
What
Lazarsfeld
tried
to
do
was
to
build
a
bridge
between
the
knowledge
produced
in
the
interest
of
the
media
industries,
and
the
knowledge
produced
by
(seemingly)
free-‐thinking
and
autonomous
academic
researchers.
It
is
very
doubtful
if
Adorno
did
agree
to
his
arguments
(most
probably
not),
but
the
problem
introduced
by
Lazarsfeld
lives
on
in
academic
debate
and
policy.
It
is
also
the
problem
in
focus
of
this
article,
where
we
have
tried
to
describe
and
discuss
the
possible
administrative
use
of
the
mainly
critical
research
among
the
network
members
of
the
WG1
of
the
COST
Action.
We
will
proceed
in
the
following
manner:
Firstly,
we
will
shortly
characterize
the
types
of
influence
(or
anticipated
influence)
of
the
research
of
the
WG
on
the
media
business,
based
o n
individual
reports
on
activities
and
the
uses
of
research
findings
from
the
Action
members.
Secondly,
we
will
point
out
which
stakeholders,
or
interested
parties,
that
possibly
benefit
from
the
research,
as
this
has
been
reflected
in
the
individual
reports
that
have
been
submitted
by
WG1
members
(cf.
Habermas
1968/1972).
Thirdly,
we
will
in
three
sections
discuss
in
more
detail
the
most
common
three
thematic
areas
that
researchers
of
WG1
are
engaged
in,
and
the
usefulness
of
this
research
(as
perceived
by
the
researchers)
(cf.
Corner
2001).
We
will
then
end
with
some
general
conclusions
from
this
discussion,
and
hopefully
raise
some
questions
for
the
future
constructions
of
bridges
between
academic
research,
and
stakeholders,
or,
in
the
terminology
of
Lazarsfeld,
between
the
critical
and
the
administrative
domains
of
research.
THREE
KINDS
OF
USABILITY
OF
RESEARCH
In
the
reports
given
by
the
researchers
in
the
WG1,
three
main
ambitions
strike
out
–
as
judged
by
the
usability
for
people
outside
of
the
academy.
We
call
these
three
types
of
scholarly
output
research
of
anticipated
or
potential
significance,
co-creation
of
knowledge
and
co-creation
of
practices,
objects,
and
policies.
The
research
of
anticipated
significance
can
be
further
divided
into
research
as
a
resource,
or
it
can
become
realized,
that
is,
put
to
use
in
media
and
15
communications
practice.
The
last
two
types
of
co-‐creative
efforts
can
be
either
symmetrical,
or
asymmetrical
in
relation
to
the
balance
of
power
between
media
business
and
academy
(Figure
1).
Firstly,
and
most
commonly,
we
have
what
we
have
termed
research
of
anticipated
or
potential
significance
for
stakeholders.
Typically,
this
is
the
kind
of
research
where
the
researcher
or
the
research
team
produces
reports,
journal
articles,
even
books,
addressed
to
an
indiscriminate
public
of
academics,
media
business
and
people
generally
interested
in
academic
research
on
media
matters,
for
example
the
role
of
journalism
as
a
democratic
force
in
society.
For
the
most
part,
the
researcher
has
little
knowledge
on
how
this
research
is
adopted
or
used.
Although
the
research
results
are
published,
and
thus
accessible,
there
are
most
often
no
active
engagement
in
stakeholder
activity
on
part
of
the
researcher,
and
the
activity
of
producing
the
knowledge
transfer
is
left
to
the
extramural
world
outside
of
the
academy.
Therefore
the
research
publications
are
most
often
to
be
considered
as
a
resource
for
stakeholders,
a
potentially
useful
kind
of
knowledge
for
these
to
take
advantage
of
if
there
is
a
felt
need
for
doing
so
on
their
part.
Figure
1.
Three
kinds
of
usability
of
research
This
type
of
research,
as
it
were,
is
of
anticipated
value
because
the
researcher
argues
that
the
knowledge
produced
should
be
of
significance
for
the
industry
in
one
way
or
the
other,
for
example
ethically,
methodologically,
policy-‐wise,
or
practically.
This
does
naturally
not
mean
that
it
is
also
perceived
of
as
useful
for
the
stakeholders
within
the
media
industry.
A
first
obstacle
is
the
weak
channel
of
communication
between
academy
and
industry:
most
industry
stakeholders
do
not
follow
academic
journals,
and
many
academics
are
poorly
oriented
within
internal
trade
publications
of
the
media
industries.
Often
some
kind
of
mediator
is
required.
A
common
obstacle
here,
especially
for
research
in
journalism,
is
that
the
mediator
is
him-‐
or
herself
a
stakeholder.
Typically
journalists
only
report
on
research
directly
related
to
the
agenda
within
the
journalistic
institution.
This
means
that
journalists
might
miss
out
on
research
that
actually
is
of
significance,
but
that
is
not
i mmediately
perceived
as
so
–
a
classical
problem
i n
the
16
encounter
between
administrative
and
critical
media
and
communication
research
as
observed
already
by
Lazarsfeld
(1941).
Some
of
these
research
results,
however,
become
r ealized
in
the
meaning
that
the
results
are
indeed
taken
up
and
implemented
or
taken
into
consideration
by
sectors
within
the
media
and
culture
industries.
At
such
occasions
this
can
also
lead
further
to
more
structured
collaboration
between
academy
and
media
industries,
and
hence
lead
to
the
second
and
third
type
of
collaborative
research
described
below.
One
such
example
is
the
research
by
Göran
Bolin,
who
together
with
two
research
colleagues
conducted
a
study
of
entertainment
television
in
Sweden,
with
the
example
of
one
of
the
most
popular
entertainment
gaming
shows
in
Sweden
during
the
early
days
of
commercial
television
in
Sweden
in
the
1990s.
The
book
produced
by
that
project
was
later
picked
up
for
internal
training
within
the
broadcasting
company
in
focus
of
research
(Bolin
&
Forsman
2002,
Bolin
2002),
and
also
led
further
to
active
collaboration
between
academy
and
the
broadcaster
i n
the
form
of
them
financing
an
adjunct
professorship
i n
practical
media
production.
Secondly,
we
have
the
slightly
less
common,
although
far
from
rare,
example
of
research
that
is
actively
engaged
in
the
co-‐creation
of
knowledge.
This
is
the
kind
of
research
where
co-‐
operations
between
academic
and
industry
research
is
established.
This
co-‐creation
can
be
of
two
kinds:
the
first
is
research
that
is
commissioned
by
private
or
public
stakeholders.
It
is
not
uncommon,
for
example,
for
parts
of
state
administration
to
initiate
research
on
specific
topics.
A
typical
example
is
the
commissioned
governmental
report
on
violent
extremism
on
the
Internet
that
the
Swedish
Statens
medieråd
produced
in
2013,
and
where
the
actual
research
was
conducted
by
three
academic
scholars
from
the
universities
of
Stockholm,
Lund
and
Södertörn
(Statens
medieråd,
2013).
Quite
naturally,
research
projects
can
also
be
commissioned
by
private
corporations,
as
exemplified
by
Lothar
Mikos,
who
has
conducted
‘small
scale
research
projects
commissioned
b y
production
companies,
broadcasters,
games
industry,
regulation
bodies
or
political
institutions’.
Also
Kim
Christian
Schrøder
has
worked
with
commercial
stakeholders,
in
the
form
of
Danish
newspaper
Politiken
(Schrøder
&
Larsen
2010).
The
same
is
the
case
with
Göran
B olin’s
example
of
co-‐operations
with
commercial
television
broadcaster
TV4
in
Sweden,
and
Jakob
Bjur’s
work
for
polling
company
TNS/Sifo,
also
in
Sweden.
Irrespective
if
initiated
by
public
or
private
bodies;
when
research
is
commissioned,
the
power
relation
is
most
often
asymmetric,
as
the
researcher
has
to
obey
to
the
aims
of
the
state
administrative,
public
or
private
body
that
commissions
the
research.
Quite
naturally
there
are
degrees
to
which
the
researcher
can
influence
the
process
–
not
least
methodologically
–
but
the
overarching
aim
is
seldom
up
for
discussion.
It
is,
however,
also
possible
that
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
can
be
symmetric,
where
the
stakeholder
and
the
academic
researcher(s)
have
equal
influence
on
the
research
process,
from
the
framing
of
research
questions
to
the
methodological
approach,
etc.
It
can
be
supposed
that
this
is
more
common
in
co-‐operations
between
the
academy
and
civil
society
agents,
but
it
is,
as
we
shall
see
below,
also
possible
with
state
administrative
and
corporate
actors.
Thirdly,
there
is
the
research
that
aims
at
the
co-‐creation
of
practices,
objects,
and
policies.
This
is
the
research
where
researchers
and
stakeholders
co-‐operate
in
the
production
17
of
more
manifest
tools
for
media
production.
It
need
not
necessarily
be
material,
tangible
tools
(although
there
are
of
course
such
examples),
but
can
just
as
well
be
in
the
form
of
a
methodological
practice,
or
in
the
production
of
a
policy
for
directing
media
production.
Also
here,
the
co-‐operation
can
be
either
symmetric
or
asymmetric.
Some
researchers
might,
for
example,
be
actively
engaged
in
producing
a
media
policy
for
children’s
television
programming
on
equal
terms
with
state
administrative
bodies,
which
would
be
an
example
of
symmetric
co-‐
creating.
Others
may
be
engaged
in
less
symmetric
ways,
where
the
researcher
enters
into
a
prefabricated
model,
for
example,
as
an
advisor
who
have
little
impact
on
the
ways
in
which
questions
are
posed,
or
on
the
final
outcome
of
the
project
at
hand.
WHO
HAVE
STAKES
IN
AUDIENCE
RESEARCH?
Stakeholders
are,
as
judged
by
the
individual
reports,
located
within
three
societal
spheres.
Borrowing
the
terminology
from
Jürgen
Habermas’
lifeworld-‐systems
model
in
The
Theory
of
Communicative
Action
(Habermas
1981/1992),
one
could
say
that
some
relationships
nurtured
in
all
three
kinds
of
efforts
are
between
researchers
and
representatives
from
the
economic
and
the
political
systems.
However,
there
are
also
quite
few
projects
that
co-‐operate
with
civil
society
institutions
and
associations,
i.e.
individual
and
collective
agents
within
the
public
sphere.
There
are
a
r ange
of
examples
where
researchers
have
collaborated
with
N GOs,
as
will
b e
further
accounted
f or
below.
Perhaps
naturally,
many
audience
researchers
also
anticipate
their
work
to
be
of
significance
for
ordinary
media
users
within
the
private
or
intimate
sphere,
and
hope
that
they
will
be
individually
empowered
and/or
gain
insights
into
the
own
identity,
cultural
habits
and
preferences.
Also
here,
intermediaries
in
the
form
of
cultural
journalists
are
most
often
bridging
between
research
and
extramural
media
users,
although
there
are
a
lot
of
researchers
–
especially
those
rooted
in
the
humanities
–
who
engage
in
media
critique
in
the
culture
sections
of
newspapers,
writing
reviews
and
cultural
debate
articles.
THREE
THEMATIC
AREAS
OF
RESEARCH
In
the
individual
reports
by
the
WG1
members,
we
have
identified
three
major
themes,
and
we
will
account
for
these
in
more
detail
below.
There
are,
of
course,
also
individual
reports
that
fall
outside
of
these
three
themes,
but
they
are
not
many,
and
they
are
very
heterogeneous.
There
are
also
some
overlaps
which
prove
that
categorization
into
themes
is
a
tricky
task,
and
that
borders
between
categories
seldom
are
clean-‐cut.
The
three
themes
we
have
observed
are
Media
and
information
literacy,
Media
policy
and
regulation,
and
Design
and
co-‐production,
and
the
overlaps
are
mainly
b etween
the
first
and
the
second
of
these
themes.
Media and information literacy
Media
and
information
literacy
is
the
area
most
commonly
referred
to
in
the
bridging
reports
of
WG1.
This
is
not
in
itself
surprising.
WG1
was
originally
formed
around
the
four
research
fields
of
media
literacy,
trust
in
the
media,
genre,
and
cross-‐media
use.
During
the
course
of
the
COST
Action
an
array
of
research
has
been
produced
within
all
four
areas,
but
evidently
media
and
information
literacy
has
enrolled
the
broadest
group
of
researchers.
On
the
18
merits
of
being
brought
up
the
most,
media
and
information
literacy
is
here
taken
an
example
of
bridging
activities
aimed
at
stakeholders
belonging
to
civil
society
–
Habermas’
private
and
public
lifeworld.
However,
important
to
notice
is
that
corresponding
expositions
could
be
produced
for
the
fields
of
trust
in
the
media,
genre,
and
cross-‐media
use
as
well.
Anticipated
or
potentially
useful
for
stakeholders
The
body
of
research
of
anticipated
significance
is
by
far
the
most
comprehensive
category
brought
up
in
the
reports.
It
consists
of
research
in
its
most
common
form,
as
performed
by
researchers
and
aimed
primarily
for
the
research
community.
All
research
that
does
not
directly
co-‐involve
stakeholders
belongs
to
this
category.
However,
since
the
majority
of
the
academic
research
deals
with
subjects
and
areas
of
direct
or
indirect
interest
for
a
broad
array
of
stakeholders,
this
appears
to
b e
a
potential
base
of
knowledge,
ready
for
exploitation.
Most
research
efforts
on
media
and
information
literacy
are
described
as
potential
sources
of
insight
for
stakeholders.
To
give
some
examples,
María
del
Mar
Grandío
brings
up
a
book
chapter
(Livingstone
et
al.,
2013)
and
a
special
issue
on
‘Critical
Insights
in
European
Media
Literacy
Research
and
Policy’
in
the
Croatian
peer
reviewed
journal
Medijske
studije
(Livingstone
et
al.,
2012)
as
potential
sources
for
stakeholder
such
as
teachers,
educators,
families,
schools,
and
civic
society.
Conceição
Costa,
one
of
del
Mar
Grandío’s
co-‐authors
for
the
book
chapter,
also
describes
how
her
research
gives
voice
to
children
and
reveals
learning
processes
as
well
as
the
importance
of
the
peer
group
and
media
in
the
experimentation
and
construction
of
pre-‐adolescents
identities.
In
the
same
vein
Craig
Hight
stresses
that
his
research
establishes
a
set
of
ideas
about
software
literacy
that
can
inform
pedagogical
design
at
secondary
and
tertiary
level.
If
followed,
educational
institutions
could
educate
and
train
students
to
engage
with
digital
media
i n
their
everyday
lives.
The
reports
referred
to
above
are
but
three
examples
of
reports
filled
with
insights
of
immediate
relevance
for
various
public
(schools,
educators,
and
civil
society
at
large)
and
private
stakeholder
(young,
families).
These
types
of
insights
are
in
many
of
the
reports
referred
solely
in
the
form
of
a
title
of
an
article
in
a
scholarly
academic
journal.
This
is,
important
to
acknowledge,
arguably
a
source
of
evidence
and
a
form
of
communication
far
out
of
reach
of
most
stakeholders
mentioned
so
f ar.
Consequently,
we
have
in
our
model
split
this
potential
knowledge
base
in
two
parts.
The
border
runs
between
research
of
anticipated
significance,
as
the
ones
cited
above,
and
research
of
realized
significance.
The
distinction
highlights
that
bridging
with
stakeholders
can
occur
afterwards.
This
is
true
for
all
independent
academic
enterprises
without
direct
co-‐
involvement
of
stakeholders.
When
research
is
taken
into
account
by
stakeholders,
indirect
bridging
takes
place.
Research
results
are
then
transformed
from
knowledge
of
anticipated
usability
into
k nowledge
of
realized
usability,
by
stakeholders.
Examples
of
realized
research
mentioned
span
everything
from
promotion
of
public
understanding
of
science
to
education
and
advocacy.
Tao
Papaioannou
describes
how
survey-‐
based
research
on
media
literacy
competence
of
high
school
students
resulted
in
the
development
of
educational
resources
for
high
school
students
and
teachers
to
gain
a
deeper
understanding
of
their
new
media
environment
and
improve
their
literacy
associated
with
the
19
use
of
Facebook.
Similarly,
Christine
W.
Wijnen
reports
how
she
directly
converts
research
findings
on
media
literacy
and
Internet
safety
into
workshops
for
social
workers,
teachers,
parents,
and
into
peer-‐to-‐peer
education
of
10-‐14
year
olds.
These
are
but
a
few
of
numerous
examples
of
different
forms
in
which
r esearch
results
have
moved
on
from
the
academic
domain,
of
anticipated
significance,
and
acquired
realized
significance
by
stakeholders.
Co-creation
of
knowledge
Research
can,
as
an
alternative
to
a
merely
academic
enterprise,
be
preformed
together
with
stakeholders.
Bridging
is
in
this
case
a
direct
part
of
the
research
design.
This
does
not
mean
that
research
in
itself
has
to
be
less
free
and
independent,
but
it
is,
undoubtly,
more
directly
subjected
to
stakeholder
interests
and
goals.
Research
is
in
cases
of
direct
bridging
conditioned
by
stakeholders.
To
make
clear
that
this
level
of
conditioning
exists
we
have
distinguished
two
types
of
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
based
on
the
b alance
of
power
b uilt
into
the
relationship
between
the
researcher
and
the
stakeholder.
When
stakeholders
clearly
define
the
aim,
methods
(and
God
save
you:
the
results)
of
the
research,
it
is
commissioned.
When
the
balance
of
power
is
more
evenly
distributed
in
terms
of
guiding
the
aims
and
methods
of
research,
it
is
symmetrical.
There
are
several
reports
that
list
research
project
co-‐involving
stakeholders
in
symmetrical
forms
of
knowledge
co-‐creation.
Kirsten
Drotner
reports
on
a
broader
project
aimed
at
deciphering
how
SMEs
such
as
architects,
digital
designers
and
game
developers
operate
as
key
brokers
of
design
and
development
in
museums.
As
part
of
the
research
a
series
of
seminars
and
workshops
together
with
SMEs
and
parties
from
the
museum
zoomed
in
on
key
issues
adopting
user-‐led
modes
of
communication.
Cédric
Courtois
reports
on
a
large-‐scale
research
into
teenagers’
use
of
media
and
communication
technologies,
in
collaboration
with
youth
work
organisations.
Viktorija
Car
reports
on
a
more
activist
approach
doing
research
on
how
NGOs
use
digital
media
to
report
on
corruption
and
other
legal
problem
in
Croatia
to
communicate
it
with
EU
organisations
and
delegations.
We
have
not
found
any
direct
examples
of
commissioned
research
by
stakeholders
from
civil
society
for
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
around
media
and
information
literacy
in
the
reports.
This
type
of
commissioned
research
design
for
knowledge
production
is
more
commonplace
in
relation
to
stakeholders
deriving
from
the
economical
and
political
sphere,
as
will
be
illustrated.
Co-creation
of
o bjects
and
practices
The
last
kind
of
usability
addressed
is
that
of
co-‐creation
of
objects
and
practices.
It
deals
likewise
with
a
process
conditioned
by
stakeholders,
that
can
be
symmetrical
or
commissioned,
but
the
end
product
is
here
objects
and
practices.
Two
different
symmetrical
research
projects
can
here
b e
mentioned
while
we
have
not
found
any
commissioned
one.
The
first
is
the
development
of
Drotner’s
research
that
in
a
consecutive
phase
gathers
a
smaller
group
of
the
networked
SMEs
with
an
expressed
interest
in
research-‐based
development
to
participate
in
workshops
focusing
on
methodological
challenges.
What
is
in
focus
is
here
how
the
knowledge
learned
earlier
can
be
set
into
practice
and
be
applied
in
the
future
work
in
museums.
Viktorija
Car
has,
apart
from
public
advocacy
and
lobbying
for
a
20
national
media
literacy
curricula
in
Croatia,
been
engaged
in
setting
up
round
tables
inside
and
outside
parliament
with
stakeholders
(state,
experts,
teachers,
psychologists,
parents).
The
common
goal
of
advocating
academics
and
N GOs
is
to
initiate
Media
Literacy
Strategy
in
Croatia,
to
develop
curricula,
to
start
with
trainings
for
trainers
(school
teachers),
and
to
organize
workshops
for
parents,
teachers,
students
with
the
help
of
NGOs
which
are
active
in
Civic
Literacy
issues
(Political
Literacy,
EU
Literacy,
etc.).
To
summarize,
this
exposé
has
focused
on
research
addressing
stakeholders
that
belong
to
civil
society,
i.e.
Habermas’
private
and
public
lifeworld.
Research
in
the
field
of
media
and
information
literacy
has
been
used
as
an
example.
However,
a
substantial
part
of
research
in
media
and
information
literacy
has
policy
implications.
We
will
now
turn
to
those
parts
of
literacy
that
engage
in
policy
matters,
and
in
addition
account
for
other
kinds
of
research,
not
directly
engaged
in
media
and
information
literacy,
but
nonetheless
of
importance
for
media
policy
and
regulation.
Media policy and regulation
A
second
major
area
in
which
WG1
researchers
are
engaged
is
on
media
policy
and
regulation.
Quite
naturally,
there
is
much
research
conducted
which
is
of
anticipated
or
potential
relevance
for
stakeholders,
but
there
is
also
more
collaborative
efforts
reported
by
individual
researchers.
However,
it
is
also
possible
to
discern
a
pattern
where
some
research
that
has
stated
out
as
being
of
potential
interest
to
stakeholders,
has
become
realized
and
led
to
co-‐
production
of
k nowledge
as
well
as
of
objects
and,
perhaps
as
most
common,
to
the
development
of
practices
such
as
policies
and
regulations.
Anticipated
or
potentially
useful
for
stakeholders
In
principle,
it
can
be
argued
that
all
research
conducted
by
the
WG1
members
is
of
potential
significance
for
various
stakeholders.
Many
of
the
researchers
also
point
to
such
instances,
and
also
argue
for
why
it
should
be
of
specific
interest.
This
goes,
for
example,
for
Hanna
Adoni,
who
argues
that
all
audience
research
should
be
of
relevance,
since
both
state
regulators
and
commercial
media
producers
need
to
have
knowledge
about
audience
behavior.
Such
usefulness
to
state
regulators
is
also
pointed
to
by
Gintaras
Aleknonis,
regarding
his
research
on
freedom
of
expression,
public
sphere
and
the
q uality
of
the
media
and
the
history
of
Lithuanian
media.
As
pointed
out
by
Aleknonis,
the
possibilities
of
reaching
stakeholders
increase
if
they
are
addressed
in
their
national
languages,
as
articles
published
in
academic
fora
seldom
catch
their
attention.
Researchers
who
engage
in
questions
of
media
and
information
literacy
also
often
point
to
the
potential
usefulness
of
their
work,
for
example
Conceição
Costa,
who
studies
children
in
their
school
environments,
focusing
on,
among
other
things,
‘brand
literacy’,
that
is,
the
ability
for
children
to
identify
commercial
messages
and
distinguish
these
from
‘ordinary’
narratives.
A
similar
approach
can
be
found
in
the
work
on
‘cross-‐media
literacy’
by
Maria
del
Mar
Grandío,
and
on
‘software
literacy’
by
Craig
Hight.
Some
researchers
have,
however,
seen
their
work
becoming
implemented
in
the
form
of
policy,
and
have
through
persistent
focus
on,
for
example,
media
literacy
questions,
been
drawn
21
into
explicit
policy
discussions.
That
is,
their
work
is
beyond
potentiality,
and
has
become
realized
in
the
forming
of
co-‐creation
of
knowledge.
The
most
obvious
example
is
the
work
of
Sonia
Livingstone.
The
findings
from
the
two
first
of
the
studies
listed
in
her
report
–
Children
and
their
changing
media
environment
(1995-‐99)
and
UK
Children
Go
Online
(2003-‐5)
–
were
observed
by
policy
stakeholders,
and
especially
the
findings
from
the
second
project
were
taken
up
by
the
UK
Department
for
Education’s
Home
Access
Programme,
to
which
Livingstone
was
engaged
as
a
consultant,
which
in
the
terminology
used
in
this
report
means
that
the
power
relations
were
asymmetrical.
As
we
shall
see
f urther
below,
such
interest
r aised
by
stakeholders
might
lead
to
further
co-‐operations:
knowledge
exchanges
as
well
as
co-‐production
of
objects
and
practices.
Co-creation
of
knowledge
There
are
quite
a
few
projects
reported
on
by
the
WG1
researchers
that
are
engaged
in
different
forms
of
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
related
to
policies
and
regulation.
Jelena
Kleut
has
been
involved
together
with
a
regional
public
service
broadcaster
in
Serbia
with
the
focus
on
questions
related
with
the
digitization
of
television
distribution.
In
the
course
of
the
project,
the
researchers
managed
to
broaden
the
focus
from
the
initial
concentration
on
digitization
as
solely
a
technological
process,
at
the
cost
of
a
relative
neglect
of
the
demands
and
challenges
for
the
audiences,
as
well
as
meeting
the
audience
needs.
Questions
raised
during
this
project
were
policy-‐oriented,
in
that
the
co-‐operation
focused
on
which
principles
and
regulative
standards
were
to
b e
i mplemented
during
the
process.
An
example
of
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
together
with
NGOs
is
the
research
by
Cédric
Courtois,
who
has
worked
together
with
a
Belgian
youth
work
organisation
to
map
out
teenagers’
use
of
media
and
communication
technologies
in
order
for
the
youth
work
organization
and
other
policy
stakeholders
to
better
approach
young
people.
In
a
similar
vein,
Courtois
has
recently
been
initiating
a
project
on
the
implementation
of
tablet
computers
in
schools.
Another
example
of
co-‐creation
of
knowledge
together
with
NGOs
is
the
research
that
Victorija
Car
of
the
University
of
Zagreb,
Croatia,
has
co-‐operated
with
Human
Rights
House
Zagreb.
Together
with
this
organization
she
has
arranged
roundtables,
seemingly
in
a
symmetric
cooperative
effort.
She
is
also
preparing
a
report
on
media
activism
for
the
Croatian
Ministry
of
Culture,
and
she
is
a
member
of
the
working
group
within
the
Ministry
of
Culture,
with
a
task
to
prepare
the
official
Croatian
Media
Strategy.
This
manifest
development
of
a
media
strategy
would
b e
a
clear
example
of
the
category
of
co-‐creation
of
practices.
Uwe
Hasebrink
at
the
Hans
Bredow
Institute
for
Media
Research
points
to
the
fact
that
the
research
at
the
institute
is
funded
by
stakeholders
such
as
the
regional
government,
the
public
broadcasters
ARD/ZDF,
and
the
regional
regulatory
bodies,
media
companies
and
NGOs,
which
means
that
the
relationship
to
stakeholders
is
firmly
institutionalized
already
from
the
start.
A
specific
part
of
the
institute
is
dedicated
to
the
study
of
media
law,
and
the
institute
has
through
the
study
of
‘media
repertoires’
formulated
a
basis
for
the
regulation
of
cross-‐media
ownership
in
order
to
prevent
un-‐sound
owner
concentration.
The
findings
from
that
specific
research
were
included
in
reports
to
the
Federal
Parliament
(Hans
Bredow
Insitute
2008),
and
22
‘stimulated
a
discussion
on
how
to
adapt
the
existing
rules
on
media
concentration
to
today’s
crossmedia
environments’.
As
such
i t
had
‘direct
political
relevance’.
The
degrees
to
which
the
above
projects
have
been
commissioned,
and
in
which
instances
the
researchers
have
had
a
symmetric
power
relationship
with
the
co-‐operating
body
is
a
bit
difficult
to
judge
from
the
reports.
It
is
apparent,
however,
that
even
those
projects
that
have
been
commissioned
also
have
had
large
degrees
of
freedom
for
the
researchers
to
solve
the
problems
along
the
way,
and
to
arrive
at
their
own
conclusions.
It
is
probably
also
common
that
the
power
relationships
change
over
the
course
of
the
respective
research
projects,
in
light
of
scientific
evidence,
or
through
new
insights
arrived
at.
Above-‐mentioned
Sonia
Livingstone’s
initial
national
project
UK
Children
Go
Online,
was
followed
up
by
her
and
a
long
list
of
co-‐researchers
in
a
still
ongoing
pan-‐European
study:
EU
Kids
Online
(2006-‐14).
This
project
has
had
impact
on
the
European
level,
for
example
through
Insafe,
the
European
Network
of
Awareness
Centres,
which
has
drawn
both
on
European
and
country-‐specific
findings
for
their
efforts.
It
did
also
inform
the
construction
of
The
Safer
Social
Networking
Principles
for
the
EU,
which
led
many
providers
to
raise
standards,
also
for
‘industry
safety
tools’
such
as
report
buttons,
parental
controls
and
privacy
settings
for
online
content
directed
towards
children.
It
has
also
put
Livingstone
i n
advisory
positions
on
b oth
national
and
international
level,
for
example
for
UNICEF.
Although
the
EU
Kids
Online
project
was
not
organized
as
a
formalized
co-‐operative
effort,
there
have
obviously
been
many
contact
areas
during
the
course
of
the
project,
which
in
turn
means
that
it
has
had
its
autonomous
position
in
relation
to
stakeholders.
Co-creation
of
o bjects/practices
When
it
comes
to
the
co-‐creation
of
specific
policies
and
regulations
of
the
media,
there
are
not
that
many
examples.
Since
policy
is
most
often
worked
out
by
state
or
regional
administration,
these
stakeholders
most
often
commission
reports
within
delimited
areas
of
study
–
reports
that
can
later
be
the
basis
on
which
actual
policies
and
regulations
are
worked
out.
This
seems,
for
example,
to
have
been
the
case
with
the
research
by
Uwe
Hasebrink
and
the
Hans
Bredow
Institute
referred
to
above.
A
different
example
is
the
work
of
Tao
Papaioannou,
who
has
worked
on
a
project
of
media
literacy
together
with
both
the
Ministry
of
Education
and
industry
professionals
in
Cyprus.
Parts
of
this
research
i nvolved
training
students
and
high
school
teachers
who
took
part
in
technical
training
of
multimedia
production.
The
research
ended
with
a
film
competition
among
high
school
students,
where
stakeholders
from
both
industry
and
the
Ministry
of
Education
served
as
both
trainers
and
judges
of
the
competition.
The
initiative
seems
to
have
been
from
the
academic
side
for
this
project,
enrolling
or
engaging
stakeholders.
A
similar
example
can
be
found
in
Christine
Wijnen’s
report,
where
she
accounts
for
her
‘knowledge
transfer’
through
the
Austrian
Insafe
node
(Saferinternet.au),
but
also
in
the
engagement
in
arranging
workshops
for
schools,
teacher
education,
parent
education
and
the
training
of
social
workers
i n
media
literacy
education.
As
a
last
section
we
will
now
in
more
detail
describe
some
of
the
more
‘hands-‐on’
examples
of
co-‐production
that
we
have
found
in
the
individual
r eports
of
the
WG1
researchers.
23
Design and co-production
We
consider
medium
design
to
be
an
interesting
new
and
direct
form
of
contact
with
stakeholders.
In
principle
media
researchers
can
construct
prototypes
that
become
operational,
real
media
out
there
in
society.
Presumably
such
media
would
be
constructed
on
the
basis
of
well-‐researched
strategy,
and
b e
better
for
the
public
than
those
that
dominate
at
present.
Some
communicative
practices
can
be
avoided,
like
too
great
intimacy,
unreasonable
tabloid
biases
and
ad
hominem
argumentation;
while
other
practices
can
be
promoted,
like
factual
precision,
cultural
tolerance
and
democratic
participation.
To
design
a
medium
means
to
investigate
what
happens
when
a
new
technology
X
is
introduced
into
an
established
communicative
practice
Y.
The
new
medium
invariably
modulates
or
redesigns
features
of
the
old
media
in
the
same
society.
Jay
Bolter
argues
that
the
design
of
a
medium
could
be
motivated
by
a
critical
stance
toward
some
aspect
of
reality.
‘What
we
need
is
a
hybrid,
a
fusion
of
the
critical
stance
of
cultural
theory
with
the
constructive
attitude
of
the
visual
designer’,
B olter
(2003:
30)
writes.
And
indeed,
‘medium
design’
cannot
simply
mean
that
the
researchers
make
a
clever
and
complex
technological
solution,
they
must
also
have
a
maximally
conscious
approach
to
the
content
and
cultural
implications
of
the
medium.
The
crucial
research
questions
go
like
this:
What
aspects
of
society
should
a
newly
constructed
medium
relate
to?
Which
features
of
audience
literacy
and
competence
should
be
appealed
to?
A
medium
must
be
communicative
for
millions
of
people
to
have
any
societal
value.
Therefore
the
program
of
action
for
a
new
medium
must
be
ethically
grounded,
and
generalized
beyond
the
level
of
the
nation.
Due
to
its
lifeworld
importance
the
success
of
a
certain
medium
should
be
judged
by
its
communicative
ability
rather
than
by
its
potential
for
profitability
and
efficiency
in
the
system
context.
Indeed,
the
effort
at
inventing
a
new
medium
could
be
directed
exclusively
at
the
communicative
gain
i t
might
have
in
the
lifeworld.
Sonia
Livingstone
(2005)
has
made
a
table
that
shows
four
possible
audience
positions
in
relation
to
Habermas’
theory
about
the
system
and
the
lifeworld
(Habermas
1981/1992).
They
are
citizen
object
and
consumer
object,
plus
citizen
agent
and
consumer
agent
(Figure
2).
All
the
four
compartments
are
relevant
addressees
for
experimentation
with
medium
design,
as
evidenced
by
the
WG1
individual
reports.
One
type
of
stakeholder
i s
the
traditional
news
journalism
outlet.
This
stakeholder
i s
part
of
the
system,
and
it
positions
the
audience
as
a
citizen
and
consumer
object.
Chris
Peters
at
the
University
of
Groningen,
the
Netherlands
is
concerned
with
the
crisis
in
journalism,
which
is
caused
by
technological
shifts,
economic
uncertainty
and
audience
fragmentation.
The
system
must
change
because
of
changes
in
the
commercial
logic.
Peters
says
that
research
is
generally
geared
towards
things
as
they
are
right
now,
or
as
they
were
before,
and
thus
fails
to
conceptualize
the
dynamics
of
change.
Peters
is
involved
in
two
projects
that
try
to
bring
stakeholders,
preferably
news
organizations
themselves,
into
a
discussion
about
the
needs,
preferences
and
perspectives
of
news
journalism.
How
can
journalistic
discourse,
attitudes
and
innovations
be
altered
so
that
they
cope
better
with
the
crisis
in
journalism?
Clearly,
this
24
problem
could
be
investigated,
and
in
the
best
case
solved,
with
the
type
of
centralized
medium
design
that
was
just
described.
Another
approach
is
more
likely
to
be
adopted,
though,
and
it
can
be
called
participatory
design.
In
the
Habermasian
theory
the
ideal
would
be
that
interests
and
motivations
from
the
lifeworld
should
be
heard
in
the
development
of
new
media,
and
a
good
design
process
must
be
cooperative
and
participatory.
The
end
result
would
be
a
public
platform
that
is
representative
of
the
interests
of
the
lifeworld.
Andrew
Feenberg
(2006)
and
others
have
dealt
with
this
process
as
‘democratization
of
technology’.
The
ideal
stakeholder
in
this
perspective
is
the
citizen
agent.
Medium
design
would
here
be
driven
by
needs
that
people
have
i n
their
capacity
as
citizens.
Merja
Koskela
at
the
University
of
Vaasa,
Finland
has
studied
the
function
of
the
state
tax
authorities’
web
sites,
distinguishing
between
intra-‐professional
genres
and
client-‐oriented
genres
(Koskela
2010).
She
stresses
that
the
citizens
have
a
right
to
understand
what
the
administration
is
communicating
to
them.
The
stakeholders
in
this
case
could
be
said
to
be
public
sector
developers
who
need
to
design
websites
that
meets
the
needs
of
its
audience,
and
more
profoundly;
the
citizen
agents
who
needs
help
in
finding
out
how
to
do
their
duty
(paying
taxes)
in
the
correct
way,
and
understanding
when
they
have
done
so.
System
Public
Private
Audience
as
citizen
Audience
as
consumer
The
state
specifies
legal
and
The
economy:
encompasses
the
Audience
as
regulatory
frameworks
for
the
media
industry,
characterised
by
object
media
industry,
including
the
commercial
logics
of
media,
protection
for
‘fourth
estate.’
advertising,
marketing
and
Audience
as
object
of
media
branding.
education
and,
through
their
Audience
as
commodity
or
market,
vulnerabilities,
of
content
characterised
guidelines
and
controls
Lifeworld
through
ratings,
market
share
and
unmet
needs
The
public
sphere:
demands
that
The
personal
or
intimate
sphere:
Audience
as
media
serve
as
a
forum
for
embraces
media
for
providing
the
agent
democratic
debate,
community
participation
public
culture.
mediated
images,
pleasures,
habits
and
goods
and
for
identity,
relationships
and
lifestyle.
Audiences
as
active
and
engaged,
Audiences
informed,
participatory
and/or
interpretative,
resistant
as
selective,
pleasure-seeking,
creative
in
doing
identity
work
Figure
2:
Audience
position
in
systems
and
lifeworld.
Source:
(Livingstone
2005)
Another
type
of
stakeholder
type
is
the
small
and
mid-sized
enterprises,
where
audiences
are
typically
positioned
as
citizen
and
consumer
objects.
Cédric
Courtois
at
Ghent
University
in
Belgium
is
concerned
with
media
innovation.
His
PhD
project
partly
forms
the
core
of
a
project
25
to
academically
support
start-‐up
initiatives.
A
consortium
plans
to
launch
a
new
telecommunications
operator,
and
Courtois
is
developing
and
testing
means
to
implement
recommendation
algorithms
that
will
fit
consumers’
interests
as
well
as
possible.
Jelena
Kleut
at
the
University
of
Novi
Sad,
Serbia,
also
wants
to
aid
small
businesses
in
making
better
contact
with
users,
again
considering
them
as
consumer
objects.
She
i s
concerned
with
interface
developers
and
their
user-‐audience.
She
interviews
graphical
designers
and
software
developers
in
Serbian
companies,
and
finds
that
even
though
they
use
the
slogan
‘know
your
users’,
the
importance
of
this
is
not
recognized.
They
may
not
have
sufficient
knowledge
and
skills
to
design
a
medium
that
engages
the
prospective
users.
Their
development
process
would
b enefit
from
more
knowledge
about
academic
methods
of
audience
research.
At
this
point
a
note
on
methodology
in
collaborating
with
stakeholders
is
in
order.
Kirsten
Drotner
at
the
University
of
Southern
Denmark
wants
to
forge
partnerships
with
small
and
medium
size
enterprises
(SMEs)
such
as
architects,
digital
designers
and
game
developers
(Drotner
&
Schrøder
2010,
Drotner
&
Schrøder
2013).
She
wants
to
improve
the
knowledge
exchange,
by
finding
means
to
handle
differences
between
slow,
research-‐based
and
fast
practice-‐based
knowledge
formation.
Moreover,
she
points
to
the
need
for
knowledge
accumulation;
to
form
systematic
assessment
of
design
methodologies,
so
that
it
gets
easier
to
improve
quality
from
one
project
to
the
next.
We
agree
with
Drotner
that
there
is
a
need
to
formulate
a
comprehensive
methodical
framework
f or
medium
design.
Such
a
framework
would
make
different
design
projects
comparable,
and
their
quality
could
be
evaluated
according
to
shared
criteria.
This
could
in
turn
give
medium
design
a
more
active
role
in
shaping
the
quality
of
future
media.
The
most
radical
approach
to
medium
design
would
be
action
research.
It
would
involve
co-‐creation
with
the
stakeholders,
where
decisions
about
all
the
central
aspects
of
the
medium
or
practice
would
be
negotiated
with
them.
The
intended
users
would
be
allowed
to
directly
influence
the
outcome
of
the
research
project.
The
researcher
has
to
forego
the
objective,
empirical
process
of
trial
and
error
in
relation
to
a
program
of
action.
There
is
no
social
engineering
here.
Such
approaches
will
often
involve
stakeholders
that
are
institutional,
but
particularly
open
to
collaboration
and
change.
One
type
would
be
schools,
where
teachers
and
pupils
might
be
involved.
The
researcher
goes
inside
this
system
to
improve
the
learning
process
together
with
his
stakeholders.
The
users
are
clearly
positioned
as
citizen
and
consumer
agents.
Craig
Hight
at
the
University
of
Waikato,
New
Zealand
works
with
new
forms
of
documentary
practice
and
democratisation
of
audio-‐visual
technologies.
He
is
particularly
interested
in
software
literacy
as
it
relates
to
individual
and
group
forms
of
expression
in
audio-‐visual
form.
He
wants
to
inform
pedagogical
design
at
educational
institutions
at
the
secondary
and
tertiary
level.
And
his
project
could
be
considered
a
form
of
action
r esearch.
Medium
design
has
its
dilemmas.
It
operates
very
close
to
the
world
outside
of
the
university,
and
the
researchers
can
become
too
embedded
in
the
commercial
and
political
world
to
keep
up
the
critical
distance.
Researchers
can
become
stooges
in
the
maintaining
of
dominant
institutions,
we
can
form
alliances
with
groups
of
citizens
who
really
do
not
need
help,
and
we
26
can
develop
methods
that
can
be
used
in
malignant
ways
that
we
were
not
able
to
predict.
Not
least,
researchers
can
b e
corrupted
like
individuals
in
any
other
profession.
Tereza
Pavlickova’s
report
voices
strong
hesitation
at
being
involved
with
stakeholders.
She
defends
the
‘ivory
tower’
approach,
where
long-‐term
influence
is
the
only
viable
influence.
We
should
‘plant
the
seed
to
inform
public
discourse’,
but
otherwise
stay
away
from
the
nitty-‐
gritty.
This
caution
should
be
taken
seriously.
Although
we
acknowledge
the
use
value
of
collaborating
with
stakeholders,
and
optimistically
assume
that
the
commercial
needs
of
the
media
systems
can
be
put
in
brackets,
and
that
the
communicative
quality
of
medium
can
actually
be
implemented
in
a
lifeworld
context,
every
proper
academician
would
hesitate
at
such
an
ambitious
goal.
CONCLUSIONS
John
Corner
(2001:
3f)
once
pondered
on
the
uses
of
academic
knowledge
where
he
divided
the
stakeholders
into
four
groups
of
‘users’:
-‐
Other
academic
users
(which
he
considers
the
largest
group)
-‐
Commercial
users
-‐
Governmental
users
-‐
Public
users
In
this
report
we
have
not
considered
other
academics
as
users,
although
we,
of
course,
agree
with
Corner
that
most
research
–
also
on
media
users
and
audiences
–
are
of
little
interest
outside
of
the
academy
(maybe
sometimes
at
the
cost
of
possible
lessons
learned
in
the
world
outside
of
the
university).
On
the
other
hand
we
have
distinguished
between
NGOs
and
other
groups
of
non-‐governmental
and
commercial
users,
and
individual
audience
members,
who,
for
example
through
paying
licence
fees
for
public
service
television,
or
subscribing
to
newspapers
or
magazines,
clearly
have
an
interest
in
the
activities
among
the
media.
This
is
naturally
why
several
broadcasters
have
institutionalized
a
television
‘ombudsman’,
hired
by
the
broadcaster,
but
supposed
to
speak
for
the
general
media
user,
taking
his
or
her
side
against
the
company.
In
the
above
we
have
discussed
a
number
of
examples
that
fall
i nto
one
of
the
three
main
research
themes
of
the
researchers
in
WG1.
Firstly,
there
are
those
projects
that
focus
on
Media
and
information
literacy;
secondly,
projects
engaged
in
Media
policy
and
regulation,
and
thirdly,
projects
that
focus
on
Design
and
co-production.
The
two
former
themes
overlap
at
times,
as
media
and
information
literacy
often
take
the
form
of
policy
recommendations,
which
are
taken
up
by
stakeholders,
or,
indeed,
are
co-‐produced
with
them.
REFERENCES
Bolin,
G.
(2002)
In
the
market
for
symbolic
commodities.
Swedish
lottery
game
show
“Bingolotto”
and
the
marketing
of
social
and
cultural
values.
Nordicom
Review,
23(1-‐2),
177-‐204.
Bolin,
G.
&
Forsman,
M.
(2002).
Bingolotto:
Produktion,
text,
reception.
Huddinge:
Södertörn
University.
27
Bolter,
J.D.
(2003)
Theory
and
practice
in
new
media
studies.
In
G.
Liestøl,
A.
Morrison
&
T.
Rasmussen
(Eds),
Digital
media
revisited:
Theoretical
and
conceptual
innovation
in
digital
domains
(pp.
15-‐34).
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press.
Corner,
J.
(2001).
Towards
the
really
useful
media
r esearcher?
Nordicom
Review,
22(1),
3-‐10.
Drotner,
K.
&
Schrøder,
K.C.
(Eds)
(2010).
Digital
content
creation:
Creativity,
competence,
critique.
New
York:
Peter
Lang.
Drotner,
K.
&
Schrøder,
K.C.
(Eds)
(2013).
Museum
communication
and
social
media:
The
connected
museum.
New
York:
Routledge.
Feenberg,
A.
(2006).
Democratizing
technology.
Albany,
NY:
State
University
of
New
Y ork
Press.
Glander,
T.
(2000).
Origins
of
mass
communications
research
during
the
American
cold
war:
Educational
effects
and
contemporary
implications.
Mahwah,
N.J.
&
London:
Lawrence
Earlbaum.
Habermas,
J.
(1968/1972).
Knowledge
and
human
interests.
London:
Heinemann
Educational
Books.
Habermas,
J.
(1981/1992).
The
theory
of
communicative
action.
Volume
two:
The
critique
of
functionalist
reason.
Cambridge:
P olity.
Hans
Bredow
Institute
(2008).
Zur
Entwicklung
der
Medien
in
Deutschland
zwischen
1998
und
2007.
Wissenschaftliches
Gutachten
zum
Kommunikations-
und
Medienbericht
der
Bundesregierung
[Media
development
in
Germany
between
1998
and
2007.
Scientific
expertise
for
the
Report
on
Communication
and
Media
of
the
Federal
Government
of
Germany].
Berlin.
Koskela,
M.
(2010).
Tax
authorities
on
the
web.
A
genre
system
view.
In
W.
von
Hahn
&
C.
Vertan
(Eds.),
Fachsprachen
in
der
weltweiten
Kommunikation.
Specialized
Language
in
Global
Communication.
Proceedings
of
the
XVIth
European
Symposium
on
Language
for
Special
Purposes
(LSP),
Hamburg
(Germany)
2007.
Sprache
in
der
Gesellschaft.
Volume
30.
Frankfurt
am
Main,
B erlin,
Bern,
Bruxelles,
New
York,
Oxford,
Wien:
Peter
Lang.
Lazarsfeld,
P.F.
(1941).
Remarks
on
administrative
and
critical
communications
research.
Studies
in
Philosophy
and
Social
Science,
91,
2-‐16.
Livingstone,
S.
(2005).
On
the
relation
between
audiences
and
publics.
In
S.
Livingstone
(Ed.),
Audiences
and
publics.
When
cultural
engagement
matters
for
the
public
sphere
(pp.
17–
41).
Bristol:
Intellect.
Livingstone,
S.,
Papaioannou,
T.
del
Mar
Grandío
Perez,
M.
&
Wijnen,
C.W.
(Eds)
(2013),
Critical
insights
in
European
media
literacy
research
and
policy.
Special
issue
of
Medijske
studije/Media
Studies,
3:6.
Available
online:
http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=7793
Livingstone,
S.,
Wijnen,
C.W.
Papaioannou,
T.
Costa,
C.
&
del
Mar
Grandío,
M.
(2013).
Situating
media
literacy
in
the
changing
media
environment:
Critical
insights
from
European
research
on
audiences.
In
N.
Carpentier,
K.
Schrøder
&
L.
Hallett
(Eds.),
Audience
transformations.
S hifting
audience
positions
in
late
modernity.
London:
Routledge.
Schrøder,
K.C.
&
Larsen,
B.S.
(2010).
The
shifting
cross-‐media
news
landscape:
Challenges
for
news
producers.
Journalism
Studies,
11(4),
524-‐534.
28
Statens
medieråd
(2013).
Våldsbejakande
och
antidemokratiska
budskap
på
internet,
Stockholm:
Statens
medieråd.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Hanna
Adoni,
Israel,
hanna.adoni@mail.huji.ac.il.
Gintaras
Aleknonis,
Lithuania,
gintaras@gmail.com.
Jakob
Bjur,
S weden,
jakob.bjur@jmg.gu.se.
Göran
Bolin,
Sweden,
goran.bolin@sh.se.
Viktorija
Car,
Croatia,
viktorija.car@fpzg.hr.
Conceição
Costa,
Portugal,
conceicao.costa@ulusofona.pt.
Cédric
Courtois,
Belgium,
cedric.courtois@ugent.be.
Kirsten
Drotner,
Denmark,
drotner@sdu.dk.
Uwe
Hasebrink,
Germany,
uhasebrink@hans-‐bredow-‐institut.de.
Craig
Hight,
New
Zeeland,
hight@waikaot.ac.nz.
Jelena
Kleut,
Serbia,
jelena.kleut@gmail.com.
Merja
Koskela,
Finland,
merja.koskela@uwasa.fi.
Sonia
Livingstone,
UK,
s.livingstone@lse.ac.uk.
María
d el
Mar
Grandío
Pérez,
Spain,
mgrandio@ucam.edu.
Lothar
Mikos,
Germany,
l.mikos@hff-‐potsdam.de.
Tao
Papaioannou,
Cyprus,
papaioannou.t@unic.ac.cy.
Tereza
Pavlickova,
Czech
Republic,
tereez@gmail.com.
Chris
Peters,
The
Netherlands,
c.j.peters@rug.nl.
Kim
Christian
Schrøder,
Denmark,
kimsc@ruc.dk.
Christine
W.
Wijnen,
Austria,
christine.wijnen@univie.ac.at.
29
OVERCOMING
THE
BARRIERS
OF
ACCESS,
NEWSWORTHINESS
AND
ORGANISATIONAL
FORMS
OF
ACADEMY
AND
STAKEHOLDERS:
REPORT
FROM
THE
STAKEHOLDER-‐ACADEMY
DELIBERATIONS
ON
19
SEPTEMBER
2013
Göran
Bolin,
S weden,
goran.bolin@sh.se
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
2
on
‘New
media
genres
as
texts
a nd
practices’
in
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
and
trust
in
the
media’
Jakob
Bjur,
Sweden,
jakob.bjur@jmg.gu.se
Vice
chair
of
Working
Group
1
‘New
media
genres,
media
literacy
a nd
trust
in
the
media’
and
leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
‘Cross-‐media
challenges’
With
the
b enign
h elp
of
Sara
Elias
and
Leo
Pekkala
During
the
COST
Action
meeting
in
Belgrade
on
18-‐20
September
2013,
Working
Group
1
invited
two
stakeholder
representatives
for
a
session
on
the
usability
of
audience
research
for
stakeholders
outside
of
the
academy.
The
invited
guests
–
Leo
Pekkala
from
the
Finnish
Centre
for
Media
Education
and
Audiovisual
Media
(MEKU)
and
Sara
Elias
from
the
Research
and
Learning
Group,
BBC
Media
Action
–
were
asked
to
respond
to
the
Working
Group’s
report
The
anticipated,
co-creative,
and
co-designed
nature
of
researcher-stakeholder
relationships:
Building
bridges
with
stakeholders
(hereafter
‘stakeholder
report’),
in
which
Göran
Bolin,
Jakob
Bjur
and
Lars
Nyre
analysed
the
31
reports
written
by
WG1
researchers
about
their
experiences
with
and
views
on
academy-‐stakeholder
r elations.
After
a
brief
introduction
by
the
authors
Bolin
and
Bjur
describing
the
main
points
in
their
stakeholder
report,
the
two
invited
speakers
delivered
their
comments
to
it.
Leo
Pekkala
introduced
himself
and
his
background
as
a
trained
scholar,
having
a
PhD
in
Education,
and
having
worked
at
the
University
of
Lapland
for
several
years
before
joining
MEKU.
He
also
introduced
the
activities
of
MEKU,
and
their
aim
to
‘promote
media
education,
children’s
media
skills,
and
the
development
of
a
safe
media
environment,
for
children
in
cooperation
with
other
authorities,
and
agents
in
the
sector’.
In
addition
they
have
the
mission
to
act
as
an
expert,
to
promote
and
conduct
r esearch
and
to
monitor
international
development
within
the
field.
Pekkala
started
his
talk
with
a
theoretical
discussion
on
the
forms
of
knowledge
that
underpinned
the
stakeholder
report.
He
contrasted
what
he
perceived
of
as
a
slightly
too
linear
perspective
in
the
report,
with
a
rhizomatic
network
structure
approach,
following
the
inspiration
of
Deleuze
&
Guattari
(1980/1987).
Such
an
approach
would
rather
be
inspired
by
the
r oot-‐systems
of
mushrooms,
or,
as
i llustrated
in
a
slide,
by
the
mangrove
root-‐system.
Pekkala
also
challenged
the
felt
dichotomisation
of
the
academy
versus
the
world
outside
in
the
report,
as
well
as
the
critical/administrative
research
division,
arguing
that
the
latter
division
was
more
a
question
of
time
perspective
than
a
qualitative
difference.
All
research
is
applicable,
argued
Pekkala,
it
is
only
a
matter
of
how
long
we
need
to
find
out
its
applicability.
Pekkala
also
found
a
similar
dichotomisation
between
dependent
and
independent
research
30
problematic,
and
argued
for
there
being
examples
of
non-‐goal-‐oriented
research
efforts
also
outside
of
the
academy.
In
summary,
he
found
the
report
to
give
a
too
gloomy
picture
of
the
opportunities
for
academy-‐stakeholder
co-‐operations,
and
argued
that
there
were
far
more
possibilities
for
meetings
and
bridge-‐building
than
exemplified
in
the
stakeholder
r eport.
Sara
Elias
started
off
by
repeating
some
of
the
biographical
and
i nstitutional
information
from
her
keynote
speech
of
the
day
before,
explaining
that
the
Research
and
Learning
Group
of
BBC
Media
Action
is
a
charity,
with
relative
autonomy
from
the
mother
company,
which
among
other
things
means
that
they
are
not
funded
by
the
licence
fees.
Elias
holds
a
position
as
research
manager
for
the
group,
and
characterised
their
activities
as
engaged
i n
Communication
for
development,
working
with
country
teams
in
different
countries.
These
teams
monitor
research
i n
each
respective
region
or
area.
Elias
commentary
took
its
departure
from
the
analytical
model
suggested
in
the
stakeholder
report,
making
a
tripartite
characterisation
of
the
research
of
the
members
of
the
WG1,
as
reported
in
the
individual
reports.
Commenting
on
the
vast
amount
of
‘research
of
anticipated
significance’,
Elias
introduced
the
problem
of
accessibility
of
academic
journals
that
was
a
hindrance
in
getting
knowledge
of
research,
making
it
harder
for
this
‘resource’
to
become
‘realized’,
as
it
was
phrased
in
the
stakeholder
report.
She
pointed
to
one
of
the
tasks
of
their
country
teams
in
monitoring
research
in
the
respective
areas
of
their
work,
and
explained
the
need
to
have
contact
with
active
researchers,
as
BBC
Media
Action
workers
‘do
not
have
time
to
create
their
own
measures’.
When
it
comes
to
the
co-‐creation
of
knowledge,
Elias
said
that
they
did
not
commission
research
that
often,
although
they
sometimes
commissioned
literature
reviews.
However,
they
did
from
time
to
time
convene
conferences,
and
if
they
came
across
interesting
projects
they
could
sometimes
add
additional
funding.
The
problem,
as
Elias
put
it,
was
to
know
which
research
would
be
of
use
for
BBC
Media
Action.
She
also
expressed
as
a
general
aim
for
her
team
to
develop
co-‐creation
of
knowledge,
although
they
had
not
reached
this
position
yet.
‘This
is
where
we
want
to
be
–
we’re
not
there
yet,
but
we
would
like
to
b e’,
as
she
phrased
i t.
She
also
pointed
to
the
‘different
worlds’
of
the
academy
and
stakeholders,
and
emphasised
that
access
to
the
academic
world
sometimes
was
difficult.
BARRIERS
FOR
RESEARCHER-‐STAKEHOLDER
RELATIONSHIPS
A
number
of
barriers
for
further
cooperation
between
stakeholders
and
academy
were
identified
in
the
following
discussion,
triggered
by
the
input
from
Pekkala
and
Elias,
and
especially
in
relation
to
their
different
backgrounds
and
experiences
of
work
within
the
academy.
These
barriers
concerned,
firstly,
several
aspect
of
access:
technological,
symbolical
and
social.
Secondly,
it
concerned
what
we
in
this
report
have
called
‘newsworthiness’,
thirdly
aspects
of
the
way
in
which
the
academy
is
organised,
and
fourthly,
the
way
in
which
some
stakeholders
are
organised,
or
how
they
relate
to
academic
cooperation.
It
should
be
noted
that
these
barriers
were
identified,
and
judged
possible
to
overcome.
In
the
following,
we
will
list
these
barriers,
and
also
touch
upon
potential
solutions
to
them.
We
have
tried
to
analytically
separate
the
b arriers
in
themes,
and
we
would
like
to
stress
that
this
i s
an
interpretation
of
the
debate,
and
a
way
of
structuring
the
themes
in
it.
It
was
not
necessarily
31
phrased
in
the
terminology
that
we
have
chosen
here,
so
it
should
be
noted
that
it
is
our
interpretation
of
the
discussion.
Access
The
largest
barrier
identified
in
the
discussion
was
that
of
access.
Firstly,
there
are
some
obstacles
produced
by
lack
of
technological
access.
As
identified
by
Elias
in
her
introduction,
people
that
are
not
affiliated
with
an
academic
institution
have
difficulties
in
accessing
the
publications
in
which
research
results
are
published.
The
commercialisation
of
academic
publishing
has
resulted
in
journals
being
published
electronically
behind
pay-‐walls.
Those
that
do
not
subscribe
to
the
academic
journals,
thus
cannot
access
but
the
abstracts.
And
abstracts
far
from
always
reveal
the
usefulness
of
the
research.
Secondly,
there
is
the
problem
of
what
might
be
called
symbolic,
or
discursive
access,
a
problem
that
stem
from
discursive
differences.
The
specialised
language
of
the
academy
can
at
times
be
of
hindrance
for
the
f ull
understanding
of
the
research
results
and
their
applicability.
Conversely,
the
specialist
terminology
of
the
media
industry,
or
the
bureaucratic-‐
legislative
ways
in
which
certain
policy
formulas
are
framed,
can
b e
quite
incomprehensible
also
to
the
researcher.
A
third
access
issue
concerned
the
social
networking
aspect
of
the
‘two
separate
worlds’.
It
was
apparent
from
the
discussion
that
for
a
person
like
Pekkala,
having
worked
within
the
academy
with
research
and
teaching,
the
access
to
networks
of
researchers
was
less
of
a
problem
than
it
was
for
Elias.
One
interpretation
of
the
‘worlds
apart’
problem
is
that
when
you
do
not
know
where
to
start,
whom
to
call
or
mail,
this
makes
the
approach
to
the
academic
world
more
problematic
and
is
a
threshold
for
entering
into
that
world.
This
could
be
said
to
be
the
social
side
to
the
discursive
split
between
the
academy
and
stakeholders.
So
these
different
symbolic
or
discursive
worlds
of
stakeholders
and
researchers,
which
in
worst
cases
can
be
made
up
of
pure
jargon,
is
an
obstacle
that
should
be
easy
to
remedy,
by
the
shared
willingness
to
understand
the
other
discourse.
Language,
as
it
were,
is
the
tool
for
symbolic
domination
and
power
(Bourdieu
1991),
b ut
through
a
shared
k nowledge
interest
such
obstacles
should
b e
easy
to
overcome.
‘Newsworthiness’
Another
type
of
barrier
is
derived
from
the
lack
of
technological,
discursive
and
social
networking
access
to
the
academy
for
stakeholders.
This
is
the
dependence
on
mediators
that
mediate
the
information
between
the
academy
and
stakeholders.
Most
often
this
is
the
role
of
journalists,
either
science
journalists,
or
‘ordinary’
news
reporters.
When
in
the
latter
case,
as
was
pointed
out
in
the
discussion,
it
most
often
concern
‘crisis
reports’,
and
other
spectacularly
framed
news
stories
where
expert
opinion
is
needed.
In
the
first
case,
however,
many
news
outlets
have
their
scientific
reporters
who
monitor
what
is
going
on
within
the
academy.
Nonetheless,
both
the
academy
and
stakeholders
are
at
prey
to
the
evaluations
of
what
is
newsworthy
from
within
journalistic
judgement.
32
The organisation of the academy
Another
obstacle,
somewhat
related
to
the
social
network
access
problem,
is
the
organisation
of
the
academy
into
disciplines.
As
all
media
scholars
know,
the
media
saturates
all
parts
of
modern
life,
which
also
means
that
research
of
importance
for
media
and
audience
studies
is
also
carried
out
within
other
disciplines
than
media
and
communication
studies:
historians,
political
scientists,
sociologists,
the
arts
and
aesthetics,
philosophy,
etc.
To
the
stakeholder
it
is
not
easy
to
distinguish
between
the
intra-‐academic
specialties,
which
makes
it
hard
to
orient
themselves
to
the
research
that
matters
to
them.
Another
academic
barrier
is
the
lack
of
incentives
for
addressing
the
world
outside
the
university.
The
systems
for
accessing
academic
quality
privilege
specialised
academic
publishing
(in
peer
review
journals)
at
the
cost
of
other
publication
forms
directed
to
a
wider
public.
The organisation and ideology among (certain) stakeholders
In
a
similar
way,
the
ways
in
which
some
of
the
stakeholders,
most
notably
within
the
state
administration,
are
organised,
and
the
ideological
steering
of
their
business,
can
make
the
asymmetric
relationships
boil
down
to
the
researcher
becoming
‘the
token
academic’
in
state
reports,
committees,
etc.
In
the
discussion
many
bore
witness
to
having
sat
on
such
committees
and
working
groups
where
their
voices
where
politely
listened
to,
but
not
really
taken
into
consideration
by
the
stakeholder,
but
where
the
stakeholder
could
pride
him/herself
with
having
had
a
broad
referential
group
to
guide
the
report.
However,
there
were
also
voices
raised
that
argued
for
situations
where
the
academic
impact
was
indeed
strong,
and
where
the
symmetry
between
‘the
two
worlds’
was
more
even.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
From
the
above
account
of
the
panel
meeting
it
can
be
concluded
that
there
is
indeed
a
sincere
and
mutual
interest
in
collaborations
between
stakeholders
and
academy.
The
main
barriers
to
be
overcome
concern
different
kinds
of
access
problems.
Some
of
these
can
be
met
with,
for
example,
increased
open
access
to
academic
results.
Others
have
to
be
worked
at
via
networks,
conferences
and
other
meeting
grounds
between
academy
and
stakeholders.
Other
tasks
concern
the
need
for
academics
to
engage
in
public
debate,
and
address
non-‐academic
audiences
(also
within
the
commercial
sector,
and
among
audience
members
themselves).
By
pointing
to
these
obstacles,
and
some
of
the
possible
solutions
for
overcoming
them,
we
hope
that
this
report
can
be
a
stepping
stone
along
that
r oad.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu,
Pierre
(1991):
Language
and
Symbolic
Power,
Cambridge:
Polity.
Deleuze,
Gilles
and
Félix
Guattari
(1980/1987):
A
Thousand
Plateaus:
Capitalism
and
Schizophrenia,
Minneapolis
&
London:
Minnesota
University
Press.
33
PART
II.
Audience
Interactivity
and
Participation
34
INTRODUCTION
TO
PART
II
Nico
Carpentier,
Belgium,
n ico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Chair
of
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
Maria
Francesca
Murru,
Italy,
maria.murru@unicatt.it
Member
of
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
a nd
participation”
This
collection
of
essays
are
part
of
the
reflection
of
Working
Group
2
(WG2
–
focussing
on
audience
interactivity
and
participation)
of
the
Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies
(TATS)
COST
Action.
TATS
i s
a
large
network
financed
by
the
European
Cooperation
in
Science
and
Technology
(COST)
framework.
The
main
objective
of
this
network
is
to
advance
state-‐of-‐the-‐art
knowledge
of
the
key
transformations
of
European
audiences
within
a
changing
media
and
communication
environment,
identifying
their
interrelationships
with
the
social,
cultural
and
political
areas
of
European
societies.
As
part
of
this
COST
Action,
WG2
has
been
working
on
the
possibilities
and
constraints
of
mediated
public
participation;
the
roles
that
old
and
new
media
institutions
and
professionals
(including
journalists)
play
in
facilitating
public
participation
and
in
building
citizenship;
the
interlocking
of
mainstream
media
and
non-‐
mainstream
media
and
their
production
of
new
hybrid
organisational
structures
and
audience
practices.
The
TATS
COST
Action
set
out
five
tasks
for
itself,
as
described
in
the
Action’s
Memorandum
of
Understanding13.
First,
relevant
initiatives
would
be
reviewed
(task
1),
followed
by
the
definition
of
a
concerted
research
agenda
(task
2).
Task
3,
entitled
“scoping
audience
and
society
transformations”,
consisted
in
accumulating
and
integrating
research
results.
Grounded
in
this
reflection,
task
4
the
drew
theoretical
and
methodological
lessons
from
their
concerted
works
and
progressively
built
new
approaches
that
revitalised
audience
research
and
paved
the
way
f or
further
developments.
Finally,
task
5,
consisted
of
a
reflection
on
the
significance
of
these
research
results
for
civil
society,
industry
and
policy
players
in
the
field.
Although
the
title
of
recommendations
was
sometimes
used
for
task
5,
this
task
was
in
the
end
more
aimed
at
stimulating
a
dialogue
about
the
research
findings
with
non-‐academics.
For
this
reason,
the
“building
bridges”
metaphor
was
sometimes
used.
In
order
to
organize
this
dialogue,
the
four
working
groups
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
(including
WG2)
followed
a
specific
trajectory,
in
which
first
all
members
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
were
invited
to
write
short
individual
reports
about
their
perspectives
on
the
social
relevance
of
their
work.
These
individual
reports
were
then
analysed
by
the
Task
Force
leaders
of
the
working
groups.
In
the
case
of
WG2,
each
of
its
four
Task
Forces14
participated
in
this
process,
and
analysed
the
26
i ndividual
r eports
of
the
TATS-‐WG2
members
using
a
specific
angle
(see
below).
Provisional
analyses
were
presented
at
the
TATS
COST
Action
meeting
in
Tampere
13
See
http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/isch/Actions/IS0906
14
See
http://www.cost-‐transforming-‐audiences.eu/node/6
35
(Finland)
on
18
April
2013.
Then
the
four
Task
Forces
produced
the
articles
that
can
be
found
i n
this
document.
In
the
next
stage,
WG2
will
organise
a
round
table
at
the
Belgrade
(Serbia)
meeting
on
19
September
2013.
Here,
a
number
of
key
representatives
of
the
political
field,
civil
society
and
business
will
b e
invited
to
r eflect
upon
these
four
articles.
The
four
articles
develop
different
perspectives
on
the
social
relevance
of
academic
work
in
the
field
of
communication
and
media
studies.
The
first
article,
on
“The
social
relevance
of
participatory
theory”
written
by
Nico
Carpentier
and
Peter
Dahlgren
first
argues
for
the
social
relevance
of
theory,
and
then
focuses
on
the
importance
of
participatory
theory.
Peter
Lunt’s
article
“Media,
Democracy
and
Civil
Society:
the
challenge
of
digital
media”
reflects
on
the
roles
academics
can
take
in
relation
to
a
series
of
other
societal
fields.
The
third
article,
“Emerging
topics
in
the
research
on
digital
audiences
and
participation.
An
agenda
for
increasing
research
efforts,”
written
by
Francesca
Pasquali,
José-‐Manuel
Noguera
Vivo
and
Mélanie
Bourdaa,
discusses
the
social
relevance
of
specific
research
topics
in
the
field
of
communication
and
media
studies.
And
finally,
Manuel
José
Damásio
and
Paula
Cordeiro’s
article,
“Stakeholders
and
academia”,
analyses
the
different
modes
of
interaction
between
academia
and
i ts
stakeholders.
The
four
essays
and
the
introduction
were
first
published
in
the
2014
issue
1
of
Comunicazioni
sociali.
Rivista
di
media,
spettacolo
e
studi
culturali,
as
part
of
a
special
issue
on
“The
responsibility
of
knowledge:
The
values
of
critique
and
social
relevance
in
research
on
media
and
communication”,
edited
by
Maria
Francesca
Murru
and
Nico
Carpentier.
36
THE
SOCIAL
RELEVANCE
OF
PARTICIPATORY
THEORY
Nico
Carpentier,
Belgium,
n ico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Chair
of
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
and
leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
“Interrogating
audiences:
theoretical
horizons
of
participation”
in
Working
Group
2
Peter
Dahlgren,
S weden,
Peter.Dahlgren@kom.lu.se
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
“Interrogating
audiences:
theoretical
horizons
of
participation”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
INTRODUCTION
Theory
is
not
always
accepted
as
a
relevant
contribution
to
our
social
world.
From
a
common
sense
perspective,
theory
becomes
articulated
as
difficult
to
understand
and
grounded
in
esoteric
knowledge
which
has
nothing
to
say
about
“the
real
world”.
This
status
of
disconnection
implies
that
the
relevance
of
theory
is
(seen
as)
restricted
to
a
specific
societal
field,
academia,
and
that
the
main
role
of
theory
is
to
narcissistically
strengthen
the
societal
position
of
this
field.
This
positions
theory
as
the
servant
of
a
power
strategy,
a
sentinel
to
protect
academia
for
the
outside
world
and
to
allow
academia
to
remain
uncontested
in
its
ability
to
speak
about
that
world.
Sometimes
we
can
find
these
types
of
arguments
in
academia
as
well,
where
the
governing
(and
thus
restrictive)
capacities
of
theory
is
problematised.
For
instance,
in
their
article
“Against
theory”,
Knapp
and
Michaels
(1982:
723)
discuss
a
series
of
theoretical
problems
within
literary
studies,
such
as
“the
function
of
authorial
intent,
the
status
of
literary
language,
the
role
of
interpretative
assumptions
and
so
on.”
They
then
continue
that:
“the
mistake
on
which
all
critical
theory
r ests
has
b een
to
i magine
that
these
problems
are
real.”
(Knapp
and
Michaels,
1982:
724).
Our
article
takes
a
different
position,
and
sets
out
to
argue
in
favour
of
the
social
relevance
of
theory,
and
more
particular
in
favour
of
participatory
theory.
It
will
do
so
by
reverting
to
an
academic
language,
doing
what
we
(hopefully)
do
best,
in
full
awareness
of
the
possibilities
and
limitations
of
this
choice.
The
article
starts
with
a
more
general
reflection
on
the
social
relevance
of
theory,
developing
four
arguments
in
support
of
theory’s
social
relevance.
In
the
second
part
of
the
article,
we
focus
more
on
one
specific
theoretical
area,
participatory
theory.
Some
of
the
inspiration
–
mainly
for
this
second
part
-‐
was
gathered
through
an
analysis
of
a
series
of
short
essays
(labelled
“Individual
Reports”),
written
by
colleagues
within
the
framework
of
an
academic
network
on
audience
studies,
the
COST
Action
Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies
(TATS).
But
let
us
first
clarify
the
concept
‘theory’.
This
concept
emerges
from
a
number
of
different
discourses
and
has
a
number
of
usages;
it
is
a
term
whose
definition
is
often
taken
for
granted,
yet
whose
meaning
may
in
fact
vary
among
different
traditions
of
research.
Thus,
i n
the
natural
sciences,
‘theory’
is
usually
something
to
be
tested,
to
be
verified
or
not,
within
the
logic
of
the
scientific
approach.
Popper’s
(1963)
notion
of
‘falsifiability’
looms
large
here.
Theory
is
also
at
times
used
as
a
loose
synonym
for
‘philosophy’
(also
loosely
understood…).
This
usage
is
37
mostly
situated
in
the
common
sense
contexts
of
everyday
life
–
and
has
some
significance
for
our
presentation,
as
we
will
see
shortly.
Within
the
social
sciences
there
are
some
currents
that
align
themselves
with
a
view
of
theory
that
derives
from
the
natural
sciences;
however,
other
currents
explicitly
define
their
scientific
logic
as
distinct
from
the
natural
sciences.
In
these
traditions,
theory
is
seen
as
bodies
of
thought
that
can
serve
a
number
of
related
purposes,
such
as:
help
make
sense
of
the
social
world;
frame
the
analysis
of
phenomena;
offer
a
guide
action;
or
predict
consequences
of
specific
measures.
Speaking
about
sociological
theory,
Ritzer
(2007:
5)
sees
theory
“as
a
set
of
interrelated
ideas
that
allow
for
the
systematization
of
knowledge
of
the
social
world.
This
k nowledge
i s
then
used
to
explain
the
social
world
and
make
predictions
about
the
future
of
the
social
world.”
In
positioning
ourselves
with
these
currents,
we
would
express
it
as
follows:
theory
is
that
which
basically
furnishes
the
intellectual
scaffolding
for
research;
it
orients
us,
integrating
assumptions,
evidence
and
normative
dispositions.
That
is
to
say,
most
research
in
fact
is
predicated
upon
several
elements
of
theoretical
conceptualisation.
And
theory
is
usually
plural
in
character,
even
when
the
term
is
used
in
i ts
singular
form,
as
is
the
case
i n
this
article.
THEORY
IN
SOCIAL
RESEARCH:
A
CONCEPTUAL
TOOLBOX
The
first
argument
in
support
of
the
social
relevance
of
theory
is
its
capacity
to
generate
concepts
and
frameworks
by
articulating
concepts
for
tasks
at
hand,
be
it
research
or
social
practices.
In
fact,
theory
is
sometimes
defined
precisely
as
a
framework
that
defines
and
arranges
concepts,
and
structures
the
relationship
between
those
concepts,
focusing
on
specific
phenomena,
actions,
problems,
with
varying
degrees
of
complexity.
This
underscores
the
importance
of
articulation,
or
connecting
concepts
with
each
other
to
form
theories.
Here
we
have
to
keep
the
specificity
of
Laclau
and
Mouffe’s
(1985:
105)
definition
of
articulation
in
mind.
They
see
articulation
as
“any
practice
establishing
a
relation
among
elements
such
that
their
identity
is
modified
as
a
result
of
the
articulatory
practice.”
This
definition
implies
that
particular
discursive
arrangements
also
have
an
impact
on
how
concepts
are
exactly
defined,
and
what
role
they
(can)
play
i n
specific
theories.
It
is
important
to
emphasise
that
theory
is
discursive;
there
is
no
natural
unity
between
itself
and
what
it
represents;
in
other
words:
we
always
face
a
representational
gap.
Theory
unavoidably
has
particular
claims
towards
reality.
One
key
component
here
is
that
theory
is
embedded
within
paradigms
and
their
three
basic
dimensions
(ontology,
epistemology
and
axiology15),
which
increases
a
paradigm’s
particularity
(and
normativity
–
see
later).
In
Ritzer’s
words,
“a
paradigm
is
a
fundamental
i mage
of
the
subject
matter
within
a
science”
(Ritzer,
1980:
7).
There
are
struggles
between
fields
and
disciplines,
where
“each
of
its
paradigms
i s
competing
for
hegemony
within
the
discipline
as
a
whole
as
well
as
within
virtually
every
sub-‐area
within
sociology”
(Ritzer,
1980:
158).
Such
contestation
becomes
part
of
the
contingencies
that
shape
any
particular
field
of
research.
As
a
discursive
construction,
theory
must
be
challenged,
and
theorists
must
engage
in
self-‐reflection.
Since
all
knowledge,
including
theory,
is
discursively
constructed
under
specific
15
Sometimes
also
methodology
is
mentioned
as
a
component
of
paradigms.
38
contingencies,
we
can
never
position
ourselves
outside
of
our
social
circumstances.
Thus,
historicism
and
relativism
are
our
inexorable
fate.
However,
we
can
certainly
reflect
upon
our
contingencies
–
and
try
to
illuminate
how
they
i mpact
on
our
knowledge
and
our
theorising;
not
least,
this
can
fruitfully
b e
focused
precisely
on
our
concepts.
We
need
to
highlight
the
conditions
that
nudge
our
thought
(and
its
vocabularies)
i n
certain
directions
(as
opposed
to
others).
Even
such
reflection
has
its
contingencies
–
there
is
no
ultimate
escape
–
but
such
efforts,
an
eternal
cat-‐and-‐mouse
game,
helps
to
keep
us
alert
and
invites
self-‐correction
and
re-‐interpretation,
thus
stimulating
our
k nowledge
development.
In
sum,
theory
is
socially
relevant
because
it
allows
us
to
conceptually
capture
the
social
world.
It
provides
us
with
a
wide
range
of
concepts
–
toolboxes
–
to
narrate
and
to
understand
that
world.
Moreover,
theory
allows
ordering
these
concepts
into
articulated
narratives
that
claim
consistency
and
plausibility,
but
at
the
same
time
theorists
should
remain
vigilant
towards
the
contingencies
that
influence
these
concepts.
THEORY:
SPEAKING
ABOUT
THE
SOCIAL
WORLD
FROM
A
SEMI-‐AUTONOMOUS
POSITION
Theory
is
distinct
from
common
sense
and
common
practice;
theory
involves
abstraction,
versatility
(time),
hermeneutic
effort
and
a
sense
of
holism.
At
the
same
time,
theory
has
a
complex
relationship
with
the
concepts
circulating
in
the
social
worlds
that
it
seeks
to
describe.
First
of
all,
these
theoretical
concepts
are
not
located
outside
the
social.
In
outlining
his
notion
of
the
‘double
hermeneutic’,
Giddens
(1987:
20)
explains
that
philosophers
and
social
scientists
have
often
considered
the
way
“in
which
lay
concepts
obstinately
intrude
into
the
technical
discourse
of
social
science.
Few
have
considered
the
matter
the
other
way
around.”
He
asserts
that
“the
concepts
of
the
social
sciences
are
not
produced
about
an
independently
constituted
subject-‐matter,
which
continues
regardless
of
what
these
concepts
are.
The
‘findings’
of
the
social
sciences
very
often
enter
constitutively
into
the
world
they
describe”
(Giddens
1987:
20).
Yet
theoretical
concepts
also
need
to
(re)connect
with
these
social
worlds.
Gramsci’s
analysis
of
common
sense
is
grounded
in
the
difference
between
common
sense
and
theory,
in
combination
with
an
emphasis
on
the
need
to
connect
them.
As
he
puts
it:
“The
active
man-‐in-‐
the-‐mass
has
a
practical
activity,
but
has
no
clear
theoretical
consciousness
of
his
practical
activity,
which
nonetheless
involves
understanding
the
world
in
so
far
as
it
transforms
it.”
(Gramsci
1999:
333).
Theory
thus
needs
to
link
up
with
everyday
horizons,
and
not
remain
exclusively
within
the
confines
of
an
intellectual
elite,
alienating
from
practice
life
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
population.
To
quote
Gramsci
(1999:
331)
at
length
on
this
point:
“…
one
could
only
have
had
cultural
stability
and
an
organic
quality
of
thought
if
there
had
existed
the
same
unity
between
the
intellectuals
and
the
simple
as
there
should
be
between
theory
and
practice.
That
is,
if
the
intellectuals
had
been
organically
the
intellectuals
of
these
masses,
and
if
they
had
worked
out
and
made
coherent
the
principles
and
the
problems
raised
by
the
masses
in
their
practical
activity,
thus
constituting
a
cultural
and
social
bloc.
The
questions
posed
here
was
the
one
we
have
already
referred
to,
namely
this:
is
a
philosophical
movement
39
properly
so
called
when
it
is
devoted
to
creating
a
specialized
culture
among
restricted
intellectual
groups,
or
rather
when,
and
only
when,
in
the
process
of
elaborating
a
form
of
thought
superior
to
‘common
sense’
and
coherent
on
a
scientific
plane,
it
never
forgets
to
remain
in
contact
with
the
‘simple’
and
indeed
finds
in
this
contact
the
source
of
the
problems
it
sets
out
to
study
and
to
resolve?
Only
by
this
contact
does
a
philosophy
become
‘historical’,
purify
itself
of
intellectualistic
elements
of
an
individual
character
and
become
‘life’.”
We
can
note
that
this
has
wide
implications:
academia
as
a
centre
for
the
production
of
knowledge
and
the
generation
of
theory
must
expand
its
efforts
to
engage
in
joint
knowledge
production
and
dialogue,
e.g.
in
civil
society,
to
engender
participatory
knowledge
construction.
At
the
same
time,
the
independence
of
academia,
as
one
location
where
theory
is
generated,
needs
to
be
cherished.
One
way
to
capture
this
idea
is
to
refer
to
academia
as
a
semi-‐
autonomous
field,
capable
of
thinking
the
social
world
from
a
mixture
of
an
inside-‐oriented
and
outside-‐oriented
position.
This
argument
brings
us
to
the
second
reason
why
theory
is
socially
relevant:
It
allows
theorists
to
speak
precisely
from
this
inside/outside
position,
where
theory
–
because
of
core
characteristics
such
as
abstraction
–
can
distance
itself
from
the
(rest
of
the)
social
world,
exercising
a
semi-‐autonomous
position,
and
showing
complexities,
contingencies
and
absences.
At
the
same
time
this
distance
is
never
a
disconnection:
Theory’s
speaking
about
the
social
world
is
never
fully
outside
that
social
world;
in
contrast,
theory
is
worldly,
which
also
allows
theory
to
intervene
in
it.
THE
IMPORTANCE
OF
CRITICAL
THEORY:
DEMOCRACY
AS
A
NORMATIVE
GROUNDING
‘Critical’
is
another
multivalent
concept,
emanating
from
philosophy,
the
humanities
and
politics.
Our
perspective
here
builds
on
the
tradition
from
Hegel,
through
Marx,
and
various
emancipatory
projects
where
‘critical’
has
come
to
denote
a
confrontation
with
unnecessary
and
illegitimate
constraints
on
human
equality,
community
and
freedom.
In
other
words,
the
adjective
‘critical’
signals
a
concern
with
normatively
problematic
discrepancies
in
power
relations.
Theory
that
is
critical
incorporates
this
normative
dimension
into
its
toolbox,
becoming
thus,
at
a
general
level,
critical
theory
(not
to
be
confused
with
the
Frankfurt
School’s
specific
programme
of
Critical
Theory,
though
it
may
well
have
relevance
at
some
point,
depending
on
the
project
at
hand)16.
Critical
theory
claims
no
monopoly:
other
forms
of
theorising
are
also
necessary.
Critical
reflection
on
power
relations
can
be
seen
as
a
particular
moment
or
phase
of
a
research
endeavour,
or
may
well
constitute
its
dominant
character.
There
is
also
a
role
for
theory
to
engage
critically
against
prevailing
intellectual
status-‐quo
(i.e.
discursive
resources
and
their
hegemonic
positions).
Our
position
is
that
today,
given
several
problematic
trajectories
of
societal
development
at
both
the
national
and
global
level,
there
is
a
need
for
enhanced
reflection
on
problematic
power
relations
–
not
least
because
they
can
take
increasingly
subtle
16
A
fuller
d iscussion
o f
this
is
found
in
the
final
chapter
of
Dahlgren’s
(2013)
new
book,
The
Political
Web.
40
and
efficacious
forms,
within
institutions,
organisations,
and
larger
societal
contexts.
Power
relations
are
mediated
not
least
via
modes
of
knowledge
and
societal
position
that
they
have
(cf.
Foucault,
2002).
This
emphasis
on
power
(crucial
for
participatory
theory)
is
only
one
illustration
how
theory
can
produce
normative
anchorage
points,
and
allows
us
to
develop
critical
projects
that
strive
for
social
change.
In
this
sense,
theory
provides
discursive
structures
which
allow
us
to
formulate,
translate,
and
encapsulate
normative
positions.
We
can
readily
situate
these
considerations
within
the
framework
of
democracy,
seen
as
an
ongoing
normative
project
where
participation
in
decision-‐making
is
a
central
premise
and
where
power
arrangements
are
required
to
be
transparent,
accountable,
and
legitimate.
The
history
of
existing
democracy
is
chequered
yet
encouraging,
while
today
it
generally
finds
itself
in
a
situation
where
the
gaps
between
reality
and
ideals
seem
to
be
growing.
There
is
of
course
much
national
variation
here,
but
in
the
past
two
decades
there
has
emerged
an
international
recognition
that
democracy
has
hit
on
hard
times,
and
among
the
key
problems
are
the
declines
in
participation
in
the
formal
political
processes,
as
well
as
–
on
many
fronts
–
in
civil
society
activities.
There
is
a
hegemonic
discourse
that
underscores
the
theme
of
indifference
and
apathy
among
citizens,
thereby
defining
the
problem
as
emanating
from
the
people
rather
than
from
the
elites
and
the
structures
of
power.
While
there
are
certainly
patterns
of
passivity
at
work,
other
researchers
accentuate
such
things
as
various
mechanisms
of
exclusion,
the
lack
of
responsiveness
among
political
representatives,
the
dearth
of
opportunities
for
engaging
with
political
life,
the
de-‐politicisation
of
inherently
political
questions
via
economistic
rationality,
and
corruption
among
political
and
economic
elites
–
all
of
which
serve
to
deflect
participation
(and
even
engender
apathy
towards
the
formal
political
arena).
From
this
perspective,
research
engagement
with
the
life
of
democracy
needs
to
adapt
a
critical
stance,
that
is,
one
that
challenges
key
developments
in
regard
to
power
relations.
Theory
exactly
allows
producing
these
normative
anchorage
points
and
developing
critical
projects
that
strive
for
social
change.
CRITICAL
PARTICIPATORY
THEORY:
DE-‐DOXIFYING
MYTHS
AND
FANTASIES
One
way
to
move
critical
theory
further
is
to
shift
gear
and
integrate
(elements
of)
psychoanalytic
theory.
From
the
standpoint
of
psychoanalytic
theory,
our
subjectivity
is
never
fully
unitary
and
centred,
and
we
are
never
f ully
transparent
to
ourselves,
since
the
unconscious
always
intervenes,
as
it
were,
behind
our
back.
Thus,
our
actions
are
always
to
some
extent
shaped
by
factors
within
us
but
which
lie
b eyond
our
awareness.
That
people
are
to
a
significant
extent
driven
by
unacknowledged
desires
and
fears,
unresolved
guilt,
emotional
double
binds,
that
the
self
is
cloven
between
its
conscious
awareness
and
a
murky,
elusive
unconscious,
is
all
very
unsettling,
to
say
the
least,
if
one’s
point
of
departure
is
the
transparent
self
with
an
exclusively
rational
mindset.
However,
to
acknowledge
these
dynamics
within
our
subjectivity
opens
up
the
door
to
a
more
extensive
and
richer
theoretical
and
research
horizon
within
the
human
sciences.
There
are
a
number
of
versions
of
the
unconscious,
but
the
Freudian
model,
with
its
various
revisions
and
offshoots,
has
incontestably
become
the
dominant
one.
One
major
offshoot
is
found
in
Lacan’s
reformulation,
which,
among
other
things,
posits
that
the
subject’s
selfhood
i s
41
ultimately
fictitious,
being
founded
on
a
misrecognition
of
a
unified,
omnipotent
self
deriving
from
‘the
‘mirror
stage’
of
infancy,
where
the
small
child
sees
him/herself
in
a
mirror
but
does
not
understand
that
it
is
just
a
reflection.
Elements
of
this
pattern
continue
through
life
as
an
inexorable
part
of
our
subjectivity,
what
Lacan
calls
‘the
Imaginary
order’.
A
result
is
a
deep-‐
seated
perennial
lack,
as
Lacan
terms
it,
within
the
psyche.
This
poststructuralist
version
of
the
Freudian
self
is
thus
seen
as
an
imaginary
projection,
one
that
can
lead
the
adult
subject
into
problems
such
as
narcissistic
delusion,
if
it
cannot
come
to
terms
with
its
earlier
misconceptions.
In
Lacanian
psychoanalytic
theory,
fantasy
is
conceptualized
as
having
(among
other
functions)
a
protective
role
(Lacan,
1979:
41).
In
providing
the
subject
with
(imaginary)
frames
that
attempt
to
conceal
and
finally
to
overcome
the
major
internal
psychic
cleavage
of
the
lack
(Lacan,
1994:
119–120),
f antasy
functions
as
“the
support
that
gives
consistency
to
what
we
call
‘reality’”
(Žižek,
1989:
44).
Subjects
“push
away
reality
in
fantasy”
(Lacan,
1999:
107);
in
order
to
make
the
reality
(imaginary)
consistent,
social
imaginaries
are
produced,
accepted
and
then
taken
for
granted.
Nevertheless,
this
ultimate
victory
remains
out
of
reach,
and
eventually
all
fantasies
are
again
frustrated.
Their
limits
b ecome
visible,
showing
the
contingency
of
the
social.
However
important
fantasies
may
be
as
psychological
support,
critical
theory
needs
to
flesh
out
how
they
work,
illuminate
their
normalising
strategies,
and
highlight
their
limits.
Fantasies
can
become
readily
embedded
as
taken
for
granted,
assuming
positions
of
orthodoxy.
These
need
on
occasion
to
be
challenged,
to
be
rendered
so
to
speak
de-‐doxified,
where
‘doxa’
(a
term
we
b orrow
from
Bourdieu
1977),
i s
understood
as
prevailing
common-‐sensical
and
largely
unconscious
perceptions
about
the
world
and
one’s
place
in
it,
is
critically
confronted.
Critical
theory,
armed
with
psychoanalytic
tools,
can
help
reveal
that
which
is
repressed
–
made
invisible
–
by
the
psyche
and
rendered
invisible,
at
least
on
the
surface.
One
example
(developed
earlier
–
see
Carpentier
(2011a))
of
the
workings
of
fantasy
within
the
field
of
the
political-‐democratic
deals
with
the
fantasies
of
policy-‐making.
Arguably,
there
are
three
distinct
fantasies
at
work
in
policy-‐making:
the
post-‐political
desire
to
attain
political
consensus
in
the
face
of
social
conflict,
deploying,
in
a
contradictory
manner,
strategic
power
to
attain
it;
the
fantasy
of
social
makeability,
where
political
agency
via
formal
politics
confronts
the
(ever-‐growing)
domain
of
the
non-‐institutional
expression
of
the
political;
and
the
fantasy
of
universality,
which
envisions
political
and
social-‐cultural
unity
among
citizens
but
is
confronted
by
manifestations
of
the
non-‐incorporated
particular,
and
by
the
Other.
These
fantasies
can
be
seen
as
thematic
patterns
that
imbue
much
contemporary
policy
discourse,
which
in
turn
often
makes
claim
to
a
neutral
and
rationalistic
logic.
The
three
fantasies
are
summarised
in
the
table
b elow.
42
A
desire
for
Frustrated
by
Post-political
Social
makeability
Universality
Political
(Full)
political
agency
and
Political
and
social-‐
consensus
the
primate
of
politics
cultural
unity
Antagonism
and
The
conflict
non-‐institutionalized
component
of
the
political
The
particular
and
the
Other
Figure
1:
Three
key
fantasies
of
policy
(based
on
Carpentier
2011a:
121)
As
a
component
of
critical
theory,
the
analysis
of
political
fantasies
illustrates
that
theory
can
render
the
invisible
visible.
Through
such
logics,
theory
has
the
capacity
to
uncover
mythological
and
hegemonic
projects
that
benefit
from
the
cloak
of
taken-‐for-‐grantedness.
Theory
can
not
only
offer
a
deconstruction
of
universality
by
showing
i ts
particularity,
it
can
also
show
the
very
necessity
of
the
social
processes
of
universalisation
and
hegemonisation.
EMBEDDING
PARTICIPATORY
THEORY
IN
SOCIETY
Pulling
together
what
we
have
said
about
theory,
critical
theory,
and
democracy,
let
us
here
offer
a
thumbnail
sketch
of
participatory
theory,
in
order
to
discuss
its
societal
relevance.
Participatory
theory
is
seen
as
the
body
of
discourses
that
aim
to
describe,
explain
and
predict
the
decision-‐making
practices
of
actors
situated
in
imbalanced
power
r elations
and
the
attempts
to
redress
these
i mbalances.
Democracies
today
do
not
assure
full
and
authentic
participation
of
their
citizens,
either
in
electoral
or
in
extra-‐parliamentarian
contexts.
Democratic
systems
in
fact
provide
structures
of
opportunity
for
participation
that
can
vary
considerably.
Within
the
same
society
there
can
also
b e
different
obstacles
for
different
groups.
Participation
certainly
depends
on
the
i nitiatives
that
citizens
themselves
take,
but
a
fundamental
point
is
that
given
prevailing
power
arrangements
–
often
of
an
informal
kind
–
such
agency
is
always
contingent
on
circumstances.
A
particular
structural
problem
for
participation
(and
democracy
generally)
that
has
emerged
in
recent
decades
is
the
pattern
whereby
formal
political
power
moves
away
from
the
accountable
political
system
and
into
the
private
sector;
while
not
a
new
phenomenon
under
capitalism,
in
the
logics
of
recent
neoliberal
versions
of
societal
development
this
trend
has
intensified
dramatically.
When
market
dynamics
come
to
be
seen
as
the
most
suitable
path
towards
a
better
future,
democracy
and
the
opportunities
for
meaningful
political
participation
become
undermined.
Normative
frameworks
that
concern
justice
are
subverted,
as
economistic
values
seep
into
and
put
price
tags
on
just
about
all
areas
of
human
life,
derailing
the
foundations
for
democratic
political
discussion
(Sandel,
2012).
The
upshot
of
such
currents
is
often
a
process
of
depoliticisation.
If
we
then
look
at
the
field
of
alternative
political
participation,
we
see
many
citizens
engaging
politically,
but
outside
the
electoral
system.
Often
propelled
by
frustrations
that
the
established
parties
are
insufficiently
r esponsive
or
even
b y
a
sense
that
the
mainstream
political
system
marginalises
or
excludes,
many
citizens
are
finding
new
routes
to
engagement
and
43
participation.
Some
forms
of
engagement
are
leading
to
new
kinds
of
political
practices,
new
ways
of
being
citizens,
effectively
altering
the
character
of
politics
in
some
contexts.
Participation
is
fundamentally
an
expression
of
political
agency,
and
as
such
takes
on
relevance
in
the
context
of
the
political.
‘The
political’
refers
to
collective
antagonisms,
conflicts
of
interest
that
can
emerge
in
all
social
relations
and
settings
(see,
for
example,
Mouffe
(2005)).
This
is
a
broader
notion
than
that
of
politics,
which
most
often
refers
to
the
formalised
institutional
contexts.
Thus,
we
can
say
that
participation
i mplies
involvement
with
the
political,
regardless
of
the
character
or
scope
of
the
context;
it
therefore
always
in
some
way
involves
struggle.
Certainly
some
instances
of
the
political
will
be
a
part
of
formalised
politics
and
involve
decision-‐making
and/or
elections,
but
it
is
imperative
that
we
keep
the
broader
vista
of
the
political
i n
view
as
the
terrain
of
political
agency
and
participation.
We
can
note
that
in
today’s
society
that
there
may
at
times
be
some
ambiguity
as
to
where
to
draw
the
b oundaries
between
participation
in
the
political
and
the
non-‐political.
While
we
can
largely
dismiss
as
a
misuse
of
the
term
those
formulations
that
invite
us
to
‘participate’
i n
various
commercial
and
promotional
contexts,
we
need
to
b e
alert
to
possible
dimensions
in,
f or
example,
popular
culture
that
may
still
have
some
significance
f or
power
i ssues.
Carpentier
(2011b:
17)
makes
a
basic
distinction
between
minimalist
and
maximalist
versions
of
participation;
we
can
see
them
as
forming
the
poles
of
a
continuum
within
various
strands
of
democratic
theory.
The
minimalist
position
tends
to
emphasise
the
dynamics
of
representation,
where
power
is
delegated,
and
leans
towards
elite
models
of
democracy;
the
r ole
of
citizens
is
largely
limited
to
the
selection
of
their
representatives
through
voting.
Maximalist
versions
of
democratic
participation,
on
the
other
hand,
underscore
the
i mportance
of
achieving
a
balance
between
representation
and
promoting
other,
more
extensive
forms
of
participation.
In
attending
to
politics,
it
also
keeps
the
broader
view
of
the
political
i n
focus.
In
discussions
about
participation,
media
and
democracy,
another
distinction
is
often
made
between
participation
in
the
media
and
participation
via
the
media;
these
two
strands
have
a
long
history
of
entwinement
(see
Carpentier,
Dahlgren
and
Pasquali,
2013).
P articipation
in
the
media
involves
not
only
making
use
of
the
media,
but
can
also
imply
being
active
in
some
way
in
the
creation
of
content.
In
the
era
of
mass
media
such
opportunities
were
few
and
quite
constricted.
With
the
advent
of
the
web
and
its
affordances,
participation
in
media
has
certainly
been
transformed.
This
is
an
important
democratic
step;
still,
we
must
bear
in
mind
the
distinctions
in
scale
and
impact
between
on
the
one
side,
small
organisations,
groups,
and
individuals,
and
on
the
other
side,
major
corporate
actors.
The
corporate
colonisation
of
communicative
space
online
and
the
growing
domination
of
market
logic
on
the
web
of
course
has
i mplications
f or
power
r elations
online.
Participation
via
the
media
takes
us
into
social
domains
beyond
the
media.
Participation
in
these
domains
is
facilitated
by
the
media,
but
the
focus
of
engagement
lies
with
the
contexts
and
i ssues
that
media
connect
us
to.
I ncreasingly
our
relation
to
the
social
takes
this
route,
hence
the
contemporary
attention
accorded
to
the
concept
of
mediatisation.
A
crucial
point
concerning
this
concept
is
that
the
media
never
serve
as
neutral
carriers
that
simply
mirror
something
else,
but
always,
through
their
various
logics
and
contingencies,
impact
on
the
relationship
between
media
user
and
that
which
is
mediated.
44
LINKING
THE
TATS
COST
ACTION
WITH
PARTICIPATORY
THEORY
–
THE
SOCIAL
RELEVANCE
OF
PARTICIPATORY
THEORY
Theory
is
always
deployed
in
specific
contexts.
The
latter
part
of
this
article
analyses
how
participatory
theory
is
deployed
in
the
specific
context
of
the
TATS
COST
Action.
More
specifically,
this
part
is
inspired
by
26
individual
reports
written
by
members
of
Working
Group
2
of
the
TATS
COST
Action.
The
aim
is
to
illustrate
the
above-‐mentioned
social
relevance
of
theory,
and
to
apply
this
to
the
relevance
of
participatory
theory.
To
recapitulate
our
previous
discussion
on
the
relevance
of
theory
i n
general,
theory
matters
b ecause
it:
1/
provides
ways
to
order/structure
the
social
world
and
provides
us
with
concepts
(a
toolbox)
to
narrate
and
understand
that
world
2/
allows
us
to
speak
about
the
social
world
from
an
inside/outside
position,
showing
complexities,
contingencies
and
absences,
without
disconnecting
from
the
social
world
(and
allowing
interventions
in
it)
3/
produces
normative
anchorage
points,
and
allows
us
to
develop
critical
projects
that
strive
f or
social
change
4/
allows
to
make
visible
the
invisible,
and
show
the
particularity
of
universality
1. Concept of participation and related concepts
Participation
itself
i s
obviously
the
nodal
point
of
participatory
theory,
while
at
the
same
time
it
is
not
the
only
one.
Together
with
a
series
of
related
concepts,
such
as
interaction/interactivity,
engagement,
involvement,
empowerment
and
(co-‐)creation,
participation
captures
a
specific
set
of
social
practices
that
deal
with
the
decision-‐making
practices
of
actors
situated
in
imbalanced
power
relations
and
the
attempts
to
redress
these
imbalances.
Without
this
theoretical
toolbox,
it
would
remain
impossible
to
capture
these
social
practices.
At
the
same
time,
participatory
theory
validates
participatory
processes;
the
power
struggles
in
society
and
the
attempts
of
a
diversity
of
actors
to
increase
their
power
positions
gain
visibility
and
thus
relevance.
Here,
the
representational
is
performative;
through
the
logics
of
discursification,
a
specific
set
of
practices
is
grouped
together,
and
through
this
process
of
grouping,
that
set
of
practices
becomes
signified
as
relevant.
As
Sara
Henriques’
individual
report17
illustrates,
this
process
of
validation
can
also
be
exported
to
other
fields
(although
not
without
problems):
“academic
research
can
add
value
and
significant
to
interpret
in
a
deeper
way
stakeholder’s
data
by
considering
more
qualitative
analysis
or
by
using
more
than
descriptive
quantitative
data,
by
focusing
on
users
experience
and
by
assessing
other
details
that
industry
often
fails
to
parse,
which
are
more
related
to
the
social
17
The
term
‘individual
report’
is
used
to
refer
to
the
individual
reports
written
by
members
of
Working
Group
2
of
the
TATS
COST
Action.
The
list
of
individual
reports
that
were
referred
to
in
this
article
is
at
the
end.
45
involvement
allowed
by
technology
and
the
impact
of
technology
on
social
practices
and
r elationships.”
Moreover,
participatory
theory
allows
concentrating
the
attention
on
a
specific
type
of
process,
but
also
to
flesh
out
the
interconnectedness
with
other
social
processes
and
phenomena.
This
implies
that
a
wide
range
of
theoretical
concepts
become
articulated
with/in
participatory
theory,
allowing
for
its
mobilisation
for
the
analysis
of
the
social
world.
To
use
one
individual
report
as
illustration:
Jose
Manuel
Noguera
Vivo
writes
in
his
essay:
“I
would
argue
that
we
need
to
focus
in
a
deeper
way
on
the
systemic
changes
caused
by
the
influence
of
participation
in
spheres
and
processes
f ormerly
related
just
to
the
professionals.”
This
plea
f or
a
deepened
focus
on
participatory
processes
requires
the
concept
of
participation,
but
also
its
connection
to
the
concepts
and
models
of
journalistic
theory
to
explain
the
workings
of
the
participation
of
non-‐professionals
in
the
journalistic
field.
2. Showing their complexity (and contingency) / paradoxes
The
abstract
nature
of
participatory
theory
produces
particular
narrations
that
focus
on
the
complexity
and
contextualised
nature
of
social
relations,
driven
by
theoretical
elegance
and
the
confrontation
with
empirically
accessed
social
realities.
The
concept
of
participation
does
not
refer
to
a
very
straightforward
and
clear
social
process,
but
has
many
overlapping
and
contradictory
layers.
In
his
discussion
of
participatory
(open)
ethics,
Ward
(2011)
explains
how
judgements
about
participatory
processes
are
always
relative,
and
a
matter
of
degree.
Moreover,
participation
in
a
specific
process
might
be
intense
in
one
component,
but
minimal
in
another.
For
instance,
participatory
(open)
ethics
could
be
open
in
the
discussion
of
new
ethical
guidelines,
but
not
in
their
formal
adoption.
Often,
Ward
(2011:
227)
argues,
we
can
“only
r each
a
rough,
comparative
judgment”,
especially
when
“there
are
forces
pulling
in
opposite
directions.”
Examples
in
the
domain
of
media
production
are
situations
where
slowly
but
surely
forms
of
i nteraction
turn
into
(minimalist)
forms
of
participation.
Is
the
first
i nteractive
film,
the
Czechoslovak
Kinoautomat.
A
man
and
his
house
(1967),
where
audience
members
could
decide
on
which
pre-‐prepared
segments
would
be
screened
(see
Carpentier,
2011b),
interactive
or
participatory?
That
is
not
an
easy
discussion.
Labelling
this
interaction
or
minimalist
participation
becomes
an
analytical
decision
that
needs
to
be
argued
from
the
specificity
of
the
case.
Participatory
theory
shows
this
complexity,
but
at
the
same
time
cannot
stay
outside
this
complexity.
Also
at
the
level
of
theory,
the
signification
of
participation
is
part
of
a
“politics
of
definition”
(Fierlbeck,
1998:
177),
since
its
specific
articulation
shifts
depending
on
the
ideological
framework
that
makes
use
of
it.
Debates
on
participation
are
part
of
a
political-‐
ideological
struggle
for
how
our
political
realities
are
to
be
defined
and
organised.
An
i llustration
of
the
existence
of
this
conceptual
vagueness
can
be
found
in
Birgit
Stark’s
individual
report,
when
she
writes:
“Notwithstanding
this
strong
r esearch
i nterest,
there
is
currently
no
consensus
about
the
multi-‐faced
and
hard-‐to-‐grasp
concept
of
interactivity.”
Of
course,
conceptual
vagueness
is
omnipresent
in
academia
and
should
not
be
over-‐problematised;
but
at
the
same
46
time
this
conceptual
vagueness
is
also
indicative
of
the
ideological
political
struggle
over
this
concept.
This
struggle
is
not
only
located
within
the
domain
of
theory
development
(often
this
i s
academia),
but
often
involves
many
different
fields
of
the
social,
that
not
always
accepts
academia’s
self-‐legitimating
logics
(see
Lyotard,
1984).
As
a
concept,
participation
remains
a
construction,
which
can
be
studied
as
such,
but
it
also
requires
scholars
–
or
broader:
users
of
participatory
theory
–
to
apply
a
strong
self-‐
reflexive
position,
expressing
permanent
awareness
of
the
constructed
nature
of
the
key
concept(s)
they
use.
An
example
of
this
awareness
can
be
found
in
Mikko
Villi’s
individual
report,
f ocussing
on
User-‐Distributed
Content
(UDC):
“Thus,
along
with
discussing
the
relevance
and
the
implications
of
UDC
for
the
media
industry,
my
aim
is
to
refine
and
elaborate
on
UDC
as
a
concept
and
a
construct
i n
media
management”
(our
emphasis).
In
some
cases
theory
supports
a
more
explicitly
interventionist
strategy.
This
brings
us
to
action
research.
Action
research
has
been
defined
by
Reason
and
Bradbury
(2001:
1),
in
The
Handbook
of
Action
Research
as
seeking:
“[...]
to
bring
together
action
and
reflection,
theory
and
practice,
in
participation
with
others,
in
the
pursuit
of
practical
solutions
to
issues
of
pressing
concern
to
people,
and
more
generally
the
flourishing
of
individual
persons
and
their
communities.”
Action
research
is
a
broad
concept,
but,
as
Dickens
and
Watkins
(1999:
134)
remark,
it
is
characterised
by
“cycles
of
planning,
acting,
reflecting
or
evaluating,
and
then
taking
further
action.”
Arguably,
action
research
is
one
of
the
areas
where
participatory
theory
can
be
deployed
to
support
interventionist
strategies.
In
one
of
the
author’s
individual
report,
the
following
illustration
can
be
f ound:
“The
example
here
is
the
Estonian
National
Museum
(ENM)
project
in
which
I
was
involved,
entitled
‘Developing
museum
communication
in
the
21st
century
information
environment.’
This
project
was
aimed
at
introducing
a
more
maximalist
participatory
set
of
ideas
(and
practices)
into
the
EN
museum,
in
collaboration
with
the
University
of
Tartu
(especially
Pille
Pruulmann-‐Vengerfeldt),
and
staff
members
of
the
ENM
(and
the
Estonian
Literary
Museum).
Apart
from
more
regular
research
components,
this
project
also
had
a
series
of
interventions,
which
for
instance
consisted
in
allowing
(and
stimulating)
museum
visitors
to
comment
on
the
pictures
displayed
in
the
‘1000
Steps’
exhibition
by
adding
post-‐its,
or
in
the
organisation
of
an
open
curatorship
project,
where
non-‐museum
staff
members
could
propose
ideas
for
museum
exhibitions.
Out
of
the
proposed
exhibitions,
two
were
effectively
realised.”
(Nico
Carpentier’s
individual
report)
3. Critical dimension
Especially
the
emphasis
on
struggle
and
power
in
participatory
theory
allows
us
to
bring
in
the
critical
component
of
theory.
The
debates
on
participation
in
all
other
societal
fields,
including
media
participation,
have
a
lot
in
common
in
that
they
all
focus
on
the
distribution
of
power
within
society
at
both
the
macro-‐
and
micro-‐level.
The
balance
between
people’s
inclusion
in
the
implicit
and
explicit
decision-‐making
processes
within
these
fields,
and
their
47
exclusion
through
the
delegation
of
power
(again,
implicit
or
explicit),
is
central
to
discussions
on
participation
in
all
fields.
Through
this
focus
on
power,
participatory
theory
takes
on
a
critical
character
by
confronting
social
relations
of
power
that
deflect,
subvert,
or
even
exclude
forms
of
participation
where
they
in
principle
are
legitimate
and
valid.
Power
relations
are
not
necessarily
balanced;
on
the
contrary,
frequently
we
can
find
forms
of
minimalist
participation.
In
these
(very)
minimalist
forms
of
media
participation,
media
professionals
retain
strong
control
over
process
and
outcome,
often
restricting
participation
to
mainly
access
and
interaction,
to
the
degree
that
one
wonders
whether
the
concept
of
participation
i s
still
appropriate.
In
this
minimalist
version,
participation
r emains
articulated
as
a
contribution
to
the
public
sphere
but
often
mainly
serving
the
needs
and
interests
of
the
mainstream
media
system
itself,
instrumentalising
and
incorporating
the
activities
of
participating
non-‐professionals.
As
two
of
the
WG2
members
-‐
Marie
Dufrasne
and
Geoffroy
Patriarche
–
write
in
their
individual
report:
“On
the
one
hand,
citizens
often
do
not
feel
as
–
and
indeed
do
not
have
the
status
of
–
fully
‘ratified’
partners
in
the
decision
making
process.
On
the
other
hand,
relatively
powerful
interest
groups
and
lobbies
often
monopolize
participatory
initiatives,
which
leaves
few
room
for
associations
and
individual
citizens.”
(Participatory)
theoretical
frameworks
have
the
capacity
to
critique
the
tendencies
to
move
towards
these
minimalist
versions
of
participation,
and
to
portray
minimal
participation
as
the
only
possible
option.
The
risk
of
erasure
of
more
maximalist
forms
of
participation
also
occurs
at
the
conceptual
level:
Obscuring
the
link
with
the
main
defining
component
of
participation,
namely
power,
also
obscures
the
more
radical
(maximalist)
versions
of
participation
and
hegemonises
the
more
minimalist
forms
of
participation.
From
this
perspective,
for
instance,
the
conflation
of
access,
interaction
and
participation
is
actually
part
of
the
struggle
between
the
minimalist
and
maximalist
articulations
of
participation.
The
theme
of
participation,
when
set
against
the
media
landscape,
readily
turns
our
attention
to
the
practices
and
skills
that
people
have
in
their
use
of
the
media.
In
this
regard,
a
sub-‐field
of
inquiry
has
emerged
over
the
years,
called
media
literacy
(see
Erstad
et
al.,
2012,
f or
an
overview).
While
media
literacy
should
engage
with
technical
capacities
among
audiences/citizens
in
dealing
with
media,
a
critical
mode
must
also
facilitate
normative
reflection
about
media
in
regard
to
democracy,
consumption,
one’s
life-‐world,
and
so
on.
Media
literacy
that
is
critical
cannot
remain
an
individual
pedagogic
issue,
but
rather
must
be
inexorably
anchored
in
collective
contexts.
Basically,
critical
media
literacy
has
less
to
do
with
formal
education
and
more
with
democratic
agency:
empowerment
in
the
political
world
is
its
ultimate
goal.
Thus,
while
media
literacy
addresses
the
media,
it
must
also
connect
with
people’s
life-‐worlds
to
larger
societal
contexts
(see
also
Buckingham,
2009;
Livingstone,
2004).
Nurçay
Türkoglu
(2011
–
see
also
her
individual
report)
underscores
the
significance
of
critical
media
literacy
for
understanding
and
enhancing
participation,
and
notes
as
well
the
importance
that
researchers
and
intellectuals
who
engage
with
it
take
what
she
calls
a
worldly
disposition,
that
is,
that
they
are
engaged
with
society
and
its
problems
and
conflicts.
That
means
that
concerted
efforts
to
promote
critical
media
literacy
will
always
have
an
oblique,
tension-‐ridden
quality,
as
it
confronts
problematic
power
relations
as
well
as
well
as
what
she
48
refers
to
as
“alienated
audiences,
industrialised
academies
and
cynical
media
professionals”
(Türkoglu,
2011:
142).
Aside
from
a
general
resistance
to
theory,
especially
in
its
critical
versions,
critical
media
literacy
is
confronted
by
audiences
who
are
to
a
great
extent
embedded
in
and
defined
in
terms
of
consumerist
culture
by
media
industries
and
the
researchers
who
serve
their
commercial
i nterests.
4. Participatory fantasies
Finally,
deepening
the
critical
project,
we
can
turn
to
the
role
of
fantasy-‐driven
approaches
towards
participatory
theory.
This
approach
permits
us
to
deconstruct
some
of
the
core
hegemonic
logics
in
contemporary
Western
societies.
One
fantasy
is
based
on
the
idea
that
there
is
a
centre
of
society
and
that
this
position
is
taken
by
the
media
(see
Couldry
(2003)
on
his
work
in
regard
to
the
myth
of
the
mediated
centre).
The
expectation
that
participation
i n
the
media
is
a
privileged
channel
to
allow
for
participation
in
society
is
productive
but
also
problematic
as
it
ignores
the
complexity
of
the
polis.
This
limitation
does
not
mean
that
participation
i n
the
media
and
participation
through
the
media
are
irrelevant,
b ut
care
should
be
taken
that
an
evolution
to
a
more
balanced
society
i s
not
smothered
by
the
disappointment
over
participation
not
living
up
to
expectations
that
can
never
be
met.
A
second
f antasy
that
is
relevant
i n
the
debate
on
participatory
theory
i s
the
democratic-‐
populist
fantasy
of
the
disappearing
media
professional.
This
democratic-‐populist
fantasy
is
based
on
the
radicalization
of
a
cultural-‐democratic
discourse
that
articulates
the
media
professional
as
superfluous
and
about-‐to-‐disappear.
In
contrast
to
the
othering
processes,
which
privilege
the
media
professional,
this
democratic-‐populist
discourse
is
b ased
on
the
replacement
of
a
hierarchical
difference
with
total
equality,
manifested
in
the
unhampered
participation
of
citizens.
It
is
considered
to
be
a
populist
discourse,
because
(following
Laclau’s
approach)
it
is
based
on
an
antagonist
resistance
of
the
people
against
an
elite.
As
Laclau
(1977:
143)
puts
it,
“Populism
starts
at
the
point
where
popular-‐democratic
elements
are
presented
as
an
antagonistic
option
against
the
ideology
of
the
dominant
b loc.”
This
democratic-‐populist
fantasy
has
two
main
variations.
The
celebrative-‐utopian
variation
defines
the
equalization
of
society
and
the
disappearance
of
its
elites,
as
the
ultimate
objective
for
the
realisation
of
a
‘truly’
democratic
society.
Media
professionals
in
this
perspective
become
problematised,
and
the
symbolic
power
that
is
attributed
to
them
is
seen
to
be
obstructing
the
process
of
democratisation.
But
there
is
also
an
anxietatic-‐dystopian
variation,
based
on
the
fear
that
the
democratic-‐populist
discourse
might
actually
be
realized.
One
recent
example
i s
Keen’s
(2007)
The
Cult
of
the
Amateur,
where
the
‘amateurs’
who
produce
user-‐generated
content
come
to
b e
seen
as
a
threat
to
(expert)
tastes,
k nowledge,
and
truths.
CONCLUSION
Our
starting
point
was
an
emphasis
on
the
fundamental
importance
of
theory
as
a
toolbox
for
helping
us
to
understand
the
world;
it
is
the
intellectual
scaffolding
of
research
and
serves
to
provide
us
with
analytic
prisms
to
focus
on
the
social
world
and
make
it
more
understandable.
Theory
clarifies
our
premises,
makes
it
possible
to
sharpen
and
link
together
our
concepts,
and
allows
us,
from
a
semi-‐autonomous
position,
to
make
sense
of
our
49
observations.
Theory
also
specifies
normative
horizons,
and
critical
theory
prods
us
to
reflect
o n
problematic
social
relations
of
power,
not
least
in
relation
to
the
normative
dimensions
of
democracy,
and
the
hidden
corners
of
the
social.
What
applies
in
general
to
theory,
also
applies
to
a
more
specific
field,
participatory
theory.
Participatory
theory
in
particular
also
comprises
a
reflexive
dimension,
where
we
as
researchers
must
consider
how
and
where
we
can
and
should
participate
beyond
the
academic
setting,
utilising
our
skills
to
help
enhance
participation
in
the
social
world
and
increasing
the
societal
relevance
of
academia
in
general
(and
theorists
in
particular).
At
the
same
time
the
main
thrust
is
to
facilitate
the
participation
of
different
societal
groups
–
both
civic
and
commercial
–
in
societal
processes.
While
we
are
profoundly
troubled
by
the
onslaught
of
neoliberalism
in
terms
of
the
illegitimate
and
unaccountable
shifts
in
power
relations
that
it
involves,
we
underscore
the
essential
necessity
for
democratic
society
of
functioning
economic
processes,
commercial
activity,
and
market
processes.
It
is
a
question
of
framing
such
economic
dynamics
with
the
norms
of
democracy,
not
impeding
them.
Thus,
from
our
horizons,
participation
theory
extends
to
the
commercial
as
well
as
the
civic
–
while
retaining
a
firm
anchoring
in
the
critical
theory
of
power
relations,
which
whether
recognised
as
such
or
not,
criss-‐crosses
all
sectors
of
society.
Participatory
theory
in
i ts
critical
mode
can
thus
help
us
gauge
the
normative
democratic
character
of
existing
participation,
as
well
as
help
us
envision
more
enhanced
forms.
There
should
be
no
difficulty
in
filling
research
agendas
with
these
concerns
–
and
participating
with
them
i n
the
context
of
society
beyond
the
university.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buckingham,
D.
(2009)
‘The
future
of
media
literacy
in
the
digital
age:
some
challenges
for
policy
and
practice,’
in
Patrick
Verniers
(ed.)
Media
L iteracy
in
E urope:
Controversies,
Challenges
and
Perspectives.
Brussels:
EuroMeduc,
pp.
13-‐24.
Carpentier,
N.
(2011a)
‘Policy's
hubris.
Power,
fantasy
and
the
limits
of
(global)
media
policy
interventions,’
in
Robin
Mansell
and
Marc
Raboy
(eds)
Handbook
on
Global
Media
and
Communication
Policy.
London:
B lackwell,
pp.
113-‐128.
Carpentier,
N.
(2011b)
Media
and
Participation.
A
site
of
ideological-democratic
struggle.
Bristol:
Intellect.
Carpentier,
N.,
Dahlgren,
P.,
Pasquali,
F.
(2013)
‘The
democratic
(media)
revolution:
A
parallel
history
of
political
and
media
participation,’
in
Nico
Carpentier,
Kim
Schrøder
and
Lawrie
Hallett
(eds)
Audience
transformations.
Shifting
audience
positions
in
late
modernity,
London:
Routledge,
i n
press.
Couldry,
N.
(2003)
Media
Rituals.
A
Critical
Approach.
London:
Routledge.
Dahlgren,
P .
(2013)
The
Political
Web.
London:
P algrave.
Dickens,
L.,
Watkins,
K.
(1999)
‘Action
research:
Rethinking
Lewin,’
Management
Learning,
30(2):
127-‐140.
Erstad,
O.,
Amdam,
S.,
Müller,
L.,
Gilje,
Ö.
(2012)
Meta-analysis
of
reviews
on
media
literacy
and
media
studies.
Strasbourg:
ESF
background
working
paper
(unpub.).
50
Fierlbeck,
K.
(1998)
Globalizing
Democracy.
Power,
Legitimacy
and
the
Interpretation
of
Democratic
Ideas.
Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press.
Foucault,
M.
(2002)
The
Archaeology
of
Knowledge.
London:
Routledge.
Giddens,
A.
(1987)
S ocial
Theory
and
Modern
S ociology.
Cambridge:
Polity
Press.
Gramsci,
A.
(1999)
‘Notes
for
an
Introduction
and
an
Approach
to
the
Study
of
Philosophy
and
the
History
of
Culture’,
in
Antonio
Gramsci
and
David
Forgacs
(eds.)
The
Antonio
Gramsci
Reader.
Selected
Writings
1916–1935.
London:
Lawrence
and
Wishart,
pp.
324-‐347.
Keen,
A.
(2007)
The
Cult
of
the
Amateur.
How
Today’s
Internet
is
Killing
our
Culture.
New
York:
Currency.
Knapp,
S.,
Michaels,
W.
B.
(1982)
‘Against
Theory,’
Critical
Inquiry,
8(4):
723-‐742.
Lacan,
J.
(1979)
The
Seminar
XI.
The
Four
Fundamental
Concepts
of
Psycho-Analysis
(trans.
A.
Sheridan).
London:
P enguin.
Lacan,
J.
(1994)
Le
Séminaire.
Livre
IV.
La
Relation
d’Objet/The
Seminar.
Book
IV.
The
Object
Relation.
Paris:
Seuil.
Lacan,
J.
(1999)
The
Seminar.
Book
XX.
Encore,
On
Feminine
Sexuality,
the
Limits
of
Love
and
Knowledge
(trans.
B.
Fink
with
notes).
N ew
Y ork:
Norton.
Laclau,
E.,
Mouffe,
C.
(1985)
Hegemony
and
Socialist
Strategy.
London:
Verso.
Laclau,
E.
(1977)
Politics
and
Ideology
in
Marxist
Theory.
Capitalism,
Fascism,
Populism.
London:
New
Left
Books.
Livingstone,
S.
(2004)
‘Media
literacy
and
the
challenge
of
new
information
and
communication
technologies,’
The
Communication
Review,
7(1):
3-‐14.
Lyotard,
J.F.
(1984)
The
Postmodern
Condition.
A
Report
on
Knowledge.
Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press.
Mouffe,
C.
(2005)
On
the
Political.
London:
Routledge.
Popper,
K.
(1963)
Conjectures
and
Refutations:
The
Growth
of
Scientific
Knowledge.
London:
Routledge.
Reason,
P.,
Bradbury,
H.
(2001)
Handbook
of
Action
Research.
Participative
Inquiry
&
Practice.
London:
Sage.
Ritzer,
G.
(2007/2010)
Contemporary
Sociological
Theory
and
Its
Classical
Roots:
The
Basics.
2nd/3rd
editions.
St.
Louis:
McGraw-‐Hill.
Ritzer,
G.
(1980)
S ociology:
A
Multiple
Paradigm
S cience.
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.
Sandel,
M.
(2012)
What
Money
Can’t
Buy:
The
Moral
Limits
of
Markets.
London:
Allen
Lane.
Türkoglu,
N.
(2011)
‘Mediated
public
voices
need
theory
to
be
heard,’
CM:
Communication
Management
Quarterly,
21:
141-‐158.
Ward,
S.
(2011)
Ethics
and
the
Media:
An
Introduction.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Zima,
P .
V.
(2007)
What
is
theory?
Cultural
theory
as
discourse
and
d ialogue.
London:
Continuum.
Žižek,
S.
(1989)
The
Sublime
Object
of
Ideology.
London:
Verso.
Individual
TATS
COST
Action
reports
Carpentier,
Nico
(2012)
The
significance
of
participatory
research
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
nico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
51
Dufrasne,
Marie,
Patriarche,
Geoffroy
(2012)
The
s ignificance
of
our
research
on
citizen
participation
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
d ufrasne@fusl.ac.be
and
p atriarche@fusl.ac.be
Henriques,
Sara
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice
–
a
perspective
from
mobile
technology
research.
Portugal,
shenriques@ulusofona.pt
Noguera
Vivo,
José-‐Manuel
(2012)
The
radical
need
of
a
better
understanding
about
participation.
Spain,
jmnoguera@ucam.edu
Stark,
Birgit
(2012)
C hanging
News
Consumption.
Germany,
b irgit.stark@uni-‐mainz.de
Türkoglu,
Nurçay
(2012)
Scholarly
research
and
the
stakeholders
in
the
field.
Turkey,
nurcay.turkoglu@gmail.com
Villi,
Mikko
(2012)
Mobile
media
and
user-‐distributed
content
in
media
management.
Finland,
mikko.villi@aalto.fi
52
MEDIA,
DEMOCRACY
AND
CIVIL
SOCIETY:
THE
CHALLENGE
OF
DIGITAL
MEDIA
Peter
Lunt,
UK,
pl108@leicester.ac.uk
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
2
on
“Public
voice
and
mediated
participation”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
INTRODUCTION
A
central
theme
in
the
COST
Action
Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies
(TATS)
is
the
r ole
of
the
media
in
democracy
and
in
particular
its
role
in
supporting
civil
society
(the
formal
and
informal
institutions
that
support
public
life
and
underpin
democratic
participation)
and
civic
culture
(ways
of
living
that
enhance
engagement
in
social
and
political
life).
In
other
words,
media
have
always
played
a
dual
role
–
as
part
of
the
institutional
infrastructure
of
democracy
(as
the
‘third
estate’,
reporting
and
commenting
on
government
activity
and
providing
information
to
the
public)
and
as
a
context,
or
public
forum,
in
which
people
can
express
their
opinions
and
voices
and
potentially
participate
and
deliberate
in
democratic
politics
(Christians
et
al.,
2010).
The
media,
in
increasingly
diverse
forms
and
across
different
scales
are
implicated
in
both
formal
politics
(e.g.,
e-‐government)
and
in
the
informal
ways
in
which
individuals
and
groups
participate
in
the
political
(Mouffe,
2000).
While
democracy
predates
modern
media
of
communication
it
is
difficult
to
imagine
democracy
without
media
in
contemporary
mediatised
societies
(Hepp,
2013;
Halvard,
2013).
These
questions
have
been
given
a
renewed
purchase
in
contemporary
liberal
democratic
societies
because
of
the
way
that
the
internet
and
digital
media
are
transforming
politics
and
political
culture.
In
this
article,
I
will
first
map
out
some
of
the
main
contours
of
these
transformations
as
they
affect
public
engagement
in
politics
and
then
draw
on
the
work
of
members
of
the
COST
Action
TATS
as
examples
of
academics’
contributions
to
the
analysis
and
of
the
different
ways
i n
which
they
have
worked
with
and
f or
stakeholders
as
part
of
this
research.
The
latter
part
of
the
article
draws
on
the
idea
that,
in
this
period
of
transformation,
academics
are
both
aiming
to
contribute
to
academic
theory
and
research
but
also
wish
to
engage
with
policy
makers,
commerce,
civil
society
bodies
and
the
public
aiming
to
give
their
work
public
value.
THE
MEDIA,
DEMOCRACY
AND
CIVIL
SOCIETY
Despite
this
long
history
of
interrelation
between
media
and
democracy
(Keane,
1991;
Lichtenberg,
1990),
all
of
the
terms
implicated
in
that
relation,
democracy,
civil
society,
civic
culture,
media
are
in
transition
due
to
technological,
social,
economic,
cultural
and
political
change.
In
societies
with
a
long
history
of
liberal
capitalism
(in
the
Global
North
and
West)
democracy
is
challenged
by
increasing
economic
inequality
-‐
the
proliferation
of
social
difference
so
that
the
alignment
between
identity
and
political
affiliation
is
blurred
-‐
and
the
corresponding
lack
of
a
credible
sovereign
public
(White,
2000:
80-‐2).
Yet
these
were
the
assumptions
that
legitimated
welfare
state
liberalism:
that
economic
inequality
would
not
be
so
extreme
as
to
affect
political
influence
or
participation,
that
there
was
a
broad
public
consensus
53
that
legitimated
state
interventions
in
the
lives
of
citizens
and
that
an
active
civil
society
and
engaged
political
culture
reinforced
political
consent
(Mau,
2004).
I n
the
post-‐soviet
and
Central
and
Eastern
European
democracies
the
development
of
civil
society
and
the
opening
up
of
the
media
were
equally
important
aspects
of
the
development
of
democracy
(see
the
individual
report
of
Gintaras
Aleknonis,
2012).
If
it
were
possible
to
think
that
the
media
might
play
a
role
as
part
of
the
infrastructure
of
civil
society
in
welfare
liberalism
then
what
are
we
to
make
to
the
increasingly
global
and
regional
organisation
of
media
industries?
Thompson
(1995)
and
Held
(2006)
see
these
developments
as
a
critical
disjuncture
in
the
potential
for
democratic
politics
challenging
the
autonomy
of
nation
states
and
the
sustainability
of
civil
society
as
an
“autonomous
centre
of
culture,
able
to
foster
and
sustain
a
national
identity,
with
a
secure
environment
for
its
people”
(Held,
2006:
302).
Held
(2006)
points
to
the
ways
in
which
the
global
media
industry
has
developed,
with
great
rapidity,
over
recent
years
marked
by
the
spread
of
English
as
the
lingua
franca
of
many
areas
of
global
transaction
and
culture,
by
telecoms
extending
across
national
borders
with
extraordinary
speed,
by
the
internet
connecting
people
and
intuitions
across
the
globe,
by
international
tourism
continuing
to
expand
rapidly,
commerce
and
communications
spreading
across
borders.
As
Held
(2006)
argues,
i t
is
too
early
to
argue
that
these
developments
have
technologically
determined
a
global
media
led
culture.
However,
these
developments
make
important
incursions
into
the
cultural
and
communicative
coherence
of
the
nation
state
and
limit
the
capacity
of
political
and
civil
society
institutions
to
sustain
a
national
identity
and
an
engaged
political
culture
(Held,
2006:
302).
Consequently,
the
idea
of
a
sovereign
public,
living
in
a
bounded
territory
and
having
a
high
degree
of
autonomy
to
set
against
the
autonomy
of
the
state
and
the
power
of
commerce
is
supplemented
by
a
multiplicity
of
dispersed
orders
of
governance
and
of
political
culture.
The
challenges
to
civil
society
in
this
environment
are
as
acute
as
the
challenges
to
governments
and,
at
the
least,
as
Held
(2006)
suggests,
if
democratic
politics
is
to
be
realised
through
a
vibrant
civil
society
in
this
context
then
that
will
take
new
forms
not
as
a
global
public
sphere
but
something
more
complex
and
nuanced
consisting
of
a
dialectic
relationship
between
autonomous
associations
at
a
number
of
scales
(local,
national,
r egional
and
global)
and
across
a
range
of
political
concerns
(social,
cultural,
economic
and
environmental).
A
question
from
a
media
and
communications
perspective
is
whether
digital
media
technologies
which
contribute
to
the
shaping
of
these
challenging
conditions
for
democracy
might
also
enhance
the
potential
for
individuals
to
join
in
mediated
forms
of
association
which
can
sustain
political
autonomy
at
different
levels
from
the
local
to
the
global.
For
academic
theories
these
considerations
require
a
rethink
of
the
relations
between
media
and
civil
society
and
the
i mportance
of
this
for
democracy,
which
has
predominantly
b een
conducted
to
date
through
engagement
and
criticism
of
public
sphere
theory,
particularly
Habermas’
(1989)
account
of
the
Bourgeois
public
sphere
(for
an
overview,
see
Lunt
and
Livingstone,
2013).
Even
though
there
are
many
criticisms
of
Habermas
(Calhoun,
1992;
Dahlgren,
2009),
his
idea
of
a
public
sphere
of
discussion
and
debate
in
which
legitimate
public
opinion
might
emerge
to
contest
established
power
remains
influential.
Habermas
compared
the
role
of
the
media
in
early,
disorganised
capitalism
of
the
late
eighteenth
century
with
that
of
mid
54
twentieth
century
commodity
capitalism.
His
thesis
was
that
in
the
early
days
of
capitalism
the
emergence
of
a
new
class
formation
(the
Bourgeoisie)
took
place
in
the
context
of
a
cultural
public
sphere
that
enabled,
through
public
discussion
of
matters
of
social
significance
a
new
kind
of
reflexivity
based
on
reciprocal
dialogue
and
debate
by
private
individuals
coming
together
in
public
to
come
to
a
point
of
view
on
the
pressing
issues
of
the
day.
Equally
significant,
Habermas
argued
that
the
developing
institutions
of
liberal
democracy
were
influenced
by
this
culture,
reflected
in
the
development
of
a
complementary
relationship
between
civil
society
and
representative
parliamentary
democracy,
debate,
inquiry
and
political
agency
based
on
commitment
to
the
resolution
of
difference
i n
the
public
interest
(Lunt
and
Livingstone,
2013).
The
historical
voracity
of
this
account
has
been
criticised
as
having
a
lack
of
consideration
of
those
excluded
from
Bourgeois
culture
and
Habermas’s
claims
for
reasoning
as
a
universal
claim
to
legitimacy
(Fraser,
1992).
Nevertheless,
the
key
elements
of
Habermas’s
formulation
of
public
sphere
theory
are
relatively
uncontested:
the
idea
of
a
connection
between
the
culture
of
everyday
life
and
the
political
sphere,
the
i mportance
of
civil
society
as
a
means
of
encouraging
individuals
to
engage
in
reflection
and
of
a
parallel
between
legitimate
forms
of
public
engagement
and
political
debate
all
reflected
in
democratic
institutions.
Although
Habermas
can
be
thought
of
as
a
liberal
theorist,
his
theory
of
the
public
sphere
can
b e
regarded
as
a
view
of
radical
democracy.
The
public
sphere
potentially
links
everyday
life
to
politics
so
that
not
only
public
opinion
on
substantive
issues
is
taken
into
account
by
the
political
sphere
but
also
that
the
political
institutions
reflect
broader
political
culture
standing
in
a
dialectic
relationship
between
public
reason
and
political
debate
as
politics
becomes
a
process
that
formalises
public
deliberation.
Significantly,
for
Habermas
(1989),
early
print
media
were
at
the
centre
of
this
as
the
means
through
which
the
results
of
public
discussion
could
be
publicised
and
thereby
influence
the
political
sphere.
In
contrast,
according
to
Habermas,
by
the
mid
twentieth
century,
through
a
process
that
reflects
Weber’s
account
of
rationalisation,
the
media
became
businesses
and
no
longer
provided
the
means
to
articulate
emergent
political
opinions
so
that
the
dialectic
relation
between
public
deliberation
and
parliamentary
politics
was
severed.
Political
decision
making
was
rationalised
and
communicated
to
the
people
r ather
than
emerging
from
the
people
(Lunt
and
Livingstone,
2013).
Dahlgren
(2009)
has
written
persuasively
about
the
need
to
go
beyond
Habermas’
(1989)
formulation
of
public
sphere
theory
to
engage
with
the
more
nuanced
and
diverse
mediated
civic
cultures
that
provide
different
routes
to
public
participation
and
thereby
create
the
context
for
potential
engagement
in
public
and
political
spheres.
He
argues
that
mediated
civic
cultures
are
diverse
in
form,
loosely
corresponding
to
the
different
media
environments
in
which
they
occur
and
reflecting
different
media
logics.
He
therefore
makes
useful
distinctions
between
different
popular
cultural
forms
on
TV
that
enrol
audiences
in
subtly
different
forms
of
public
participation
and
contrasts
these
to
online
contexts
as
forms
of
embodied
agency
that
are
forerunners
of
the
conditions
for
engagement
in
these
more
diverse
and
dispersed
public
spheres.
He
also
explores
the
way
that
digital
media
are
influencing
media
logics
themselves
using
the
case
of
the
transition
to
online
journalism.
In
this
vein,
also,
Dahlgren
(2009)
b egins
to
explore
the
role
of
mediated
civil
society
bodies
(such
as
NGOs
and
online
activist
movements)
in
creating
a
link
between
the
deliberations
of
those
who
are
represented
by,
or
participate
in,
55
such
bodies
and
new
forms
of
governance
at
the
local,
national,
regional
(European)
and
global
levels.
THE
TASK
FOR
MEDIA
AND
COMMUNICATION
RESEARCHERS
From
the
above
discussion
we
can
see
that
there
is
a
large
task
facing
media
and
communication
researchers
who
wish
to
examine
the
mediatisation
of
civil
society
and
its
relation
to
politics
and
political
culture.
We
can
no
longer
expect
to
articulate
a
definitive
cluster
of
institutions
and
associations
at
the
national
level
(although
these
are
still
vitally
important),
but
will
also
need
to
include
mediation
of
civic
culture
in
popular
cultural
forms
as
well
as
in
factual
broadcasting
at
local
and
national
levels.
I n
addition,
we
can
expect
a
revitalised
localism,
a
recasting
of
national
level
civil
society,
strengthening
regional
and
global
forms
of
association.
In
addition,
and
perhaps
most
important,
we
should,
following
Held
(2006)
and
Giddens
(1990)
examine
the
ways
in
which
diverse
forms
of
association
at
different
levels
engaged
in
different
spheres
of
public
life
connect
and
play
off
each
other,
and
whether
this
connects
with
political
institutions
in
a
new
dialectic.
We
should,
at
the
same
time,
register
a
note
of
caution,
as
well
illustrated
by
Couldry
(2010)
in
his
analysis
of
the
fate
of
voice
i n
neoliberalism.
The
very
forces
that
provide
the
context
for
a
nuanced
account
of
deliberation
in
different
civic
cultures
at
different
levels
are
those
that
Couldry
reminds
us
are
behind
the
apparently
increasing
dominance
of
neoliberalism
around
the
world.
I n
this
article
I
will
look
at
research
conducted
b y
members
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
to
examine
how
they
are
thinking
about
the
role
of
the
media
in
supporting
civil
society
and
culture
in
contemporary
mediatised
society
and
the
implications
that
their
research
potentially
has
f or
this
i mportant
area
of
media
policy.
EXAMPLES
OF
RESEARCH
WITH
SOCIAL
PURPOSE
FROM
THE
TATS
COST
ACTION
Academics
who
have
b een
part
of
Working
Group
2
(WG2)
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
have
focused
on
research
on
media
audiences,
interaction
and
participation.
The
WG2
Task
Force
on
Public
Voice
and
Mediated
P articipation
has
particularly
addressed
the
issues
discussed
above
i n
relation
to
the
media
and
public
life.
In
this
article,
I
will
discuss
examples
of
research
by
members
of
the
TATS
COST
Action,
on
the
basis
of
26
individual
reports
written
by
WG2
members,
that
address
questions
r elated
to
the
role
of
the
media
in
democracy
and
in
particular
in
the
relationship
between
emerging
forms
of
digital
media
and
public
engagement
in
politics
and
political
culture.
In
this
discussion
I
will
examine
the
different
ways
in
which
academic
research
can
contribute
to
non-‐academic
audiences
concerning
these
important
transformations
in
the
relationship
between
media,
politics
and
society.
In
particular,
I
will
focus
on
the
question
of
how
the
internet
and
digital
media
might
sustain
an
engaged
political
culture
and
enhance
the
relationship
between
media
and
democracy.
To
bring
some
order
to
the
diverse
ways
in
which
this
research
potentially
provides
public
value
I
will
adopt
the
framework
suggested
by
Lunt
and
Livingstone
(2012)
following
Nutley
et
al.’s
(2007)
classification
of
research
as
a
contribution
to
evidence
based
policy.
Nutley
et
al.
(2007)
suggest
six
kinds
of
research
that
can
potentially
inform
evidence
based
policy:
1)
Knowledge
Driven
Research,
2)
Problem
Solving
Research,
3)
Political
Uses
of
Research,
4)
Tactical
Uses
of
Research,
5)
The
Interactive
Model
(sustained
interaction
between
r esearch
and
56
user
communities,
6)
The
Enlightenment
Model
(transcending
instrumental
uses
of
research
through
a
constructive
engagement
with
user
communities).
I
will
adapt
this
framework
in
this
context
since
the
focus
of
research
is
not
only
to
provide
evidence
for
policymakers,
but
on
broader
social
value
or
impact.
First
is
the
case
of
independent
academic
r esearch
conducted
for
theoretical
reasons
but
which
addresses
issues
of
public
concern
and
aims
to
contribute
to
public
debate
and
discussion
(knowledge
driven
research).
Second,
research
can
address
a
specific
project
as
consultancy,
problem
solving
research
or
aimed
at
providing
evidence
for
policy
debate
(consultancy/problem
solving
research).
Third,
research
can
be
developed
in
interaction
with
stakeholders
including
governments,
civil
society
bodies,
firms
or
the
public
(interactive
or
action
research).
Within
this
classification
of
research
activities
we
can
also
identify
different
potential
or
actual
user
communities
that
are
institutionally
grounded
(policy
makers
or
media
organisations),
civil
society
bodies,
individuals
or
groups
in
the
public.
CASE
STUDIES
1) Knowledge Driven Research
Most
of
the
statements
produced
by
researchers
in
WG2
are
examples
of
knowledge
driven
research
-‐-‐
reflecting
the
work
of
academics
producing
research
that
they
intend
to
be
of
value
to
policy
makers,
commerce,
civil
society
bodies
and
the
public;
basic
research
that
addresses
issues
of
public
concern.
In
the
TATS
COST
Action,
academics
are
conducting
wide
ranging
research
examining
the
implications
of
transformations
related
to
globalisation
and
the
development
of
digital
media
for
the
longer
running
concern
of
democratic
participation
as
discussed
above.
A
good
example
of
this
approach
is
the
work
of
Peter
Dahlgren
which
focuses
on
mapping
and
understanding
different
uses
of
media
in
political
participation
by
citizens,
examining
the
ways
that
both
linear
and
digital
media
are
used
in
participation.
I n
his
individual
report
he
writes:
“I
would
also
suggest
that
this
work
is
of
relevance
to
journalists
who
write
about
these
matters,
and
citizens
generally
who
wish
to
deepen
their
understanding
of
some
of
the
key
transformations
affecting
democracy”
(Peter
Dahlgren’s
individual
report,
2012).
Dahlgren
argues
that
it
is
a
central
part
of
academic
work
to
recognise
the
intellectual
challenge
of
the
mediatisation
of
public
life
as
being
one
which
requires
us
to
analytically
weave
together
aspects
of
social
structures
and
institutions
with
media
technologies,
the
socio-‐cultural
parameters
of
media
environments,
and
concrete
organisation
and
collectivities.
It
is
then
our
responsibility
to
disseminate
the
results
of
our
reflections
to
interested
civil
society
actors
who
are
concerned
about
enhancing
participation
in
their
activities
–
and
thereby
in
democracy
–
and
use
media
as
an
i mportant
tool
in
this
regard.
Dahlgren
also
suggests
that
rather
than
being
limited
to
the
immediate
practical
issues
facing
civil
society
and
the
links
between
media
and
democracy
in
a
digital
world,
academics
are
working
to
a
longer
time
horizon
and
seek
“to
contribute
to
deeper
reflection
and
the
development
of
long-‐term
strategies
based
on
a
more
profound
understanding
of
participation,
57
the
role
of
the
media,
and
how
both
of
these
relate
to
democracy”
(Peter
Dahlgren’s
individual
report,
2012).
Members
of
WG2
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
also
identify
that
academics
have
a
role
to
play
as
public
intellectuals
–
especially
at
a
time
of
social
and
technical
transformation.
In
his
individual
report,
Gintaras
Aleknonis
(2012)
discusses
the
important
role
that
academics
in
smaller
countries
have
to
play
in
both
researching
the
transformations
in
public
life
linked
to
mediatisation
in
their
countries
(in
this
case
Lithuania)
and
to
do
this
as
part
of
cosmopolitan
culture
thereby
contributing
to
the
dissemination
of
international
research.
In
this,
academics
recognise
the
importance
of
universities
not
only
as
centres
of
learning
but
as
critical
institutions
in
the
public
sphere
(Lunt
and
Livingstone,
2012).
Academics
can
provide
the
evidence
for
public
policy
through
their
research.
A
good
example
from
the
TATS
COST
Action
is
provided
by
Annika
Bergström
(individual
report,
2012)
discussing
her
research
into
political
participation
through
online
media
in
Sweden.
The
interplay
between
policy
relevant
research
and
theory
is
emphasised
as
interpretations
of
the
potential
of
digital
media
are
informed
by
political
theories
of
deliberation.
Bergström
reports
on
her
studies
of
how
political
parties
and
candidates
use
online
media
and
the
importance
of
an
emerging
understanding
of
digital
democracy.
Her
studies
using
national
representative
surveys
are
of
interest
to
political
organisations
and
public
authorities
who
aim
to
navigate
the
new
media
environment.
The
f ocus
here
is
on
the
emerging
knowledge
and
understanding
of
how
the
convergence
of
linear
and
digital
media
are
impacting
on
politics.
The
potential
public
value
that
this
research
has
as
“an
invaluable
public
resource
for
reflection
on
social,
political
and
economic
processes”
(Annika
B ergström’s
individual
report,
2012).
Lucia
Vesnic-‐Alujevic
(2012)
discusses
in
her
individual
report
the
potential
value
that
research
can
have
in
restoring
trust
in
communications
by
arising
from
the
increased
transparency
that
digital
media
brings
to
public
life.
The
research
focuses
“on
how
political
actors
and
European
institutions
can
use
the
Internet
in
order
to
promote
political
engagement
and
participation,
and
develop
trust
in
the
EU
institutions,
diminish
the
democratic
deficit
and
motivate
European
citizens
to
participate
in
politics”
(Lucia
Vesnic-‐Alujevic’s
individual
report,
2012).
This
f ocus
on
political
i nstitutions
i s
balanced
by
research
on
audiences
from
Norway
on:
“...
how
politically
engaged
young
people
use
social
media
for
political
purposes.
Based
on
focus
group
interviews
with
Norwegian
teenagers,
the
project
shows
that
social
media
have
become
an
important
platform
for
young
people
to
participate
in
political
activities”
(individual
report
of
Tanja
Storsul,
2012).
And
in
Spain:
“[…]
two
of
the
most
important
projects
with
these
topics
are
‘Digital
convergence
on
media
2006-‐2009’
and
‘eDemocracy
in
2008
political
campaign’,
both
with
public
funding.
A
research
line
linking
eDemocracy
with
Digital
Journalism
will
let
to
have
a
deeper
approach
to
the
unresolved
question
about
the
role
of
media
in
a
new
ecosystem
of
political
participation
with/for
media”
(individual
r eport
of
José-‐Manuel
N oguera
Vivo,
2012).
58
The
relevance
of
such
research
comes
partly
from
the
range
of
potential
stakeholders
and
the
sense
that
this
is
a
critical
moment
of
transition
in
public
life
in
which
the
media
are
playing
a
key
r ole:
“My
research
i s
directed
towards
the
broad
theme
of
democratic
participation,
with
a
point
of
departure
in
media
use.
[…]
Thus,
the
stakeholders
here
can
be
seen
as
a
vast
array
of
civil
society
and
political
organisations,
networks,
collectivities,
and
movements”
(individual
report
Peter
Dahlgren,
2012)
2) Problem Solving/Consultancy Research
Some
researchers
in
the
TATS
COST
Action
conduct
research
that
is
oriented
to
problem
solving
or
consultancy
research
focused
no
particular
policy
issues
including
in
support
of
the
companies
that
aim
to
adapt
to
or
to
enter
the
convergent
media
market.
Mikko
Villi
(individual
report,
2012)
for
example,
works
with
stakeholders
in
the
media
in
Finland,
including
media
companies,
news
organisations
and
media
publishing
houses,
addressing
the
strategic
challenges
these
face
in
converging
media
markets.
His
research
aims
to
help
broadcasters
adapt
news
sites
to
fit
the
needs
of
the
digital
audience
and
to
help
media
companies
to
develop
Web
2.0
interactive
strategies.
He
terms
the
new
approaches
to
audiences
that
are
required
in
convergence
culture
as
combining
social
curation
and
user-‐distributed
content.
This
research
also
involves
examining
audiences
as
hyperlocal
news
content
creators
based
on
studies
in
the
Helsinki
area.
It
is
complemented
by
input
into
the
design
of
mobile
and
online
ICT
solutions
to
enable
local
contributions
and
guidance
on
how
firms
can
develop
crowdsourcing
methods
and
feedback
mechanisms
based
on
academic
research
into
participation
preferences
and
motivations
and
improving
the
quality
of
online
contributions
(Heli
Väätäjä’s
individual
report,
2012).
This
work
in
Finland
is
part
of
a
broader
collaboration
between
industry
and
academia
in
which
academics
play
a
k ey
role
in
r esearch
and
development
for
industry
as
part
of
a
national
research
project
‘Next
Media’.
Similar
collaborative
research
is
reported
by
Tanja
Storsul
(individual
report,
2012)
which
aims
to
help
companies
to
combine
innovations
in
online
services
with
viable
business
models.
Working
with
stakeholders
to
enhance
interactivity
through
digital
media
occurs
at
different
levels
of
abstraction
including
government
agencies.
For
example,
a
key
stakeholder
in
innovations
that
might
use
the
advantages
of
digital
media
to
increase
political
engagement
is
the
political
sphere.
Several
TATS
COST
Action
members
are
engaged
in
this
type
of
research,
producing
ideas
based
on
the
study
of
online
interaction
to
give
advice
to
governments
(Lucia
Vesnic-‐Alujevic’s
individual
report,
2012).
Similarly,
again
at
the
European
level,
academic
studies
are
used
to
develop
models
of
good
and
bad
practice
(individual
report
of
Marie
Dufrasne
and
Geoffroy
Patriarche,
2012).
These
researchers
aim
to
develop
a
framework
for
analyzing
EU
participation
initiatives,
developing
the
concept
of
‘participatory
genres’
in
which
initiatives
such
as
consultations,
petitions
and
expert
juries
are
examined
as
“organising
structures”
(Orlikowski
and
Y ates,
1998).
The
potential
to
build
shared
expectations
about
these
initiatives
in
participation
is
seen
to
b e
central
to
their
success.
They
argue
that:
59
“For
the
initiators,
designers,
promoters
and
managers
of
participatory
projects,
it
is
thus
important
to
clarify
the
participatory
genres
that
structure
their
initiative
and
to
provide
the
citizens
with
all
the
resources
needed
in
order
to
enact
appropriate
genres.
The
participatory
genre
approach
is
relevant
to
associations
and
citizens
as
well:
recognising,
enacting
and
negotiating
appropriate
participatory
genres
are
important
conditions
to
participation”
(individual
report
of
Marie
Dufrasne
and
Geoffroy
Patriarche,
2012).
At
a
national
level,
Miroljub
Radojković
(individual
report,
2012)
deploys
academic
analysis
on
cross-‐media
in
his
work
advising
the
Serbian
government
on
the
drafting
of
cultural
policy
legislation.
Nico
Carpentier
(individual
report,
2012)
has
collaborated
with
the
Czech
media
regulator
RRTV,
in
assisting
them
to
organise
a
consultation
about
the
implementation
of
community
media
regulation:
“This
collaboration
resulted
in
a
green
paper,
co-‐authored
by
RRTV
staff,
community
media
activists
and
myself.
The
results
of
this
consultation
are
currently
being
processed,
although
it
is
likely
that
a
slower
process
of
conscience-‐raising
will
have
to
be
organised.”
(Nico
Carpentier’s
individual
report,
2012)
We
have
seen
that
academics
understand
their
basic
research
as
influencing
public
knowledge
and
debate,
that
they
are
involved
in
a
variety
of
collaborative
projects
with
a
range
of
stakeholders.
In
addition,
as
a
result
of
their
research
expertise,
academics
are
often
called
upon
to
provide
policy
advice
or
act
as
consultants.
3) The Interactive Model
There
are
a
number
of
projects
being
conducted
by
members
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
that
have
developed
an
interactive
model,
which
combines
stakeholder
engagement
in
research,
an
attempt
to
influence
deliberation
and
public
debate,
has
a
collaborative
orientation
with
stakeholders
and
looks
to
develop
an
interaction
with
user
communities
as
part
of
the
research.
Nico
Carpentier
(individual
report,
2012)
uses
(together
with
Pille
Pruulmann-‐Vengerfeldt
and
Pille
Runnel)
action
research
in
a
civil
society
context,
Peter
Lunt
and
Sonia
Livingstone
(2012)
developed
an
interactive
research
project
(published
in
their
book
Media
Regulation)
looking
at
the
role
of
the
UK
media
regulator
Ofcom
as
an
institution
in
the
public
sphere
and
Beybin
Kejanlioglu
(individual
report,
2012)
develops
an
interactive
research
project
with
alternative
media
in
Turkey.
Nico
Carpentier
(individual
r eport,
2012)
f ocuses
on
civil
society
(with
some
r eference
to
their
relations
with
government)
and
argues
that
impact
on
user
communities
is
most
likely
to
result
if
there
is
a
direct
interaction
between
academics
and
non-‐academic
stakeholders.
In
his
individual
report,
he
reviews
examples
of
previous
studies
that
have
developed
interactions
between
researchers
and
user
communities
as
a
model
of
research
with
social
significance.
For
example,
he
discusses
the
Civil
Media
Unconferences,
organised
b y
the
Austrian
Radiofabrik 18:
18
http://www.radiofabrik.at/
60
“These
Unconferences
were
not
only
locations
where
academics
and
community
media
activists
and
producers
could
meet,
but
these
Unconferences
were
also
organised
by
a
group
of
people
from
diverse
backgrounds.
In
the
case
of
the
2011
Civil
Media
Unconference,
six
content
streams
were
included
in
the
programme,
four
of
which
(on
Public
Value
and
Community
Media;
Feminist
Media
Production
in
Europe;
Cross
Media
Publishing
;
and
Alternative
Funding
Methods/Crowdfunding)
were
organised
by
community
media
activists/producers,
while
two
others
were
organised
by
academics”
(Nico
Carpertier’s
individual
report,
2012)
Nico
Carpentier
(individual
report,
2012)
also
discusses
the
example
of
the
2011
CMFE
conference
i n
Cyprus19,
where
a
dialogue
developed
between
members
of
the
Community
Media
Forum
Europe20
and
academics,
regulators,
representatives
of
the
council
of
Europe
and
the
UNDP.
Out
of
these
dialogic
contexts
interactive
research
developed
in
which
Nico
Carpentier
worked
with
the
Cyprus
Community
Media
Centre
(CCMC).
This
collaboration
led
to
joint
academic-‐practitioner
publications
and
a
developing
role
for
Nico
Carpentier
as
a
policy
advisor
to
the
development
community
media
legislation
in
Cyprus.
Nico
Carpentier
(individual
report,
2012)
argues
for
a
dialogic
approach
to
action
research
that
combines
academic
research,
consultation
and
meetings
with
stakeholders
that
Dickens
and
Watkins
(1999:
134)
characterise
as
“cycles
of
planning,
acting,
reflecting
or
evaluating,
and
then
taking
f urther
action.”
Peter
Lunt
and
Sonia
Livingstone
(Media
Regulation,
2012)
in
their
research
on
the
UK
media
regulator
Ofcom
examine
the
role
of
the
regulator
as
an
institution
that
engages
a
variety
of
stakeholders
in
issues
of
media
policy
and
regulation
at
a
number
of
levels.
They
examine
the
variety
of
ways
in
which
the
public
are
engaged
in,
or
configured
through,
regulatory
practice.
For
example,
as
consumers,
people
are
engaged
through
annual
consumer
surveys,
through
the
analysis
of
consumer
complaints
and
through
the
Consumer
Panel
set
up
to
r epresent
consumer
issues
within
the
regulator.
Each
of
these
provide
different
contexts
of
engagement
with
their
own
logics
and
provide
multiple
perspectives
on
consumer
concerns.
P eople
are
also
engaged
a s
citizens
by
the
regulator
through
its
work
on
public
service
broadcasting,
through
the
possibility
of
engaging
in
consultation
and
by
giving
their
opinions
on
matters
related
to
media.
Civil
society
bodies
and
the
industry
are
also
stakeholders
engaged
in
consultation
as
well
as
being
regulated
and
providing
information
to
the
regulator.
Although
there
is
no
hard
and
fast
distinction,
the
voices
of
citizens
are
represented
in
different
ways
to
the
concerns
of
consumers.
These
modes
of
engagement
with
consumers
and
citizens
are
manifold
in
form
and
provide
a
complex
set
of
interconnections
between
audiences
and
publics
and
a
variety
of
stakeholders
from
the
industry.
In
Media
Regulation,
Peter
Lunt
and
Sonia
Livingstone
(2012)
argue
that
through
this
range
of
activities
the
regulator
plays
a
role
as
an
institution
in
the
public
sphere
that
can
be
evaluated
according
to
Habermas’
normative
criteria
for
public
institutions
that
combine
legitimacy
and
effectiveness
by
articulating
the
public
interest,
balancing
constraints,
combining
legitimacy
and
effectiveness,
and
ensuring
reflexivity
regarding
the
19
http://www.cmfe.eu/conference2011
20
http://www.cmfe.eu/
61
consequences
of
regulation.
The
complexity
of
the
practical
connections
that
are
maintained
and
sustained
by
the
regulator
suggest
that
there
i s
no
unitary
institutional
logic
of
this
organisation
and
that,
while
it
i s
a
principled,
statutory
regulator,
in
practice
it
i s
connected
in
networks
with
a
wide
range
of
bodies.
This
research
raises
the
question
of
the
role
of
public
institutions
in
enabling
both
a
variety
of
forms
of
deliberation
and
linking
these
to
different
bodies
and
institutions
at
different
levels
of
abstract.
Furthermore,
the
study
raises
questions
about
the
normative
legitimation
of
this,
relatively
independent
arm
of
the
state
–
indicating
a
form
of
governance
that
although
apparently
located
within
a
single
institution
nevertheless
operates
across
a
dispersed
range
of
connections
which
include
publics,
firms,
government
and
civil
society
bodies.
These
arrangements
seriously
challenge
normative
theories
of
the
media,
indeed,
theories
of
power
grounded
in
the
governmentality
interpretation
of
Foucault’s
work
urge
us
to
move
away
from
the
normative
traditions
of
critical
theory
and
to
embrace
a
theory
of
power
that
seems
more
suited
to
late
capitalism
f ocused
on
the
tactics
and
arts
of
government.
There
are
two
broad
implications
of
these
ideas:
that
normative
theories
need
revision
and
that
there
is
a
major
task
ahead
of
researchers
in
media
and
communications
to
conduct
empirical
studies
of
the
mediatisation
of
politics
(Couldry,
2010;
Hepp,
2013;
Halvard,
2013).
This
work
also
illustrates
an
approach
to
producing
academic
work
with
social
value
since
it
addresses
a
question
of
social
significance
from
an
academic
perspective.
The
research
was
conducted
through
an
engagement
with
various
stakeholders
including
the
media
r egulator,
civil
society
bodies
and
members
of
the
public.
In
other
words,
in
parallel
with
the
analysis
of
the
changing
role
of
institutions,
sits
recognition
of
research
in
the
field
of
media
and
communications
to
develop
i n
interaction
with
its
user
communities.
A
third
example
of
research
by
TATS
COST
Action
researchers
developing
an
interaction
with
a
user
community
focused
on
the
role
of
alternative
media
in
civic
participation
in
Turkey
(Beybin
Kejanlioglu’s
individual
report,
2013).
Her
individual
report
discussed
a
study
with
bianet.org
(an
Independent
Communication
Network)
including
interviews
with
the
producers
of
bianet
news
and
focus
groups
with
users
which
are
interpreted
as
demonstrating
three
distinct
f orms
of
online
interactivity:
“First,
there
are
specific
publics
oriented
towards
specific
policies
and
changes,
their
different
styles
of
protest
and
their
non-‐hierarchical
media
participation.
Second,
there
is
the
level
of
inter-‐public
relations
or
networks
of
different
publics
which
sometimes
act
as
temporary
elisions
surrounding
issues
as,
for
example,
situations
when
women
activists
with
different
orientations
come
together
to
protest
against
the
Civil
Code,
or
more
enduring
examples
such
as
a
news
network.
Third,
there
is
public
participation
in
political
decision-‐making
processes”
(Beybin
Kejanlioglu’s
individual
report,
2012).
CONCLUSIONS
The
broad
background
to
the
work
of
academics
in
media
and
communications
concerned
with
issues
of
public
voice
and
mediated
participation
includes
a
sensitivity
to
the
ways
that
media
and
communications
technologies
are
part
of
broader
social,
cultural,
political
62
and
economic
changes
on
a
global
scale
with
a
variety
of
implications
for
national
and
local
social
order.
Researchers
aim
to
provide
critical
commentary
and
empirical
evidence
on
the
changing
opportunities
for
the
public
to
have
a
say
in
decisions
that
affect
their
lives
and
to
engage
in
civil
society
and
political
activities.
Much
of
our
understanding
of
how
media
are
implicated
in
social
and
political
processes
is
derived
from
mass
media
in
nation
states
with,
in
the
European
context,
a
focus
on
public
media.
These
arrangements,
in
place
for
over
50
years
in
the
post
second
world
war
era,
are
all
in
transition,
changing
the
established
balance
between
the
state
and
commerce,
providing
new
opportunities
but
also
challenges
to
the
articulation
of
citizen
interests
and
to
our
understanding
of
the
r oles
of
media
in
the
broader
political
process.
At
such
times
of
transformation,
academics
have
a
responsibility
to
reflect
and
to
question
the
implications
of
changes;
in
our
case,
as
media
and
communications
researchers
interested
in
media
and
democracy,
the
task
is
to
examine
the
implications
for
the
possibilities
for
public
voice
arising
from
the
remediation
of
participation
and
deliberation
in
the
digital
media
landscape.
The
research
reported
here
uses
a
variety
of
approaches
to
engagement
with
stakeholders
and
user
communities.
There
is
a
variety
of
work
being
done
by
members
of
WG2
and
its
Task
Force
on
Public
Voice
and
Mediated
Participation
that
have
implications
for
these
concerns;
research
provides
both
relevant
evidence
about
changing
uses
of
media
and
reflections
on
the
broader
implications
of
these
data
for
media
policy,
for
industry,
for
civil
society
and
for
the
public.
This
article
has
identified
a
range
of
different
approaches
that
combine,
in
different
ways,
the
development
of
theory,
engagement
with
public
debate,
empirical
research
with
a
social
purpose,
consultation
and
policy
advice,
action
research
and
interaction
research.
Evidently,
academics
in
the
field
of
media
and
communication
have
begun
the
process
of
researching,
analyzing
and
disseminating
their
ideas
about
how
the
convergent
media
environment
affects
the
links
b etween
civil
society,
audiences
and
politics.
REFERENCES
Calhoun,
C.
(ed.)
(1992)
Habermas
and
the
Public
Sphere.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
Christians,
G.
C.,
Glasser,
T.
L.,
McQuail,
D.,
Kaarle
Nordenstreng
D.
and
White,
R.
A.
(2010)
Normative
Theories
of
the
Media:
Journalism
in
Democratic
Societies.
Chicago:
University
of
Illinois
Press.
Couldry,
N.
(2010)
Why
Voice
Matters:
Culture
and
politics
after
neoliberalism.
London:
Sage.
Dahlgren,
P.
(2009)
Media
and
Political
Engagement:
Citizens,
communication,
and
democracy.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Dickens,
L.,
Watkins,
K.
(1999)
‘Action
research:
Rethinking
Lewin’,
Management
Learning,
30(2):
127-‐140.
Giddens,
A.
(1990)
The
Consequences
of
Modernity.
Cambridge:
Polity.
Habermas,
J.
(1989
[1962])
The
Structural
Transformation
of
the
Public
Sphere:
An
Inquiry
into
a
category
of
Bourgeois
S ociety.
Cambridge:
Polity
Press.
Halvard,
S.
(2013)
The
Mediatization
of
Culture
and
Society.
London:
Routledge.
Held,
D.
(2006)
Models
of
Democracy
(3rd
Edition).
Cambridge:
Polity.
Hepp,
A.
(2013)
Cultures
of
Mediatization.
Cambridge:
Polity.
Keane,
J.
(1991)
The
Media
and
Democracy.
Cambridge:
P olity.
63
Lichtenberg,
J.
(1990)(Ed.)
Democracy
and
the
Mass
Media.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Lunt,
P.,
Livingstone,
S.
(2012)
Media
Regulation:
Governance
and
the
Interests
of
Citizens
and
Consumers.
London:
Sage.
Lunt,
P.,
Livingstone,
S.
(2013).
Media
studies'
fascination
with
the
concept
of
the
public
sphere:
Critical
reflections
and
emerging
debates.
Media,
Culture
a nd
Society,
35(1):87-‐96.
Mau,
S.
(2004)Welfare
Regimes
and
the
Norms
of
Social
Exchange
.
Current
Sociology,
52(1):
53–
74
Mouffe,
C.
(2000)
Deliberative
Democracy
or
Agonistic
Pluralism.
Political
Science
Series,
Working
Paper
72,
Institute
for
Advanced
Studies,
Vienna.
Available
at:
http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_72.pdf
(accessed
October
2012).
Nutley,
S.
M.,
Walter,
I.,
Davies,
H
T.
O.
(2007)
Using
Evidence:
How
research
can
inform
public
services.
Bristol:
P olicy
Press.
Thompson,
J.
(1995)
The
Media
and
Modernity.
Cambridge:
P olity.
White,
S.
K.
(2000)
Sustaining
Affirmation:
The
strengths
of
weak
ontology
in
political
theory.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Individual
TATS
COST
Action
reports
Aleknonis,
Gintaras
(2012)
How
my
research
has
been
useful,
or
could
be
useful,
for
which
stakeholders
in
the
field?
Some
reflections.
Lithuania,
a leknonis@mruni.eu
Bergström,
Annika
(2012)
Audience
interactivity
and
participation.
Sweden,
annika.bergstrom@jmg.gu.se
Carpentier,
Nico
(2012)
The
significance
of
participatory
research
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
nico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Dahlgren,
Peter
(2012)
Individual
report:
The
relevance
of
my
research.
Sweden,
Peter.Dahlgren@mkj.lu.se
Dufrasne,
Marie,
Patriarche,
Geoffroy
(2012)
The
s ignificance
of
our
research
on
citizen
participation
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
d ufrasne@fusl.ac.be
and
p atriarche@fusl.ac.be
Kejanlioglu,
Beybin
D.
(2012)
An
Individual
Report
on
“the
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice”.
Turkey,
b eybink@hotmail.com
Noguera
Vivo,
José-‐Manuel
(2012)
The
radical
need
of
a
better
understanding
about
participation.
Spain,
jmnoguera@ucam.edu
Radojković,
Miroljub
(2012)
Significance
of
my
research
to
social
practice.
Serbia,
miroljub.radojkovic@fpn.bg.ac.rs
Storsul,
Tanja
(2012)
Individual
report
on
“The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice”.
Norway,
tanja.storsul@media.uio.no
Väätäjä,
Heli
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice.
F inland,
h eli.vaataja@tut.fi
Vesnic-‐Alujevic,
Lucia
(2012)
How
my
research
has
been
useful,
or
could
be
useful,
for
which
stakeholders
in
the
field?
Italy,
lucy.vessal@gmail.com
Villi,
Mikko
(2012)
Mobile
media
and
user-‐distributed
content
in
media
management.
Finland,
mikko.villi@aalto.fi
64
65
EMERGING
TOPICS
IN
THE
RESEARCH
ON
DIGITAL
AUDIENCES
AND
PARTICIPATION:
AN
AGENDA
FOR
INCREASING
RESEARCH
EFFORTS
Francesca
Pasquali,
Italy,
francesca.pasquali@unibg.it
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
4
on
“Cross-‐media
production
and
audience
involvement”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
José-‐Manuel
Noguera
V ivo,
Spain,
jmnoguera@ucam.edu
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
4
on
“Cross-‐media
production
and
audience
involvement”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
Mélanie
Bourdaa,
France,
melaniebourdaa@yahoo.fr
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
4
on
“Cross-‐media
production
and
audience
involvement”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
INTRODUCTION
One
of
the
elements
that
i s
defining
the
(research
on
the)
changing
roles
of
audiences
is
a
series
of
new
features
in
the
media
landscape,
such
as
the
diffusion
of
social
media,
locative
media,
and
apps.
The
media
landscape
is
now
in
the
process
of
b ecoming
what
we
can
call
–
from
a
social
and
technological
perspective
–
a
new
large
technological
system
(Hughes,
1987)
that
provides
the
infrastructure
for
mediated
and
interpersonal
communication,
and
for
social
interaction.
This
infrastructure
for
“networked
communication”
(Cardoso,
2008)
is
characterised
by
1)
the
connection
of
mass
media
and
interpersonal
communication;
2)
a
new
articulation
of
the
time/space
structure;
3)
different
dynamics
of
value
creation;
and
4)
different
degrees
of
access,
interactivity
and
participation
both
in
media
and
through
media
(Carpentier,
2011:
67).
It
is
a
new
communicative
scenario
full
of
“risky
opportunities”,
to
quote
Sonia
Livingstone’s
(2008)
catchy
phrase
i n
the
title
of
a
New
Media
&
Society
article.
The
article
discusses
these
changes,
and
the
ways
that
they
have
been
and
need
to
be
thematised
in
academic
research,
from
a
slightly
unusual
perspective,
as
it
is
based
on
an
analysis
of
the
individual
reports21
produced
by
the
members
of
Working
Group
2
of
the
COST
Action
Transforming
Audiences
Transforming
Societies
(TATS),
which
are
dealing
with
the
new
digital
environment
and
the
stakes
of
these
transformations.
The
article
is
also
grounded
in
the
work
(and
topical
focus)
of
the
“Cross-‐media
Production
and
Audience
I nvolvement”
Task
Force
of
Working
Group
2.
These
perspectives
allow
identifying
a
set
of
topics
that
deal
with
audience
involvement
and
participation
and
are
seen
to
be
originating
from
a
series
of
tensions.
In
media
and
communication
studies,
the
idea
of
challenges
as
tensions
can
be
described
as
a
conflict
b etween
concepts
such
as
control
and
collaboration
(Lewis,
2012),
amateurism
and
professionalism,
the
individual
and
the
collective,
or
copyright
and
open
licenses.
Academic
research
on
participation,
identifying
these
tensions,
allows
to
show
their
multi-‐layeredness
and
21
The
list
of
individual
reports
we
referred
to
in
this
article
can
be
found
at
the
end.
66
complexities.
Research
can
also
suggest
ways
to
alleviate
these
tensions.
In
particular,
the
analysis
of
the
COST
TATS
individual
reports
shows
that
three
areas
–
media
industry,
journalism
and
politics
–
are
fields
where
these
tensions
play,
making
them
relevant
fields
for
academic
inquiry.
Arguably,
the
relevance
of
these
research
topics
transcends
the
academic
field.
Here
we
should
keep
in
mind
that
the
academic
field
i s
not
the
only
field
that
has
expressed
interest
(and
concerns)
about
the
societal
changes,
and
that
has
generated
analyses
of
these
changes.
Still,
academic
research,
dealing
with
the
topics
mentioned
in
this
article
has
a
series
of
socially
relevant
contributions
to
make,
entering
in
intellectual
dialogues
with
these
other
fields,
and
connecting
more
with
the
other
parts
of
contemporary
societies,
within
an
era
where
academic
work
(including
theory
formation
–
as
it
is
discussed
in
some
of
the
other
articles
of
this
special
issue)
i s
not
always
tremendously
valued
outside
academia.
First,
we
think
that
the
academic
research
on
these
topics
can
help
policy
makers
and
many
other
stakeholders
i n
their
understanding
what
is
at
stake
when
dealing
with
changes
and
challenges
that
they
are
confronted
with,
also
in
relation
to
digital
audiences
and
participation.
What
academia
can
do
is
showing
the
problematics
(and
tensions)
behind
the
lived
experiences
of
technological
and
societal
change.
Second,
we
think
that
academic
research
can
also
help
shaping
more
specific
approaches
towards
the
dynamics
of
audience
involvement,
by
firmly
rooting
these
dynamics
in
a
broader
and
critical
analysis
of
participation,
and
in
participatory
theory.
Following
Ritzer’s
definition
of
theory
as
a
system
of
ideas
for
the
systematisation
of
knowledge
(2007),
we
suggest
that
quality
research,
driven
by
participatory
theory,
can
still
be
transferred
fairly
easy
and
quickly
to
media
companies,
governments
and
almost
any
kind
of
environment
(on
the
condition
that
adequate
translation
is
provided).
There
i s
also
a
need
to
do
this,
because
without
the
systematisation
offered
by
participatory
theory,
and
without
the
rigid
and
systematic
analytical
procedures
of
academia,
societal
actors
do
not
have
the
necessary
tools
and
strategies
to
comprehensively
deal
with
the
vastness,
richness
and
complexities
of
interactional
and
participatory
processes.
This
need
for
academic
approaches
appears
especially
relevant
in
the
political
sphere,
within
media
industries
and
in
journalism,
where
utopian
and
dystopian
discourses
have
tended
to
paradoxically
strengthen
each
other,
combining
the
belief
in
the
activation
of
citizens,
consumers
and
audiences
with
concerns
about
the
functioning
and
sustainability
of
(professional)
political
and
media
systems.
Many
issues
have
been
raised
here:
amateurism
against
professionalism
is
one
broad
tension
to
explain
differences
in
production,
consumption,
distribution
and
even
hierarchy,
especially
when
we
talk
about
credibility
or
identity.
The
debates
on
journalism
as
a
practice
(of
audiences)
or
as
a
job
(of
journalists);
the
social
recommendation
and
distribution
of
music
as
a
way
of
life
(for
emerging
music
groups)
or
as
the
death
of
music
(for
music
industries);
or
digital
participation
as
a
solution
to
develop
utopian
systems
of
direct
democracy
or
as
the
channel
for
anti-‐system
groups,
are
other
examples.
PARTICIPATION
AS
TENSION
IN
THE
MEDIA
INDUSTRY
As
we
said
at
the
very
beginning
of
this
article,
some
important
structural
transformations
are
taking
place
within
media
as
a
large
technological
system
and
they
will
have
67
important
consequences
for
the
future
of
mediation
and
mediated
interaction
(in
very
different
fields,
ranging
from
entertainment
to
civic
participation).
These
changes
produce
particular
tensions
within
different
fields
of
the
social,
of
which
the
media
industry
i s
one.
The
first
emerging
topic
in
this
field
is
situated
in
the
field
of
infrastructural
policies,
both
in
terms
of
participatory
design
and
in
terms
of
emerging
forms
of
participation
within
social
media
platforms,
as
Storsul
pointed
out
in
her
individual
report.
Indeed,
researchers
within
the
TATS
COST
Action
advocate
better
knowledge
of
social
media
use,
of
the
connection
between
online
and
offline
information
and
education,
and
of
audiences
and
their
practices,
especially
i n
their
appropriation
of
new
technologies.
More
than
the
existence
of
new
audiences,
it
is
also
useful
to
underline
the
importance
of
new
environments
and
routines
of
consumption.
As
Mikko
Villi
pointed
out
in
his
individual
report,
mobile
devices
and
a
multiplatform
scenario
have
added
more
roles
for
the
audience
to
play,
which
emerge
as
a
big
router
for
content
of
media
companies:
“The
challenge
for
the
industry
is
how
media
companies
can
tap
into
the
communicative
dimensions
of
participatory
audience
communities,
in
which,
importantly,
media
content
is
increasingly
consumed
and
distributed
by
using
mobile
devices”.
Thus,
research
on
the
mobile
media
scenario,
and
how
content
is
being
distributed
by
audiences,
is
required
in
order
to
better
understand
the
processes
that
we
are
witnessing
nowadays.
These
changes
in
consumption
routines
and
the
creation
of
new
environments
such
as
mobile
media
are
some
of
the
main
trends
that
allow
us
to
define
emerging
topics
on
digital
audiences
and
participation.
This
also
raises
questions,
such
as:
Do
media
have
explicit
strategies
to
manage
processes
like
social
recommendation
or
to
adapt
content
for
multiplatform
consumption?
And
are
these
strategies
participatory
themselves?
Participation
reflects
the
growing
tension
between
the
possibilities
of
experimentation
–
as
is,
for
instance,
happening
with
the
personal
social
network
accounts
of
journalists
-‐
and
the
controlling
attempts
of
media
companies
to
maintain
the
traditional
monopoly
on
production
and
distribution.
During
the
last
years,
the
researches
about
media
industry
strategies
have
been
developed
from
the
perspective
of
platform
and
newsroom
convergence
(Quandt
and
Singer,
2009).
Here,
a
new
approach
is
useful,
focussing
on
the
convergence
of
participations,
where
media
have
to
deal
with
audience-‐driven
processes
such
as
user-‐generated
content
(van
Dijck,
2009),
user-‐distributed
content
(Napoli,
2009)
and,
even,
with
the
consideration
of
participation
as
a
strategic
commodity
for
the
survival
of
media
(Noguera
et
al,
2013).
Fans
are
a
good
example
of
these
new
audiences
in
a
new
media
landscape.
It
is
hardly
new
to
say
that
fans
usually
gather
in
communities
of
practices
to
materialise
their
sense
of
belonging,
and
to
discuss
the
shows
they
enjoy
with
fellow
members
(Jenkins,
1992;
Bourdaa,
2012a).
But
they
now
also
use
new
technologies
such
as
the
Internet
to
produce
and
share
contents,
for
instance
paratexts
(Gray,
2010)
such
as
fan
fictions,
fan
videos,
or
even
sometimes
ARG
(Alternate
Reality
Games).
They
also
spread
and
discuss
content
using
social
networks
such
as
Twitter,
Facebook
and
Tumblr.
Media
industries
-‐
and
especially
the
audiovisual
industries
-‐
have
to
adapt
to
these
new
consumptions,
in
a
more
and
more
competitive
ecosystem.
In
order
to
make
fans
engage
even
more
and
explore
the
narrations,
producers
create
what
Jenkins
68
(2006)
has
coined
strategies
of
“transmedia
storytelling”.
Producers
of
TV
shows
or
movies
use
the
potentialities
of
media
platforms
to
expand
their
universe
and
storylines
i n
a
movement
that
can
be
defined
as
augmented
storytelling
(Bourdaa,
2012b);
they
scatter
chunks
of
the
stories
or
backgrounds
on
characters
on
multiple
media
platforms
for
fans
to
find
and
share.
Another
topic,
related
to
the
media
industry
in
a
broader
sense,
is
that
we
are
witnessing
a
progressive
commodification
of
participation
in
the
media.
Not
only
companies
associated
with
the
sphere
of
social
media
(like
Facebook
or
Twitter)
benefit
from
the
communication
with
audience
communities,
but
also
traditional
media
companies
can
take
advantage
of
a
deeper
connection
within
the
activities
and
usages
that
users
are
creating
with
their
products.
The
key
point
is
here
to
understand
participation
as
a
systemic
change
in
spheres
formerly
only
associated
with
professionals,
where
the
result
of
all
interactions
with
the
audience
is
more
than
the
sum
of
each
one.
But
processes
of
commodification
still
need
to
be
taken
into
account
as
well.
Finally,
the
social
experience
that
surrounds
and
penetrates
the
consumption
of
information
and
media
content
(sharing,
voting,
commenting,
retweeting,
…)
is
becoming
as
important
as
the
information
itself.
This
information
(user-‐distributed
content)
is
of
course
relevant
for
the
industry
in
terms
of
audience
research,
but
also
for
developing
cross-‐media
strategies
where
the
participation
around
the
medium
could
be
shown
and
sold
as
a
product
itself
(directly
and
in
terms
of
data
production).
Jenkins
et
al.
(2013)
uses
the
term
of
“spreadable
media”
in
order
to
emphasise
the
importance
of
the
circulation
of
official
and
non-‐
official
media
content
within
communities
of
practice
or
in
the
public
sphere.
He
also
points
to
the
i mportance
of
social
networks
in
this
circulation.
PARTICIPATION
AS
TENSION
IN
JOURNALISM
If
there
is
a
field
where
the
adjective
“participatory”
was
embraced
with
enthusiasm,
it
was
journalism,
with
no
doubt.
Just
a
few
years
after
the
emergence
of
the
so-‐called
web
2.0,
participatory
journalism
was
a
current
practice,
but
also
a
trendy
topic
for
researchers
to
describe
in
a
broad
sense
all
the
processes
and/or
platforms
where
the
audience
was
collaborating
with
professionals
in
the
news
process.
It
seems
as
if
it
was
chosen
as
the
participatory
(journalistic)
flag
in
the
digital
age,
although
soon
this
concept
epitomised
a
new
problem
(or
tension).
Participatory
journalism
cannot
be
reduced
(as
often
happened)
to
a
technology-‐driven
process
(Singer
et
al,
2011),
it
also
depends
on
the
organisational
media
culture
and
on
the
ways
in
which
possibilities
of
technology
are
defined
and
understood.
The
tension,
between
the
kind
of
participation
that
technology
allows
and
the
participation
practised
by
people
and/or
media
companies,
is
an
emerging
topic.
One
example
i s
the
recent
work
of
one
of
the
authors
of
this
article
on
Twitter
(Noguera,
2013).
This
tension
requires
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
collaborative
mechanisms
at
work
in
these
kinds
of
horizontal
environments,
and
a
deeper
analysis
of
actual
practises,
combined
with
a
serious
reflection
on
the
new
challenges
emerging
in
the
field,
such
as
the
new
relations
with
sources,
or
the
changes
within
the
sets
of
formal
and
informal
rules
that
have
shaped
and
regulated
news-‐
making
(at
least
in
terms
of
discursive
construction
and
formal
definition
if
not
at
the
level
of
concrete
practises),
as
Sanchez
Gonzales
pointed
out
in
her
individual
report.
Moreover,
the
69
centrality
of
amateur
content
production,
and
of
content
filtering
and
circulation,
not
only
calls
for
new
regulations
in
the
field
of
news-‐making
but
also
for
new
literacies,
both
from
the
audiences
and
industries,
as
stated
by
Sirkku
Kotilainen.
In
her
report,
she
claims
that
it
is
absolutely
necessary
to
work
on
media
literacies
but
also
to
enhance
the
media
companies’
understanding
of
audience
participation,
as
i s
also
emphasised
in
the
individual
r eport
of
Torres
da
Silva.
Finally,
also
the
way
audiences
access
information
and
news
is
changing,
as
Birgit
Stark
emphasises
in
her
individual
report,
which
produces
another
emerging
topic.
She
argues
that
this
is
due
to
the
fact
that
“the
Web
gives
people
more
content
choices,
control,
and
the
opportunity
to
customize
their
news
consumption
[…]
Often
media
organizations
lack
a
clear
strategy
and
one
may
get
the
impression
that
many
of
them
merely
offer
new
participation
features
because
others
do
so
as
well”.
Besides
this
–
apparent
-‐
lack
of
strategy,
media
companies
are
facing
the
challenge
of
“how
to
collect
and
treat
the
r eactions
of
the
audience”,
as
Nóra
Nyirő
wrote
in
her
individual
report.
The
huge
amount
of
data
about
communications
in
several
platforms,
triggered
by
many
actions
–
distributing,
creating,
commenting,
sharing,
…
-‐
requires
media
companies
to
develop
strategies
to
deal
with
this
multitude
of
information.
PARTICIPATION
AS
TENSION
IN
POLITICAL
COMMUNICATION
The
new
landscape,
defined
by
cross-‐media
contents
and
mass
self-‐communication,
that
is,
“the
communication
organized
around
the
internet
and
other
horizontal
digital
communication
networks”
(Castells,
2011:
779),
is
facilitating
daily
exchanges
in
the
public
spheres
between
institutions,
politicians
and
citizens,
which
are
“not
only
technically
possible
but
also
a
healthy
and
a
democratic
practice”,
as
Zamora’s
individual
report
mentions.
These
different
forms
of
participation
have
to
be
framed
in
a
broad
fashion
and
involve
citizen
networks,
NGOs,
social
movements,
protest
activities.
While
the
last
decades
have
witnessed
a
decline
in
formal
democratic
participation
(voting,
trust
in
politics,
…
),
there
are
intense
“civil
society
activities
and
alternative
political
engagement”
allowing
that
“audiences
are
also
rendered
as
citizens,
that
is,
people
who
are
or
can
become
involved
in
the
life
of
democracy”
(Peter
Dahlgren’s
individual
report).
This
means
that
new
participatory
genres
are
emerging
(for
example
characterised
by
new
temporalities,
in
content
production
and
sharing,
as
stated
in
the
Patriarche
and
Dufrasne
individual
report)
within
(exclusively
or
not)
social
media.
These
new
genres
need
to
be
studied
by
academics,
both
on
the
side
of
traditional
policy
participation
design
(given
that
networked
participation
in
some
way
challenges
the
processes
based
on
the
three
steps:
information,
consultation
and
deliberation)
and
on
the
side
of
public
opinion
analysis.
On
this
very
last
point:
Just
consider
how
Facebook’s
likes
or
twitter
conversations
are
more
and
more
used,
by
political
parties
and
media
organisations
in
an
attempt
to
set
the
agenda,
or
in
the
campaigning
activities
of
political
candidates
(in
very
similar
ways
polls
and
surveys
are
used
to
track
political
preferences).
Some
authors
have
underlined
the
co-‐occurrence
of
lower
levels
of
participation
within
the
sphere
of
formal
politics
–
especially
among
youth
-‐
and
the
(limited)
participatory
ways
offered
by
political
institutions
(Bendit,
2000),
while
other
ways
of
civic
engagement
have
70
become
more
popular,
in
many
cases
thanks
to
mobile
media
and
the
web.
This
idea
is
a
central
point
in
Peter
Dahlgren’s
individual
report:
“While
the
last
two
decades
have
witnessed
a
general
decline
in
participation
in
the
formal
political
system,
the
picture
in
the
broader
r ealm
of
civil
society
activities
and
alternative
political
engagement
is
more
mixed,
with
some
areas
of
intense
activity”.
These
“areas
of
intense
activity”
are
redefining
how
the
public
sphere
is
considered
and
how
it
is
constructed.
They
are
also
changing
the
relations
between
voters
and
candidates,
and
affecting
political
communication
and
campaigning,
as
Bergstrom
noted
in
her
report.
And
as
Rocío
Zamora
states
in
her
individual
report,
the
influence
of
audience
interactivity
and
participation
in
political
contexts
“is
not
only
an
academic
research
topic
but,
mainly,
an
issue
for
reflection
from
its
real
practical
development,
in
order
to
improve
the
relation
between
media
and
democracy.”
CONCLUSION
Emerging
topics
in
research
on
digital
audiences
and
participation
can
be
traced
if
we
look
for
unresolved
problems
and
tension.
In
other
words,
research
is
about
the
analysis
of
the
tensions
which
are
behind
the
obvious
challenges.
In
this
article,
a
number
of
tensions
were
identified
(by
analysing
the
26
TATS
COST
Action
essays),
leading
to
q uestions
such
as:
-‐
Do
media
industries
have
convincing
strategies
to
deal
with
user-‐led
processes?
Will
they
survive
without
these
strategies?
-‐
Do
the
journalists/media
have
the
organisational
culture
to
promote
a
kind
of
journalism
with
higher
levels
of
participation?
Would
it
still
be
journalism?
-‐Why
is
the
informal
political
participation
through
social
networks
more
accepted
than
the
ones
proposed
b y
the
institutions?
These
questions
are
being
raised
using
concepts
such
as
authorship,
identity,
distribution,
credibility,
collaboration
and
professionalism.
For
instance,
wiki-‐platforms
allow
collective
authorships,
copyleft
licenses
are
dealing
with
products
made
from
the
remix,
and
transmedia
storytelling
is
highly
based
on
the
social
distribution
and
production
by
audiences.
In
this
scenario,
the
position
of
professional
authors
(including
journalists)
i s
under
threat
but
at
the
same
time
their
presence
within
the
web
becomes
(and
remains)
prominent,
with
considerable
levels
of
interaction
with
audiences
and
the
increased
importance
of
personal
branding
i n
many
fields
(journalism,
politics,
cultural
industries,
…).
As
far
as
the
challenges
are
concerned,
academic
research
needs
to
assume
that
the
bipolarity
between
production
and
reception
is
not
enough
to
explain
the
complex
processes
of
participation,
especially
“in
a
media
environment
where
the
boundaries
between
commerce,
content
and
information
are
currently
being
redrawn”
(van
Dijck,
2009:
42).
Media
industries
and
journalists
are
facing
an
ongoing
flow
of
relations
and
data
which
are
related
to
many
tensions
around
the
above-‐mentioned
concepts
(authorship,
identity,
distribution,
credibility,
collaboration
and
professionalism).
The
social
distribution
of
content
is
amplifying
the
importance
of
audiences
in
economic,
political
and
media
terms.
Research
about
digital
audiences
and
participation
should
be
focused
on
this
kind
of
tensions,
offering
specific
answers
to
problems
that
media
i ndustry
and
other
institutions
have
difficulties
in
solving.
71
At
the
same
time,
academic
research
needs
to
remember
the
tension
of
audience
research
itself,
which
needs
to
find
a
balance
between
the
necessary
and
contextualised
claims
for
a
new
notion
of
audience
and
the
“hyperbolic
discourse
of
the
new”
(Livingstone,
2004:
77).
One
particular
challenge
in
audience
and
participation
research
is
about
trying
to
avoid
succumbing
to
these
pessimistic/optimistic
discourses
about
the
new.
In
conclusion,
we
also
want
to
mention
the
issue
that
academia
itself
is
responding
to
the
many
challenges
in
this
new
ambiguous
participatory
scenario,
also
in
relation
to
its
own
functioning.
Academia
i s
“becoming
more
concerned
with
the
technological
and
practical
application
of
their
results”
(Henriques’
individual
report).
This
tendency
becomes
particularly
manifest
in
the
increasing
scientific
interest
in
the
role
media
play
in
fostering
creativity,
promoting
entrepreneurship
and
new
forms
of
social
innovation
(Manuel
José
Damásio’s
individual
report).
And
this
change
in
professional
aims
and
practical
functions
also
needs
to
be
further
analysed.
REFERENCES
Bendit,
R.
(2000)
‘Participación
social
y
política
de
los
jóvenes
en
países
de
la
Unión
Europea,’
i n
S.
Balardini
(ed.)
La
participación
social
y
política
de
los
jóvenes
en
el
horizonte
del
nuevo
siglo.
Buenos
Aires:
CLACSO,
pp.
19-‐55.
Bourdaa,
M.
(2012a)
‘Taking
a
break
from
all
your
worries:
Battlestar
Galactica
et
les
nouvelles
pratiques
télévisuelles
des
fans,’
Question
de
communication,
22,
pp.
235-‐250.
Bourdaa,
M.
(2012b)
‘Transmedia
Storytelling:
between
augmented
storytelling
and
immersive
practices,’
InaGlobal.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.inaglobal.fr/en/digital-‐
tech/article/transmedia-‐between-‐augmented-‐storytelling-‐and-‐immersive-‐
practices?tq=7.
Cardoso,
G.
(2008)
‘From
Mass
to
Network
Communication:
Communicational
Models
and
the
I nformational
Society,’
International
Journal
of
Communication,
2:
587-‐630.
Retrieved
from:
http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19/178
Carpentier,
N.
(2011)
Media
and
Participation:
A
Site
of
Ideological-democratic
Struggle.
Bristol:
Intellect.
Castells,
M.
(2011)
‘A
Network
Theory
of
Power,’
International
Journal
of
Communication,
5:
773-‐
787.
Gray,
J.
(2010)
Show
sold
separately:
Promos,
Spoilers
and
the
Other
Media
Paratexts.
New
York:
NYU
Press.
Hughes,
T.P.
(1983)
Networks
of
Power:
Electrification
in
Western
Society,
1880-1930.
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press.
Jenkins,
H.
(1992)
Textual
Poachers.
Television
Fans
&
Participatory
Culture.
N ew
York
&
London:
Routledge.
Jenkins,
H.
(2006)
Convergence
Culture.
Where
old
and
new
media
collide.
N ew
York:
NYU
Press.
Jenkins,
H.,
Ford,
S.,
Green,
J.
(2013)
Spreadable
media.
Creating
value
and
meaning
in
a
networked
culture.
New
York:
NYU
Press.
Lewis,
S.
(2012)
‘The
Tension
between
Professional
Control
and
Open
Participation.
Journalism
and
i ts
B oundaries,’
Information,
Communication
&
S ociety,
15(6):
836-‐866.
72
Livingstone,
S.
(2004)
‘The
Challenge
of
Changing
Audiences:
Or,
what
is
the
Researcher
to
Do
i n
the
Age
of
the
I nternet?,’
E uropean
Journal
of
Communication,
19(1):
75-‐86.
Livingstone,
S.
(2008)
‘Taking
risky
opportunities
in
youthful
content
creation,’
New
Media
&
Society,
10(3),
pp.
393-‐411.
Napoli,
P.
(2009)
Navigating
Producer-Consumer
Convergence:
Media
Policy
Priorities
in
the
Era
of
User-Generated
and
User-Distributed
Content.
The
Donald
McGannon
Communication
Research
Center.
New
York:
Fordham
University.
Noguera,
J.M.
(2013)
‘How
Open
Are
Journalists
on
Twitter?
Trends
towards
the
End-‐user
Journalism,’
Communication
&
Society,
26(1):
93-‐114.
Noguera,
J.M.,
Villi,
M.,
Nyirő,
N.,
de
Blasio,
E.,
Bourdaa,
M.
(2013),
‘The
Role
of
the
Media
Industry
when
Participation
is
a
Product,’
in
N.
Carpentier,
K.
Schrøder,
L.
Hallett
(eds.)
Audience
Transformations.
Shifting
Audience
Positions
in
Late
Modernity.
London:
Routledge
Studies
in
European
Communication
Research
and
Education
[Forthcoming].
Quandt,
T.,
Singer,
J.
(2009)
‘Convergence
and
Cross-‐Platform
Content
Production,’
in
K.
Wahl-‐
Jorgensen
and
T.
Hanitzsch
(eds.)
The
Handbook
of
Journalism
Studies.
New
York:
Taylor
&
Francis,
pp.
130-‐142.
Ritzer,
G.
(2007)
Contemporary
Sociological
Theory
and
Its
Classical
Roots:
The
Basics.
2nd
edition.
St.
Louis:
McGraw-‐Hill.
Singer,
J.,
Hermida,
A.,
Domingo,
D.,
Heinonen,
A.,
Paulussen,
S.,
Quandt,
T.,
Reich,
Z.,
Vujnovic,
M.
(2011)
Participatory
Journalism:
Guarding
Open
Gates
at
Online
Newspapers.
London:
Wiley
Blackwell.
Toffler,
A.
(1971)
Future
Shock.
London:
Pan.
Van
Dijck,
J.
(2009)
‘Users
Like
You?
Theorizing
Agency
in
User-‐generated
Content,’
Media,
Culture
&
Society,
31(1):
41-‐58.
Individual
TATS
COST
Action
reports
Bergström,
Annika
(2012)
Individual
report.
S weden,
a nnika.bergstrom@jmg.gu.se
Dahlgren,
Peter
(2012)
The
relevance
of
m y
research.
S weden,
Peter.Dahlgren@mkj.lu.se
Damásio,
Manuel
José
(2012)
Individual
report.
Portugal,
mjdamasio@ulusofona.pt
Dufrasne,
M.
and
Patriarche
G.
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
on
citizen
participation
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
dufrasne@fusl.ac.be
and
patriarche@fusl.ac.be
Henriques,
Sara
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice
–
a
perspective
from
mobile
technology
research.
Portugal,
shenriques@ulusofona.pt
Kotilainen,
Sirkku
(2012)
The
usefulness
of
my
research
for
the
stakeholders
in
the
field.
Finland,
sirkku.kotilainen@uta.fi
Nyirő,
Nóra
(2012)
How
m y
research
has
been
useful,
or
could
be
useful,
for
which
stakeholders
in
the
field?
Hungary,
nora.nyiro@uni-‐corvinus.hu
Sanchez
Gonzales,
Hada
(2012)
Connectivity
between
the
audience
and
the
journalist:
Regularization
of
the
use
of
social
m edia
and
information
quality.
Spain,
misago@us.es
Stark,
Birgit
(2012)
C hanging
News
Consumption.
Germany,
b irgit.stark@uni-‐mainz.de
73
Storsul,
Tanja
(2012)
Individual
report
on
“The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice”.
Norway,
tanja.storsul@media.uio.no
Torres
da
Silva,
Marisa.
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
for
social
practice.
Portugal,
marisatorresilva@hotmail.com
Villi,
Mikko
(2012)
Mobile
media
and
user-‐distributed
content
in
media
management.
Finland,
mikko.villi@aalto.fi
Zamora,
Rocío
(2012)
Individual
Report.
Audience
Interactivity
and
Participation.
Spain,
RZamora@pdi.ucam.edu
74
STAKEHOLDERS
AND
ACADEMIA:
DIFFERENT
MODES
OF
INTERACTION
Manuel
José
Damásio,
Portugal,
mjdamasio@ulusofona.pt
Vice
chair
of
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
and
leader
of
the
Task
F orce
3
“Networked
belonging
and
n etworks
of
b elonging”
in
WG2
Paula
Cordeiro,
Portugal,
pcordeiro@iscsp.utl.pt
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
3
“Networked
b elonging
and
networks
of
b elonging”
in
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
THE
FORMULATION
OF
STAKEHOLDER
THEORY
Stakeholder
theory
moves
organizational
life
and
existence
beyond
the
mere
persecution
of
economic
goals.
The
core
idea
of
(the
original
formulation)
of
stakeholder
theory
is
that
business
is
(and
should
be)
expected
to
serve
society
in
ways
that
goes
beyond
economic
objectives.
If
this
is
true
for
commercially
oriented
companies,
the
more
it
is
for
those
organizations,
such
as
universities,
that
pursue
the
common
public
good.
Our
main
objective
in
this
article
is
to
evaluate
the
relevance
stakeholders
have
for
academia
today,
more
specifically
for
the
field
of
media
and
audience
studies,
and
to
describe
how,
and
with
what
consequences,
relations
between
academia
and
stakeholders
are
being
reshaped.
Moreover,
the
article
aims
to
critically
evaluate
who
is
(and
can
be
seen
as)
stakeholder
of
universities.
The
article
is
based
on
a
general
reflection
on
academia’s
role
and
stakeholder
theory,
but
also
draws
from
26
individual
essays
written
by
the
members
of
Working
Group
2
of
the
COST
Action
Transforming
Audiences,
Transforming
Societies,
discussing
their
self-‐assessment
of
the
societal
relevance
and
impact
of
the
work
of
academics
i n
the
area
of
media
and
audience
studies.
These
short
contributions
were
collected
from
scholars
working
within
the
COST
Action,
and
we
will
depart
from
some
of
the
points
brought
forward
i n
those
essays
to
problematize
and
discuss
the
relations
between
academia
and
stakeholders
and
the
different
modes
of
interaction
at
stake.
We
are
grateful
to
all
original
authors
for
their
contributions.
In
1998,
UNESCO
pointed
out
at
the
World
Higher
Education
Conference
held
in
Paris
(UNESCO,
1998)
that
higher
education
was
f acing
great
challenges
and
had
to
i mplement
several
changes,
including
involving
its
stakeholders
-‐
namely
teachers,
students,
parents,
public
institutions,
businesses
(including
media)
and
society
more
in
general
-‐
in
its
governance.
Fifteen
years
have
passed
and
the
stakeholders’
active
participation
in
universities’
organizational
and
management
structure
has
increased
in
most
European
countries.
Teachers
and
researchers,
and
sometimes
students,
who
had
already
obtained
a
foothold
in
the
universities
-‐
as
higher
education
and
research
providers
and
active
participants
in
the
organizational
life
of
higher
education
institutions
-‐
were
joined
by
many
different
other
groups
and
organizations
i n
society.
The
active
participation
of
several
stakeholders
in
higher
education
and
research
institutions’
governance
has
generated
a
context
that
shapes
today’s
interactions
between
75
academia
and
its
stakeholders.
These
interactions
can
be
structured
in
two
ways:
“one-‐to-‐one”
between
the
institution
and
its
different
stakeholders,
who
are
organized
into
categories
or
profiles
(i.e.
the
teachers;
the
NGO
representatives,
...)
and
“many-‐to-‐many”
relations,
where
relations
exist
also
between
each
of
the
stakeholders,
either
within
its
group
or
within
the
larger
structure.
For
the
purpose
of
this
article,
we
will
first
focus
on
the
one-‐to-‐one
relational
model
(and
return
later
to
many-‐to-‐many
relations)
as
these
one-‐to-‐one
relations
are
the
more
traditional
form
of
interaction
where
the
institution
meets
(to
some
degree)
the
value
expectations
of
its
external
(and
internal)
stakeholders.
Of
course,
we
should
keep
in
mind
that
these
value
expectations
may
vary
in
accordance
with
the
institution’s
general
objectives
and
mission
statement,
and
the
stakeholders’
positions.
We
propose
that
these
one-‐to-‐one
relations
are
characterized
by
three
modes
of
interaction
that
vary
in
accordance
with
their
objectives:
scrutiny,
dependency
and
conflict.
All
these
three
are
framed
by
the
core
of
what
defines
the
relation
between
an
organization
and
its
stakeholders
–
the
creation
of
value
–
and
the
existing
context
that
can
hinder
or
ease
the
relationships
focussed
on
that
purpose.
The
modes
of
interaction
we
have
just
listed
might
assume
different
configurations:
communicative
and
managerial
actions
that
intend
to
capture
stakeholders’
value
needs
and
expectations;
secondly,
the
co-‐operative
creation
of
value
in
order
to
make
full
use
of
available
stakeholders’
resources;
third,
the
satisfaction
and
realization
of
value
needs
of
stakeholders
by
academia
to
enhance
stakeholders’
recognition
and
involvement
in
higher
education
organizational
life.
Each
mode
of
interaction
will
vary
in
accordance
with
the
positive
or
negative
outcomes
of
these
r elations.
We
consider
a
positive
or
negative
outcome
of
those
relations
to
be
defined
b y
each
group
of
stakeholders’
subjective
degree
of
satisfaction.
Also,
the
considered
outcomes
will
vary
in
accordance
to
the
considered
relational
structure.
For
instance,
in
a
scrutiny
type
of
relation
between
academics
and
government
bodies,
the
outcome
will
be
negative
for
the
academics
since
they
feel
themselves
constrained
by
ever
more
bureaucracy.
In
contrast,
for
government
bodies,
it
will
be
positive,
since
they
feel
they
have
more
control
and
a
better
perspective
on
spending
and
results.
From
what
has
been
said
follows
that
any
stakeholder
theory
in
this
area
should
focus
on
the
identification
of
the
variables
that
position
the
different
stakeholders
in
face
of
these
(potential)
relations
and
establish
a
network
of
relationships
with
which
academics
have
to
cope.
In
the
following
parts
of
the
article
we
will
discuss
who
these
different
stakeholders
might
be
and
how
their
identity
and
position
within
the
structure
we
have
just
described
pose
a
challenge
to
individual
teachers
and
researchers
working
in
the
area
of
media
and
audiences
studies.
We
will
also
evaluate
how
different
formulations
of
the
theory
have
an
effect
on
how
we
can
conceive
those
teachers
and
researchers’
future
roles
and
responsibilities,
and
the
value
their
work
has
for
the
organizations
they
are
part
of.
WHO
ARE
THE
STAKEHOLDERS?
Freeman
(1984:
29)
defines
stakeholders
in
the
commercial
arena
as
“any
group
or
individual
who
can
affect
or
is
affected
by
the
achievement
of
the
organisation’s
objectives”,
showing
congruence
with
Bryson
(2005:
22)
who
talks
of
“persons,
groups
or
organisations
that
76
must
be
taken
into
account…”.
Stakeholders
are
all
those
actors
who
may
gain
or
lose
from
an
organization’s
activities.
Stakeholders
can
be
divided
into
two
groups:
internal
and
external
stakeholders.
As
the
terms
suggest,
internal
stakeholders
come
from
within
the
organization
and
external
stakeholders
are
those
outside
the
organization
but
with
a
vested
interest
in
it.
In
this
sense,
individual
academics
are
themselves
academia’s
primary
stakeholders,
since
their
interests
are
closely
dependable
on
their
institutions’
performance.
But
as
higher
education
and
research
institutions
must
account
for
their
activities
to
a
large
number
of
people
and
wider
society,
external
stakeholders
have
gained
preponderance
in
academia
in
the
past
decades.
Most
commonly,
the
group
of
external
stakeholders
includes
funders
or
investors,
but
regulators,
policy
makers
and
legislators
are
also
i ncluded.
This
brings
us
to
one
of
the
main
dilemmas
when
formulating
a
stakeholder
theory
in
relation
to
academia:
Are
we
considering
these
teachers
and
researchers
as
stakeholders
of
the
universities
or
as
a
crucial
facet
of
the
relation
between
the
university,
as
an
institution,
and
its
other
stakeholders?
This
gets
further
complicated
when
taking
power
positions
into
account.
Benneworth
and
Jongbloed
(2009)
actually
suggest
that
the
distinction
between
internal
and
external
stakeholders
is
less
relevant
when
compared
with
the
ability
one
has,
independently
of
its
position,
to
influence
the
organizational
decision-‐making
process.
Focusing
on
the
particular
case
of
the
humanities
and
social
sciences,
these
authors
proposed
that
stakeholders
in
these
areas,
namely
non-‐governmental
regulators,
communities
and
other
NGOs,
are
less
relevant
today
for
institutions
because
they
have
failed
to
prove
their
power
–
to
produce
value
for
the
institutions
–
their
legitimacy
–
societal
i mpact
of
the
results
of
their
work
-‐
and
their
urgency
–
a
call
for
immediate
actions.
An
additional
reason
for
this
seems
to
be
that
in
many
cases,
individual
actors,
while
acting
as
stakeholders,
also
fail
to
confirm
the
need
of
recognition
of
their
own
area
of
performance.
In
order
to
find
an
adequate
answer
to
these
dilemmas,
we
suggest
firstly
to
focus
our
attention
on
the
kinds
of
value
that
are
produced
by
universities
and
academia,
trying
to
understand
if
they
are
homogenous
and
on
which
type
of
valorisation
are
they
grounded.
When
talking
about
a
commercial
firm,
this
is
a
relatively
simple
issue
since
this
value
is
defined
in
financial
terms,
but
when
talking
of
a
university
and
its
individual
stakeholders,
the
question
becomes
much
more
complex.
For
the
universities
this
value
mostly
concerns
the
promotion
of
activities
that
will
generate
results
that
will
in
the
long
term
assure
the
institution’s
sustainability.
This
can
either
be
defined
in
economic
terms
(i.e.
the
revenue
generated
from
intellectual
propriety
produced
by
faculty),
in
branding
terms
(i.e.
the
degree
of
public
recognition
of
the
university’s
brand
measured
by
its
degree
of
attractiveness
for
foreign
students)
or
in
political
terms
(i.e.
the
level
of
services
it
provides
to
local
authorities
measured
in
accordance
with
the
volume
of
local
acquired
funding).
For
academia
the
issue
is
completely
different.
Although
sometimes
individual
objectives
are
aligned
with
institutional
ones,
in
many
other
cases,
academics
define
their
notion
of
value
following
the
information
resulting
from
many-‐to-‐many
relations.
This
means
that
their
notion
of
value
is
mostly
oriented
towards
peer
recognition
and
individual
compensation.
This
allows
us
to
better
understand
that,
if
we
consider
academics
as
a
specific
group
of
stakeholders,
their
relational
mode
with
the
institution
will
vary
in
function
of
the
value
expectations
in
question.
If,
for
instance,
they
are
not
77
equivalent,
we
will
have
a
conflicting
relation.
But
that
is
seldom
the
case
since
in
most
cases
what
we
have
is
a
situation
in
which
either
academics
and
institutions
are
dependent
on
others,
for
example
in
funding
terms,
and,
as
a
consequence
of
that
dependency,
can
develop
stronger
scrutiny
mechanisms,
an
interaction
mode
that
seems
to
have
become
dominant
(Chapleo
&
Simms,
2010).
The
previous
propositions
are
in
line
with
stakeholder
theory’s
assumption
that
the
value
that
stakeholders
get
(from
working
with
stakeholder-‐friendly
organizations)
may
not
be
exclusively
captured
in
economic
measures.
While
economic
returns
are
often
fundamental
to
the
core
stakeholders
of
an
organization,
most
stakeholders
want
other
things
as
well
(Bosse,
Phillips
&
Harrison,
2009).
In
this
sense,
stakeholders
are
both
beneficiaries
and
risk-‐bearers
of
any
organization’s
policies
and
actions.
In
the
academic
context,
valorisation
encompasses
all
activities
that
contribute
to
ensuring
that
the
outcomes
of
scientific
knowledge
add
value
beyond
the
scientific
domain.
It
includes
making
the
results
originating
from
academic
research
available
or
more
easily
accessible
in
order
to
increase
the
chances
of
others—outside
academia—to
make
use
of
it,
as
well
as
the
co-‐production
of
knowledge
with
non-‐academic
groups
(Bryson,
2005).
Valorisation
is
therefore
broader
than
‘commercialisation’
and
points
to
the
larger
societal
contributions
universities
should
be
responsible
for
(OECD,
2007).
When
one
seeks
to
identify
academia’s
stakeholders,
we
are
-‐
as
a
consequence
of
the
previous
argument
and
at
least
at
this
stage
-‐
including
all
those
that
might
see
their
activities
being
valorised
by
academia.
These
external
stakeholders
include
government
and
private
companies,
suppliers
and
administration,
competitors
and
employees,
but
also
regulators
and
potential
partners
in
new
ventures.
Their
relationships
with
academics
(and
of
academics
with
their
institutions)
are
complicated,
as
academics
constantly
have
to
prove
their
power
and
legitimacy
to
generate
value,
which
results
in
two
modes
of
interaction
–
dependency
and
conflict.
Dependency,
since
the
fact
that
they
are
internal
stakeholders
makes
them
highly
dependable
of
the
institutions
i n
financial
terms,
and
conflict,
because
the
challenges
one
f aces
i n
order
to
affirm
the
value
of
its
activities
for
the
overall
valorisation
of
the
organization,
results
i n
a
permanent
conflict
to
acquire
more
power
and
legitimacy.
Considering
the
specific
characteristics
of
higher
education
institutions,
we
may
suppose
that
the
starting
dilemma
-‐
teachers
and
researchers
as
stakeholders
of
the
universities
or
as
a
crucial
facet
of
the
relation
between
the
university,
as
an
institution,
and
its
other
stakeholders
-‐
could
be
better
f ormulated
through
a
more
nuanced
and
ambiguous
conceptualization,
where
academics
are
considered
as
internal
stakeholders
that
find
power
and
legitimacy
in
becoming
(and
proving
to
be)
crucial
mediators
of
the
relation
between
the
university,
as
an
institution,
and
its
other
stakeholders.
THE
“OTHER”
STAKEHOLDERS
We
would
now
like
to
propose
that
there
is
a
third
set
of
stakeholders
that
is
highly
relevant
for
communication
and
media
scholars,
namely
media
users.
Focusing
on
this
type
of
stakeholder
allows
us
to
r eturn
to
the
third
mode
of
interaction:
scrutiny.
In
fact,
communication
and
media
scholars,
the
internal
stakeholders
of
academia,
deal
with
media
users
on
an
almost
daily
basis,
rendering
them
their
objects
of
scrutiny.
In
addition,
several
public
bodies
are
also
concerned
about
influence
media
consumption
trends
are
exerting
on
their
own
activities
and
78
interests,
and
the
sectors
in
their
societies
they
are
responsible
for.
But
also
media
companies
scrutinise
their
audiences,
for
instance,
as
they
too
do
research
on
them.
For
media
companies,
i t
is
essential
to
understand
and
follow
their
audiences’
journey
between
different
contents
and
platforms.
In
today’s
media
landscape,
where
content
production
is
fairly
stable
but
channels
and
timing
may
be
substituted
according
to
viewer
preference,
the
quality
of
content
and
the
presence
of
well-‐established
community
spaces
may
help
content
producers
to
be
heard
by
audiences.
Within
the
flow
of
the
viewers
through
content
and
platforms,
broadcasters
(and
other
professional
content
providers)
may
develop
strategies
to
monitor,
manage
and
exploit
(better)
the
new
audiences’
behaviour.
For
them,
it
is
always
relevant
to
understand
what
users
need,
value,
expect
and
look
for,
so
that
the
industry
and
the
market
can
offer
better
services
in
those
areas.
Academic
research
in
this
area
has
always
been
concerned
with
the
type
of
services
most
commonly
used
by
users
as
well
as
new
and
original
forms
of
usage.
This
information
is,
of
course,
relevant
for
the
industry
and
for
the
development
of
new
services
and
new
features.
Frequently,
data
from
the
industry
or
from
the
market
focus
mainly
on
quantitative
results
based
mostly
on
frequencies
regarding
the
use
of
certain
technologies
or
services.
Therefore,
academic
research
can
add
value
and
help
in
deepening
the
interpretation
of
stakeholder
data,
by
considering,
for
instance,
more
qualitative
and
theory-‐driven
analyses.
But
this
form
of
institutional
research
is
still
imprisoned
in
the
one-‐to-‐one
relationships
that
mould
the
instrumental
view
of
stakeholders
we
have
been
describing.
By
opposition,
we
can
consider
a
non-‐instrumental
view
framed
by
many-‐to-‐many
relationships,
making
them
less
dependable
o n
the
modes
of
interaction
we
have
described
before.
Today’s
media
landscape
helped
to
create
several
spaces
for
public
discussion,
such
as
online
forums,
blogs
or
readers’
comments
in
the
news.
Additionally,
the
rise
of
new
modes
of
audience
participation
can
be
linked
to
accounts
of
the
increased
role
of
the
public
in
producing
material
that
previously
have
been
the
exclusive
domain
of
professional
journalists,
blurring
the
frontiers
of
news
producers
and
consumers
(Bruns,
2005).
This
process
marks
the
rise
of
the
prosumer
or
produser,
or
if
one
prefers,
of
a
diffuse
mass
of
individuals,
that
are
also
contributing,
via
their
participation
in
media
production.
But
these
audiences’
position
as
citizens
-‐
that
is,
as
people
who
are
(or
can
become
involved)
in
the
everyday
life
of
democracy
-‐
could
still
be
strengthened.
Through
this
process,
a
wider
view
of
democracy
could
potentially
take
shape
beyond
the
formal
electoral
system
and
within
the
participatory
terrain
of
our
heterogeneous
civil
societies
(Ridell,
2012;
Schrøder,
2012).
Participation
can
take
many
forms
and
be
embedded
in
a
broad
array
of
settings:
enduring
associations,
single
issue
organisations,
loose
collectivities,
temporary
issue
publics,
lobbying
outfits,
NGO’s,
social
movements,
protest
activists,
citizen
networks
and
other
formations
–
active
at
local,
regional,
national
and
global
levels.
While
the
last
two
decades
have
witnessed
a
general
decline
in
participation
in
the
formal
political
system,
the
picture
in
the
broader
realm
of
civil
society
activities
and
alternative
political
engagement
is
more
mixed,
with
some
areas
of
intense
political
activity,
but
also
with
sometimes
strong
counter-‐strategies,
for
instance,
driven
by
commodification
processes.
These
stakeholders
and
their
uses
of
digital
79
media
play
an
important
role
in
this
regard
–
and
it
is
at
this
point
where
the
question
about
their
status
as
stakeholder
comes
up
(Starkey
&
Madan,
2001;
Crilly,
2011;
Chiu,
2009).
These
media
users
can
be
seen
as
a
vast
array
of
individuals
or
organisations,
informal
networks,
and
movements
who
traditionally
had
no
relevance
for
the
academia,
at
least
not
as
stakeholders.
But
their
constant
level
of
activity
makes
them
highly
relevant
for
academia
because
it
points
to
the
possibility
of
engaging
with
community
stakeholders
who
are
actually
contributing
to
the
transformation
of
society
and
can
benefit
by
the
knowledge
produced
by
academic
research.
That
democracy
is
facing
an
array
of
very
serious
dilemmas
has
become
an
established
and
engaging
theme
within
academic
and
public
discussions
i n
the
past
two
decades;
foundations
are
ear-‐marking
ever
greater
sums
to
study
the
issues;
NGOs
are
trying
to
tackle
them
in
diverse
ways;
journalistic
pundits
analyse
the
difficulties,
while
political
parties
and
governments
are
obviously
troubled
by
these
non-‐institutional
forms
of
politics
(Bermam,
Wicks,
Kotha,
&
Jones,
1999;
Hayibor,
2012).
Although
the
concept
of
democracy
is
routinely
invoked,
we
must
keep
in
mind
that
within
Europe
and
the
EU,
differences
and
even
tensions
in
regard
to
political
traditions,
notions
of
citizenship,
assumptions
about
openness
and
access,
conceptions
of
what
constitutes
civil
society,
and
so
on,
are
noteworthy.
At
the
same
time,
the
traditional
nationalist
frame
for
politics
is
problematized
by
globalized
forces
and
regional
structures,
most
notably
that
of
the
EU
(with
all
i ts
dilemmas,
for
instance,
the
distance
b etween
citizens
and
their
democratic
deficit
in
decision-‐making).
Growing
worries
about
trust,
belonging,
individualism,
legitimacy,
and
other
issues
make
difficult
for
government
to
devise
policies
to
simply
promote
a
generic
notion
of
citizenship
as
an
all-‐purpose
panacea
for
society’s
ills
(Schrøder,
2012).
Many
citizens
feel
an
estrangement
from
–
and
often
a
growing
cynicism
towards
–
governments
and
the
political
process
(Franklin,
van
der
Eijk
&
Marsh,
1995).
All
these
tensions
within
the
social
and
political
arena
affect
the
different
modes
of
interaction
between
academia
and
stakeholders.
More
importantly,
they
are
shaking
the
balance
between
one-‐to-‐one
and
many-‐to-‐many
relationships
by
questioning
established
positions
of
both
organizations
and
i ndividuals.
In
response
to
these
developments,
we
see
a
range
of
efforts,
emanating
from
different
official
levels,
as
well
as
from
civic
sectors.
Not
surprisingly,
media
technology
is
often
given
a
(sometimes
disturbingly)
primary
place
in
these
contexts.
Discussions
about
media
literacy,
for
example,
have
become
frequent
at
the
policy
level.
There
have
been
many
government-‐funded
projects
to
enhance
media
access
and
skills.
The
difficulty
is
that
while
media
certainly
can
be
highly
relevant
here,
low
levels
of
participation
do
not
have
their
origin
in
the
scarcity
of
media
access
and
skills.
Such
horizons
can
lead
us
down
the
simplistic
techno-‐determinist
routes
or
direct
us
towards
solutionist
approaches
(Morozov,
2013).
Participation
is
a
far
more
complicated
question;
it
must
be
understood
as
forms
of
practice
that
take
place
under
specific
circumstances,
shaped
by
concrete
conditions
–
of
which
media
are
a
part
(Carpentier,
2011)
(see
also
the
individual
reports
of
Carpentier,
and
of
Dufrasne
and
Patriarche).
The
overall
task
for
communication
and
media
scholars
then
becomes
to
clarify
in
which
terms
and
conditions
these
new
audience's
positions
can
have
an
impact
on
democracy.
The
challenge
is
to
analytically
weave
together
aspects
of
social
structures,
institutions
with
media
technologies,
the
socio-‐cultural
parameters
of
media
environments
with
concrete
organizations
80
and
collectivities
–
and
to
make
this
available
to
those
civil
society
actors
that
are
aiming
at
contributing
to
social
change.
The
issue
is
that
while
digital
media
can
make
participation
easier,
they
also
create
conditions
for
one
to
bowl
alone,
and
to
engage
in
moral
reasoning
without
much
attention
to
others.
THE
FOURTH
MODE
OF
INTERACTION:
NETWORKING
Scrutiny,
as
a
mode
of
interaction,
brought
forward
the
r elevance
that
other
stakeholders
have
for
the
audience
and
media
studies
and
allowed
us
to
move
past
the
conflict
and
dependency-‐based
nature
of
the
one-‐to-‐one
relations
with
internal
and
external
stakeholders
that
are
informed
by
an
instrumental
view
of
these
relations.
In
contrast,
many-‐to-‐many
relations
are
those
that
occur
in
an
increasingly
mediatised
society,
where
people
have
to
perform
diverse
“modes
of
action”
(Ridell,
2012)
with/through
media
and
ICTs
–
for
instance,
they
should
be
able
to
act
as
audiences,
publics
and
communities,
and
they
should
be
able
to
move
from
one
mode
of
action
to
another,
depending
on
the
aim
of
(and
their
role
in)
their
activities.
Such
networking
activities
that
happen
i n
many-‐to-‐many
relations
actually
represent
a
fourth
mode
of
interaction.
Today
one’s
mode
of
action
within
its
social
networks
has
gained
increased
significance.
By
“social
network”
we
do
not
specifically
mean
social
networking
sites,
although
these
are
technical
tools
that
indeed
provide
new
opportunities
for
media
practices.
The
notion
of
social
network
encapsulates
(at
least)
six
key
dimensions
that
specify
typical
practices:
1)
building
and
maintaining
relations,
2)
bypassing
intermediaries,
3)
co-‐producing
contents,
technologies
and
organisations,
4)
sharing
and
circulating
materials
and
knowledge,
5 )
cutting
across
spaces
and
6)
blurring
temporalities
(Patriarche
and
Dufrasne,
in
print).
These
modes
of
action
in
social
networks
challenge
traditional
relations
with
stakeholders
–
most
often
based
on
information,
consultation
and
retribution
–
and
point
to
normative
ones,
namely
that
stakeholders
are
not
solely
identified
by
their
interest
in
the
affairs
of
the
network
but
also
for
the
intrinsic
value
their
interest
has
for
the
network.
This
normative
view
implies
that
this
fourth
form
of
interaction,
based
on
networking,
is
more
able
to
enforce
stakeholders’
claims
than
the
previous
ones,
since
these
actors
are
now
part
of
the
environment
whilst
their
main
stakes
still
reside
outside
the
organization,
a
fact
which
makes
them
more
salient
and
less
dependable.
LINKING
THE
TATS
COST
ACTION
WITH
STAKEHOLDERS
–
THE
RELEVANCE
STAKEHOLDERS
ASSUME
FOR
RESEARCHERS
In
this
part
of
this
article
we
will
examine
how
the
different
modes
of
interaction
with
stakeholders
that
we
have
been
describing
are
present
in
the
research
and
activities
of
some
of
the
TATS
COST
Action
members
who,
in
the
case
of
Working
Group
2,
have
written
the
26
individual
reports
that
have
inspired
our
work.
The
aim
is
to
illustrate
how
some
of
the
problems
we
have
been
discussing,
namely
the
ones
related
with
the
tension
that
the
different
modes
of
interaction
generate
between
stakeholders
and
academia,
are
present
in
the
research
and
work
of
these
academics.
81
We
can,
on
the
one
side,
find
researchers
for
whom
stakeholders
are
first
of
all
regarded
as
an
object
of
study.
Beybin
Kejanlioglu
for
i nstance,
affirms
in
her
individual
r eport
that,
in
her
research
on
alternative
media,
she
identified
a
large
number
of
stakeholders
that
correspond
to
her
own
objects
of
study:
“Civil
society,
especially
feminist
circles
and
community
media/alternative
journalists
can
be
regarded
as
stakeholders
here
(…)
Another
stakeholder
can
be
mainstream
media.”
Others,
like
Sirkku
Kotilainen,
recognize
in
their
individual
reports
the
existence
of
one-‐
to-‐one
r elations,
strongly
b ased
on
dependency:
“My
professorship
covers
media
literacy
education
which
means
mainly
audience
research
among
younger
generations
and,
continually
discussions
with
public
stakeholders
and
media
companies
on
the
educational
perspectives
of
research
results.
My
own
interests
lie
on
comparative
settings
of
research.
(…)
My
professorship
has
b een
established
by
outside
stakeholders
(…)”
A
similar
insistence
on
the
value
that
their
work
has
for
stakeholders
-‐
because
they
can
instrumentally
use
the
results
of
their
research
-‐
is
mentioned
by
Rocio
Zamora
Medina,
who
states
that:
“my
research’s
results
have
a
great
social
value
and
significance,
mainly
in
a
time
of
political
disaffection
and
crisis
of
political
representation.
(Because
they)
need
to
practice
crossmedia
(the
same
message
adapted
to
different
platforms),
and
transmedia
(a
coordinated
entertainment
experience
through
different
media)
and
multiplatform
strategies.”
Dependency
relations
are
also
mentioned
directly
in
association
with
funding
and
the
need
for
recognition,
namely
by
Nurçay
Türkoglu,
who
mentions
in
her
individual
report
three
core
outputs
related
to
stakeholders:
funding
from
the
state;
recognition
from
peers
and
funding
from
commercial
companies.
The
scrutiny
of
modes
of
interaction
also
clearly
appears
in
some
of
the
individual
reports.
Paula
Cordeiro
for
instance
mentions
in
her
individual
report
that:
“I
had
presented,
in
another
conference,
‘Terrestrial
Radio
And
Digital
Platforms:
How
Multimedia
Is
Changing
Radio’
a
in-‐depth
analysis
of
digital
and
on
line
radio
trends,
developing
a
reflection
on
how
the
i ntegration
of
new
expressive
models
and
multivariate
apparatus
change
the
message
of
the
r adio,
and
tracing
paths
and
forms
for
emerging
new
radio
models.
One
main
objective
was
to
understand
the
way
on-‐
line
broadcasting,
(…)
can
change
radio
as
we
used
to
know
it
and
how
the
market
82
has
shifted
the
balance
of
power
away
from
radio
as
taste
maker
toward
consumers'
ability
to
select,
hoard
and
arrange
his
own
music”.
But
we
can
also
see
in
the
individual
reports
that
networking
modes
of
interaction
are
emerging
as
relevant
for
the
academics.
Lawrie
Hallett,
for
i nstance,
noticeably
affirms
this
when
considering
his
involvement
i n
COST
TATS:
“The
provision
of
enhanced
academic
exchange
and
networking
opportunities
for
collaboration
with
colleagues
elsewhere
in
the
UK
and
across
Europe
(was
particularly
useful).
This
was
particularly
the
case
at
COST
Action
events,
which
I
attended
in
person
(…).
I
am
certainly
of
the
view
that
I
would
not
have
been
able
to
take
advantage
of
such
exchanges
without
i nvolvement
in
the
COST
Action
Audiences
programme.
Some
of
the
areas
debated
have
fed
directly
into
my
on-‐going
PhD
research
into
Community
Media
and
elements
of
the
COST
Action
Audiences
research
are
also
likely
to
be
of
use
to
Community
Media
organisations
seeking
to
better
understand
their
audiences”.
The
above
statements
show
an
awareness
of
the
different
modes
of
interaction
between
academia
and
stakeholders.
Moreover,
they
mostly
depict
a
specific
r elational
mode
that
we
will
discuss
in
our
conclusion.
CONCLUSIONS
We
started
by
characterizing
the
relation
b etween
stakeholders
and
academia
in
the
area
of
audiences
and
media
studies
as
essentially
a
one-‐to-‐one
relation
based
on
three
distinctive
modes
of
interaction:
scrutiny,
dependency
and
conflict.
We
then
moved
on
to
verify
that
the
instrumental
formulation
of
stakeholders’
theory
around
the
notion
of
value
and,
i n
particular
i n
the
case
of
universities,
around
the
valorisation
of
outcomes,
results
in
a
process
whereby
only
those
stakeholders
that
can
affirm
their
contribution
to
the
value-‐making
process
that
informs
the
organization
are
considered
r elevant.
That
relevance
becomes
verifiable
via
the
evaluation
of
their
power,
legitimacy
and
urgency
in
the
context
of
the
relation
between
academia
and
its
external
stakeholders.
By
further
evaluating
the
third
mode
of
interaction
–
scrutiny
–
we
verified
that
a
relevant
set
of
stakeholders
with
no
clear
interest
in
academia
are
emerging
via
new
uses
of
media
technologies.
These
groups
of
stakeholders
inform
a
many-‐to-‐many
relationship
with
the
academia
that
we
made
equivalent
to
a
fourth
mode
of
interaction:
networking.
Our
main
conclusion
is
that
the
relation
between
stakeholders
and
academia
in
the
area
of
media
and
audiences
studies
is
essentially
a
normative
one
and
not
an
instrumental
one.
By
a
normative
relation
we
refer
to
the
balance
between
stakeholders’
intrinsic
individual
interests
and
organizational
ones.
This
i s
opposed
to
an
instrumental
relation,
whereby
stakeholders,
as
a
group,
focus
on
the
organization’s
interests.
Stakeholder
theory,
in
this
context,
has
been
mostly
applied
from
an
instrumental
perspective
(Donaldson
&
Preston,
1995),
but
stakeholder
theory
is
descriptive,
instrumental
and
more
importantly,
normative
(Donaldson
&
Preston,
1995).
All
83
these
dimensions
are
relevant.
Valorisation
has
been
often
regarded
from
a
pure
instrumental
point
of
view
and
it
should
also
be
regarded
as
normative.
Our
proposal
is
that
this
relation
must
be
represented
as
containing
a
number
of
nested
levels.
At
a
macro-‐level,
there
are
various
systems
framing
the
hierarchy
of
universities’
external
stakeholders.
At
the
meso-‐level,
there
are
relationships
b etween
k ey
institutional
actors
(such
a s
funding
bodies)
and
academia,
in
which
the
system
is
funded
in
return
for
the
delivery
of
outputs
–
the
instrumental
type
of
valorisation.
At
the
micro-‐level,
there
are
academics
in
specific
contexts
working
to
exploit
new
knowledge
around
the
networked
community
stakeholders
we
have
identified.
I t
is
i mportant
-‐
when
undertaking
stakeholder
research
-‐
to
b e
clear
which
system
level
is
being
talked
about.
However,
it
is
also
important
to
respect
the
relationships
between
these
levels,
seeing
them
as
part
of
a
multi-‐level
relationship
system,
and
accept
that
a
normative
non-‐deterministic
process
i s
occurring
while
the
relationships
are
being
addressed
by
the
different
actors
involved.
REFERENCES
Benneworth,
P.,
Jongbloed,
B.
(2009)
“Who
matters
to
universities?
A
stakeholder
perspective
o n
humanities,
arts
and
social
sciences
valorisation”,
Higher
Education,
59(5):
567–588.
Bermam,
S.,
Wicks,
A,
Kotha,
S.,
Jones,
T.
(1999)
“Does
Stakeholder
Orientation
Matter?
The
Relationship
Between
Stakeholder
Management
Models
and
Firm
Financial
Performance”,
Academy
of
M anagement
Journal,
42
(5):
488-‐506.
Bosse,
D.
A.,
Phillips,
R.
A.,
Harrison,
J.
S.
(2009)
“Stakeholders,
reciprocity
and
firm
performance”,
Strategic
Management
Journal,
30:
447-‐456.
Bryson,
J.
(2005)
“What
to
do
when
stakeholders
matter”,
Public
Management
Review,
6
(1):
21-‐
53.
Carpentier,
N.
(2011)
Media
and
Participation:
A
Site
of
Ideological-democratic
Struggle.
Bristol:
Intellect.
Chapleo,
C.,
Simms,
C.
(2010)
“Stakeholder
Analysis
in
Higher
Education:
A
Case
Study
of
the
University
of
Portsmouth”,
Perspectives:
Policy
and
Practice
in
Higher
Education,
14
(1):
12-‐20.
Chiu,
S.
(2011)
“Legitimacy,
Visibility,
and
the
Antecedents
of
Corporate
Social
Performance:
An
Investigation
of
the
Instrumental
Perspective”,
Journal
of
Management,
37
(6):
1558-‐
1585.
Crilly,
D.
(2011)
“Cognitive
Scope
of
the
Firm:
Explaining
Stakeholder
Orientation
from
the
Inside-‐Out”,
B usiness
Society,
50
(3):
518-‐530.
Donaldson,
T.,
Preston,
L.
(1995)
“The
Stakeholder
Theory
of
the
Corporation:
Concepts,
Evidence,
and
I mplications”,
The
Academy
of
Management
Review,
20
(1):
65-‐91.
Freedman,
D.
(2010)
“The
Political
Economy
of
the
‘New’
N ews
Environment”,
i n
New
Media,
Old
News:
Journalism
&
Democracy
in
the
Digital
Age,
ed.
Natalie
Fenton.
London,
Thousand
Oaks,
New
Delhi:
Sage,
pp.
35–50.
Franklin,
M.,
van
der
Eijk,
C.,
Marsh,
M.
(1995)
“Referendum
outcomes
and
trust
in
government:
Public
support
for
Europe
in
the
wake
of
Maastricht”,
Journal
of
West
European
Politics,
Special
I ssue:
The
Crisis
of
Representation
in
Europe,
18(3):
101-‐117.
84
Hayibor,
S.
(2012)
“Equity
and
Expectancy
Considerations
in
Stakeholder
Action”,
Business
Society,
51
(2):
220-‐262.
Morozov,
E.
(2013)
To
save
everything
click
here:
technology,
solutionism
and
the
urge
to
fix
problems
that
d on’t
exist.
London:
Allen
Lane.
Patriarche,
G.,
Dufrasne,
M.
(In
print)
“Faire
parler
les
réseaux:
Ce
que
les
catégories
d’audience,
de
public
et
de
communauté
ne
disent
pas
sur
les
pratiques
médiatiques.”
In
Accords,
désaccords
et
malentendus:
le
sociologue
comme
médiateur
dans
l'espace
public.
Actes
du
colloque
international
organisé
par
le
Centre
d'études
sociologiques
(CES)
de
l’Université
Saint-Louis
-
Bruxelles
en
hommage
au
professeur
Luc
Van
Campenhoudt
à
l’occasion
de
son
accession
à
l’éméritat,
edited
by
Jean-‐Pierre
Delchambre.
Brussels:
Publications
de
l’Université
Saint-‐Louis
-‐
Bruxelles.
Ridell,
S.
(2012)
“Mode
of
Action
Perspective
to
Engagements
with
Social
Media:
Articulating
Activities
on
the
Public
Platforms
of
Wikipedia
and
YouTube”
in
The
Social
Use
of
Media.
Cultural
and
Social
Scientific
Perspectives
on
Audience
Research,
edited
by
Helena
Bilandzic,
Geoffroy
Patriarche
and
Paul
J.
Traudt.
Bristol:
I ntellect,
pp.
17–35.
OECD
(2007)
Higher
education
and
regions:
globally
competitive,
regionally
engaged.
Paris:
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-‐operation
and
Development/Institutional
Management
of
Higher
Education.
Available
online
at:
http://oecd.org/document/33/0,3746,en_21571361_50115957_39378401_1_1_1_1,00.h
tml.
Schrøder,
K.
(2012)
“From
Semiotic
Resistance
to
Civic
Agency:
Viewing
Citizenship
through
the
Lens
of
Reception
Research
1973-‐2010”
in
The
Social
Use
of
Media.
Cultural
and
Social
Scientific
Perspectives
on
Audience
Research,
edited
by
Helena
Bilandzic,
Geoffroy
Patriarche
and
P aul
J.
Traudt.
Bristol:
I ntellect,
pp.
179–200.
Starkey,
K.,
Madan,
P .
(2001)
“Bridging
the
Relevance
Gap:
Aligning
Stakeholders
i n
the
Future
of
Management
Research”,
British
Journal
of
Management,
12
(Supplement
s1):
S3–S26.
UNESCO
(1998)
The
World
Conference
on
Higher
Education
World
Declaration
on
Higher
Education
in
the
Twenty-‐first
Century
Vision
and
Action
Adopted
by
the
World
Conference
on
Higher
Education.
Paris:
UNESCO.
Available
at:
www.unescoorg/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm.
Individual
TATS
COST
Action
reports
Carpentier,
Nico
(2012)
The
significance
of
participatory
research
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
nico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Dufrasne,
Marie,
Patriarche,
Geoffroy
(2012)
The
significance
of
our
research
on
citizen
participation
for
social
practice.
Belgium,
d ufrasne@fusl.ac.be
and
p atriarche@fusl.ac.be
Hallett,
Lawrie
( 2012)
Individual
report.
UK,
lawrie@terella.com
Türkoglu,
Nurçay
(2012)
Scholarly
research
and
the
stakeholders
in
the
field.
Turkey,
nurcay.turkoglu@gmail.com
Kejanlioglu,
Beybin
(2012)
How
my
research
has
been
useful,
or
could
be
useful,
for
which
stakeholders
in
the
field?
Turkey,
beybink@hotmail.com
85
Kotilainen,
Sirkku
(2012)
The
usefulness
of
m
y
research
for
the
stakeholders
in
the
field.
Finland,
sirkku.kotilainen@uta.fi
86
BUILDING
BRIDGES
ON
MEDIA,
INTERACTION
AND
AUDIENCE
PARTICIPATION
Igor
V obič,
Slovenia,
igor.vobic@fdv.uni-‐lj.si
Liaison
Officer
for
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
This
report
from
Working
Group
2
“Audience
interactivity
and
participation”
i s
b ased
on
the
round
table
session
with
governmental,
civil
society
and
community
media
sector
representatives
held
during
the
COST
IS0906
Belgrade
Meeting
on
19
September
2013.
The
round
table
was
focused
on
the
issue
of
how
important
the
academia
as
a
critical
and
semi-‐
autonomous
field
is
f or
the
development
of
ideas
on
media
and
participation
in
different
fields.
Due
to
the
complexity
of
these
social
processes
the
speakers
at
the
round
table
could
only
touch
the
surface
of
academia’s
multifaceted
relationship
with
other
social
sectors.
In
order
to
structure
the
debate,
the
following
questions
were
used:
What
roles
do
you
see
academics
take
i n
particular
fields?
How
are
tensions
between
different
actors
and
agents
within
particular
fields
played
out?
How
can
academic
research
help
to
deal
better
with
these
tensions?
How
can
the
audience/citizens,
as
stakeholder,
become
more
involved
in
particular
societal
arenas?
Around
these
and
other
issues,
the
chair
of
the
roundtable
Nico
Carpentier,
from
the
Free
University
of
Brussels
and
Charles
University,
engaged
the
following
speakers
in
the
dialogue:
•
•
Francesco
Diasio,
General
Secretary
AMARC-‐Europe
Stefan
Lazarević,
State
Secretary
for
Communication,
I nformation
Society
within
the
Serbian
Ministry
for
Telecommunications
•
Gabriela
Velics,
Board
Member
of
Community
Media
Forum
Europe
and
Communication,
and
Media
and
Journalism
Teacher
at
the
University
of
West
Hungary
•
Julie
Uldam,
Assistant
Professor
at
Copenhagen
Business
School
and
Chair
of
the
Network
for
Social
I nnovation
and
Civic
Engagement
WHAT
IS
THE
IMPORTANCE
OF
ACADEMIA?
The
question
of
the
importance
of
academia
as
a
field
was
approached
by
the
speakers
in
different
ways,
reflecting
their
societal
roles
embedded
in
the
fields
of
community
media,
activism
and
government.
Yet,
they
agreed
that
the
dialogue
is
“useful”,
but
should
be
framed
on
the
long-‐term,
and
not
limited
to
spontaneous
“engagement”
or
“usage”.
From
the
community
media
perspective,
Francesco
Diasio,
General
Secretary
AMARC-‐
Europe,
stressed
that
the
dialogue
between
broadcasters
and
academics
differs
according
to
specific
social
contexts
within
the
“diverse
movement
of
community
radio”
in
Europe,
“We
have
some
particular
cases
where
there
is
dialogue
–
for
instance,
media
literacy
which
is
one
of
the
topics
that
is
very
important
for
us.”
In
this
context,
Gabriela
Velics,
Board
Member
of
Community
Media
Forum
Europe,
explicated
instances
of
fruitful
relationships
among
academia
and
community
media,
where
scholarly
attention
was
labelled
as
“useful”.
“[P]ractitioners
at
community
television
stations
who
are
focused
on
their
tasks
are
often
surprised
that
their
job
is
interesting
for
research
by
highly
87
academic
people.
/…/
When
they
are
presented
with
results
they
are
happy
and
proud
by
the
process,
by
being
part
of
it.
They
also
use
the
results
for
focusing
and
pushing
the
strengths
of
their
operation
a nd
for
adjusting
a nd
correcting
the
weaknesses.”
However,
Diasio
stressed
that
in
some
cases
“this
dialogue
is
non-existent”
or
that
“academic
processes
are
often
too
late”,
because
“The
dialogue
should
be
smoother,
following
the
fast
changes
in
the
community
radio
sector.
/…/
At
the
same
time,
we
talk
about
experience
on
the
grass-roots
level
and
activism
where
sometimes
people
are
more
focused
on
doing
things
rather
than
reflecting
on
a
wider
concept
of
what
they
are
d oing.”
In
the
context
of
civil
society
activities,
Julie
Uldam,
who
positions
herself
as
“an
academic
but
also
as
an
activist”
(with
all
the
difficulties
this
combined
identity
entails),
acknowledged
that
activists
can
find
“sympathy
and
understanding”
in
their
attempts
to
engage
in
politics
differently,
“Academia
helps
to
shed
light
on
nuances
and
show
that
activist
are
not
always
villains.
Academia
can
ask
questions
what
kind
of
democracy
we
are
defending
and
what
kind
of
democracy
we
are
e nvisioning.”
Focussing
on
institutionalized
politics
Stefan
Lazarević,
State
Secretary
from
the
Serbian
Ministry
for
Telecommunications,
said
“the
dialogue
with
academia
is
very
important”,
particularly
in
the
processes
of
shaping
policies
and
legislature,
“This
year
I
will
try
hard
to
e stablish
such
a
dialogue.
When
I
ask
them
to
help
me
in
the
short-term
projects,
they
really
help
me.
It
is
a
good
help.
But
I
would
like
to
have
a
long-term
help
–
to
help
me
shape
the
future
and
to
establish
paths
for
future
state
secretaries
and
ministers
that
will
come
and
deal
with
similar
issues.
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
for
them,
but
I
do
not
get
the
answers
I
am
looking
for.”
At
the
same
time,
Lazarević
stressed
that
the
absence
of
the
dialogue
between
the
government
and
academics
can
result
in
“collapses”
of
larger
projects,
such
was
the
state’s
attempt
to
sell
the
Serbian
telecommunications
company,
due
to
the
academia’s
critical
voices
in
the
public
and
their
influences
of
the
public
opinion.
HOW
TO
ESTABLISH
THE
DIALOGUE?
The
second
salient
topic
of
the
discussion
was
the
question
of
how
to
establish
and
maintain
the
dialogue
between
academia
and
community
media,
civil
society
activists,
and
the
government
institutions.
Through
the
discussion
different
barriers
that
limit
these
dialogue
bonds
were
identified
–
“reluctance”
of
academics
to
engage
in
politics
(in
the
narrow
sense
of
the
word),
difficulties
of
shaping
“common
interests”
with
the
community
media,
and
troubles
of
finding
compatible
“standpoints”
in
striving
for
democracy.
First,
Stefan
Lazarević
stressed
that
academics
often
share
their
opinion
in
the
media,
but
at
the
same
time
believe
that
their
engagement
would
hardly
change
anything.
“Sometimes
it
appears
that
they
think
they
are
losing
time
and
that
nothing
will
change
if
they
act.”
Lazarević
also
acknowledged
that
the
academics
are
often
“reluctant”
to
cooperate
with
either
the
government
or
the
opposition
as
they
fear
of
being
politically
abused.
Therefore
he
personally
visited
different
departments
in
order
to
establish
the
dialogue
for
the
policy
making
processes.
“They
think
that
the
government’s
invitations
to
establish
the
dialogue
are
not
trustworthy
and
only
rarely
there
is
initiative
from
their
[academics’]
side.
Therefore,
I
will
push
for
the
d ialogue.”
88
Second,
Francesco
Diasio
emphasised
that
the
community
media
sector
“should
be
more
active
in
building
a
dialogue”.
Diasio
particularly
mentioned
the
“European
Agenda”
in
respect
to
initiatives
from
the
European
Union,
the
Council
of
Europe
and
the
European
P latform
of
Regulatory
Authorities
as
a
potential
field
of
“common
interests”
of
community
media
and
academia.
“We
should
find
a
way
to
cooperate
and
should
work
together.
Sometimes
we
have
our
own
view,
but
sometimes
general
view
by
the
academics
can
frame
the
argument
better.
/…/
Let’s
do
it
together.”
In
this
context,
Gabriela
Velics
stressed
that
academia
should
think
how
to
prove
its
“usefulness”
also
through
the
dialogue
with
community
media.
According
to
Velics
this
appears
rather
difficult
during
the
current
economic
crisis
where
profit
is
the
imperative,
“Because
the
government
is
focusing
on
the
economy,
the
university
without
ties
to
the
economic
world
can
hardly
been
portrayed
as
useful.”
Third,
Julie
Uldam
said
that
different
models
of
cooperation
exist
b etween
academia
and
activism,
thus
there
are
different
ways
of
building
this
dialogue.
She
stressed
that
“standpoints”
when
thinking
about
the
society
are
often
not
compatible
which
makes
the
establishment
of
the
connection
difficult.
At
the
same
time,
scepticism
toward
academic
research
can
be
observed
within
activist
groups,
“When
people
from
the
academia
research
activism
there
is
scepticism
–
they
are
sometimes
seen
as
consultants
for
t he
cops.”
HOW
TO
INCORPORATE
THE
AUDIENCE
INTO
THE
DIALOGUE?
The
final
focal
point
of
the
roundtable
discussion
was
tied
to
the
question
how
the
audience
as
stakeholder
can
become
more
involved
in
particular
societal
arenas
–
not
only
through
institutionalized
forms.
Again,
the
particular
societal
positions
of
the
representatives
at
the
roundtable
defined
the
way
they
understand
the
notion
of
political
participation
and
see
the
ways
citizens
(could)
get
incorporated
into
the
dialogue.
For
instance,
Francesco
Diasio
emphasised
the
“difficulties
to
involve
the
audience”.
However,
he
identified
audience
members’
engagement
within
the
community
radio
stations
on
two
levels.
On
the
one
hand,
the
audience
can
engage
in
the
phases
of
the
production
process
inside
the
newsroom:
“radios
are
open
to
such
participation”.
On
the
other
hand,
the
audience
can
become
i nvolved
also
through
the
station
in
other
fields,
stimulating
their
civic
engagement.
“Many
community
radio
stations
have
the
capacity
to
involve
people
in
particular
struggles,
to
reinforce
the
call
for
public
demonstrations
or
petitions.
In
some
sense
they
can
amplify
the
voice
of
the
people
or
the
audience.
The
level
of
participation
is
less
conceptual
but
more
practical.
/…/
That
is
something
significant.”
In
this
regard,
Gabriela
Velics
exemplified
the
research
she
conducted
in
a
small
Hungarian
community.
This
research
showed
that
citizens
are
rather
indifferent
to
the
model
of
the
local
radio.
“They
want
one
radio.
If
it
is
commercial,
public,
or
community
local
radio
is
not
really
an
issue.
They
want
to
listen
to
g ood
music
a nd
local
information.”
Further,
according
to
Julie
Uldam,
the
best
way
to
bring
in
audience
would
be
through
close
and
frequent
interactions.
On
the
daily
basis,
stressed
Uldam,
the
role
of
activists
(who
also
represent
the
citizens)
is
mostly
tied
to
the
question
how
to
get
people
understand
the
issues
that
are
central
to
the
activists.
“ And
through
t hat
we
can
reach
wider
a udiences.”
89
From
the
government
perspective,
Stefan
Lazarević
acknowledged
that
the
Serbian
Ministry
for
Telecommunications
favours
“the
public
debate”.
“When
it
is
difficult
to
understand
the
law
we
always
organize
roundtables,
explain
it
to
the
particular
group
that
is
most
interested
in
it
and
help
them
understand
the
law
that
is
being
proposed.”
At
the
same
time,
Lazarević
said
that
they
engage
with
citizens
not
only
offline,
but
also
online,
“We
are
publishing
everything
on
our
webpage
–
all
the
comments
people
sent.
We
also
communicate
with
them
through
Twitter
and
Facebook
and
giving
them
answers
to
the
questions
they
are
interested
in.
We
sometimes
even
organize
a
meeting
on
the
issues
t hey
are
mostly
interested
in
online.”
***
The
round
table
indicated
the
depth
of
the
discussion
on
the
roles
of
academia
as
a
critical
and
semi-‐autonomous
field
in
the
development
of
ideas
of
interactivity
and
participation
in
its
relations
with
the
community
media,
civil
society
institutions
and
the
government.
The
representatives
of
different
institutions
agreed
that
the
dialogue
with
the
academia
is
important,
but
not
strong
enough
as
it
is
often
framed
only
on
a
short-‐term.
Therefore
they
propose
that
the
dialogue
should
overcome
the
limitations
of
spontaneous
engagement
of
academics
or
usage
of
their
conduct
in
different
societal
sectors.
In
order
to
build
stronger
bonds,
institutional
actors
should
approach
academia
differently,
that
is,
in
accordance
with
the
roles
in
societal
life
taken
by
civil
society
organizations,
media
and
the
governement.
The
reluctance
of
academics
to
engage
in
everyday
politics
should
be
reduced
and
common
goals
with
civil
society,
and,
for
instance,
community
media
should
be
established.
Also
the
differences
with
activists
in
understanding
cooperation
among
people
in
the
strive
for
democracy
should
be
overcome.
Additionally,
the
round
table
participants
also
understand
the
audience
as
an
important
stakeholder,
not
only
within
their
particular
agendas,
but
also
in
facilitating
public
participation
and
i n
building
citizenship.
90
PART
III.
The
Role
of
Media
and
ICT
Use
for
Evolving
Social
Relationships
91
‘OLD’
&
‘NEW’
MEDIA:
THEORETICAL
AND
TECHNOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
J.
Ignacio
Gallego,
Spain,
jigalleg@hum.uc3m.es
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
‘“Old”
and
“New”
Media:
Theoretical
and
Technological
Perspectives’
in
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships’
Brian
O'Neill,
Ireland,
brian.oneill@dit.ie
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
‘“Old”
and
“New”
Media:
Theoretical
and
Technological
Perspectives’
in
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships’
INTRODUCTION
The
overall
theme
of
Working
Group
3,
‘The
role
of
media
and
I CT
use
f or
evolving
social
relationships’,
investigates
how
evolving
patterns
of
use
by
audiences
of
diverse
media,
old
and
new,
contribute
to
new
modes
of
social
interaction.
Our
focus
in
this
Task
Force
is
on
the
relationship
–
and
frequently
tension
–
between
‘old’
and
‘new’
media
forms,
particularly
how
the
transition
to
a
fully
converged
media
environment
is
managed
and
experienced
by
both
consumers
and
producers.
The
purpose
of
this
short
essay
is
to
discuss
some
of
the
principal
ways
in
which
the
work
of
the
Task
Force
may
be
significant
for
external
stakeholders.
Researchers
participating
in
the
Task
Force
have
experience
across
a
wide
range
of
topics,
including
public
service
broadcasting,
online
virtual
communities,
radio
and
new
media,
language
usage
and
communication
patterns
i n
and
through
digital
media,
political
participation
via
new
media
and
young
people’s
use
of
the
internet.
In
our
individual
research,
we
have
contributed
in
a
variety
of
ways
to
policy,
professional
practice
and
civil
society.
As
the
work
of
the
Task
Force
develops
we
have
pooled
our
experience
to
focus
specifically
on
the
media
industry
perspective
on
audiences,
examining
sources
of
industry
knowledge
about
audiences,
how
this
i s
facilitated
by
new
kinds
of
data
and
what
expectations
today’s
media
producers
have
regarding
their
viewers’
and
listeners’
media
skills
and
habits.
MAKING
RESEARCH
ACCESSIBLE
There
is
a
consensus
among
participants
in
the
Task
Force
that
research
should
have
relevance
for
society.
As
active
researchers
in
the
field
of
digital
communication,
we
are
conscious
of
the
extraordinary
range
of
developments
brought
about
by
the
digital
revolution
and
the
way
in
which
contemporary
social,
cultural,
economic
and
political
life
has
been
transformed
by
new
media
technologies.
The
need
for
communication
scholars
to
formulate
research
in
ways
that
engage
more
directly
with
society
as
well
as
to
better
communicate
their
own
involvement
in
socially-‐relevant
research
have
recently
been
topics
of
some
debate
in
the
academy.22
Engagement
necessitates,
in
part,
a
b etter
understanding
of
societal
needs,
improved
opportunities
for
dialogue
between
researchers
and
stakeholders,
and
developing
the
appropriate
kinds
of
interdisciplinary
research
required
to
meet
the
fast-‐evolving
challenges
of
today’s
communications
landscape.
22
(2013).
Communication
Scholars
Need
to
Communicate.
Retrieved
August
4,
2013,
from
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/07/29/essay-‐state-‐communications-‐scholarship.
92
Our
Task
Force
builds
on
a
substantial
body
of
experience
of
working
with
diverse
stakeholders.
Firstly,
as
academics
within
a
predominantly
publicly-‐funded
university
system
our
research
contributes
to
theoretical
and
practical
k nowledge
made
available
for
a
variety
of
social
purposes.
This
is
most
evident
through
participation
in
programmes
for
research
such
as
EU
Framework
6
and
7
which
typically
bring
together
publicly
funded
research
and
education
institutions,
policy
makers,
as
well
as
small
and
medium
sized
enterprises
to
address
a
range
of
issues
relevant
to
social
and
economic
development
in
Europe.
Involvement
in
such
Framework
research
projects
dedicated
to
understanding
the
evolving
digital
ecosystem
is
vital
for
citizens
in
general
and
through
large-‐scale
international
projects,
scientific
knowledge
is
made
accessible
to
a
wider
audience.
Secondly,
researchers
on
an
individual
level
have
been
active
in
promoting
wider
understanding
of
research
through
active
participation
in
professional,
civil
society
and
various
non-‐governmental
organisations.
Members
of
the
Task
Force
have
served
on
boards
of
public
media
authorities,
advisory
committees
for
media
regulatory
authorities,
leaders
in
community
media
organisations,
etc.
Thirdly,
the
Task
Force
has
also
been
proactive
in
identifying
relevant
stakeholder
groups
to
whom
research
can
be
presented.
Through
participation
in
some
of
the
COST
Action-‐
supported
research
initiatives
such
as
‘E-‐Audiences
–
A
comparative
study
of
European
media
audiences’,
‘Global
protests:
Active
audiences’
voices
and
their
alternative
multimedia’
and
‘Old
media
institutions
–
New
media
strategies’,
Task
Force
members
have
identified
specific
stakeholder
groups
for
whom
research
will
be
significant
and
have
modelled
their
research
priorities
in
such
a
way
as
to
maximise
impact
and
relevance.
WHICH
STAKEHOLDERS?
Task
Force
participants
have
identified
the
following
stakeholder
groups
as
particularly
relevant
for
its
research:
1)
Government
and
policy
makers:
Our
general
approach
is
to
support
policy
making
relating
to
media
through
provision
of
a
robust
evidence
base.
Our
research
deals
with
new
media
trends,
uses,
problems
encountered,
and
identifies
gaps
where
new
research
needs
to
be
undertaken.
In
the
most
general
sense,
government
and
media
regulatory
agencies
are
thus
one
of
the
primary
groups
for
our
research
whereby
we
can
advise
on
new
media
developments
and
audience
needs.
2)
Representative
media
organisations:
Given
the
focus
of
our
research
around
existing
media
institutions
and
organisations,
their
experiences
of
convergence
and
strategies
for
future
development,
we
feel
it
is
important
to
fully
engage
with
professional
media
organisations
to
disseminate
research
and
bring
findings
from
comparative
studies
to
wider
attention
among
professional
media
networks.
Examples
of
organisations
with
whom
we
have
interacted
in
the
past
include
the
European
Broadcasting
Union,
the
International
Federation
of
Journalists,
and
at
national
level
representative
media
organisations
in
Spain,
Ireland,
Poland,
Slovenia,
Germany
and
I srael.
93
3)
Professional
media
workers/producers:
The
Task
Force
project,
‘Old
media
institutions
-‐
New
media
strategies’,
entails
interviewing
media
professionals
in
a
number
of
different
European
countries
and
in
different
media
forms.
While
the
primary
purpose
is
to
collect
data
on
media
organisations’
perspectives
on
audiences
and
audience
transformation,
the
research
process
itself
is
also
a
dialogue
with
a
key
stakeholder
group,
namely
professional
media
workers,
and
a
valuable
opportunity
to
critically
r eflect
on
professional
media
processes.
4)
NGOs
and
civil
society:
With
particular
interests
in
fostering
understanding
and
use
of
new
media
technologies
to
enhance
democratic
participation,
Task
Force
members
envisage
research
being
of
value
to
organisations
in
the
public
sphere.
For
instance,
questions
being
studied
i nclude:
Why
i n
some
countries
direct
democracy
works
b etter
than
in
others?
What
are
the
pros
and
cons
of
political
e-‐participation?
How
can
ICT
contribute,
so
that
decisions
of
the
state
bodies
are
more
congruent
with
those
of
citizens?
Agency23
and
activism
are
core
concerns
and
in
this
context
researchers
are
involved
in
providing
a
means
for
personal
and
collective
empowerment,
national
public
opinion
change,
and
government
policy
change.
THE
TASK
FORCE
PROJECT
In
order
to
focus
the
r esearch
effort
of
the
Task
Force,
we
decided
to
combine
our
efforts
on
a
single
comparative
research
project
that
would
illustrate
in
different
countries
and
in
different
media
forms,
how
media
organisations
are
adapting
their
strategies
to
take
account
of
audience
transformations.
The
project
‘Old
media
institutions
-‐
New
media
strategies’
revises
in
a
different
context
a
set
of
research
questions
posed
by
communications
scholar
Ien
Ang
in
her
classic
1990s
study
Desperately
Seeking
the
Audience 24
which
investigated
how
institutionally-‐
produced
knowledge
of
the
audience
(through
ratings
systems,
commercial
television
audience
segmentation
etc.)
stood
in
marked
contrast
to
the
‘real
world
of
audiences’.
Our
focus
in
this
project
is
to
take
into
account
the
dramatically
different
and
substantially
more
powerful
techniques
of
gathering
data
from
audiences,
asking
how
these
might
contribute
to
an
altered
institutional
understanding
of
audiences,
their
identities
and
associated
capacities
or
media
literacies.
Leading
US
audience
researcher,
Philip
Napoli,
has
characterised
the
contemporary
technologies
of
data
analytics
and
metrics
as
powerful
tools
for
redefining
how
media
i ndustries
relate
to
their
audiences.25
We
set
out
to
investigate
this
further
by
looking
at
three
sectors
–
press,
radio
and
television
–
in
a
number
of
European
countries
and
to
gather
information
directly
from
media
executives
about
the
data
that
informs
their
understanding
and
conceptualisation
of
their
audience.
Acknowledging
that
media
industries
operate
in
distinct
markets
and
respond
to
particular
needs,
we
take
the
national
context
as
the
primary
unit
of
comparison
and
further
seek
to
explore
how
different
parts
of
the
media
industry
respond,
comparing
quality
newspapers
with
the
more
popular
press;
public
broadcasting
versus
private,
commercial
forms,
and
so
on.
23
Agency,
in
a
social
sciences
context,
refers
to
the
capacity
of
individuals
to
act
independently
and
to
make
their
own
free
choices.
24
Ien,
A.
(1991).
Desperately
seeking
the
audience.
London:
Routledge.
Napoli,
P.
M.
(2011).
Audience
evolution:
New
technologies
and
the
transformation
of
media
audiences.
Columbia
U niversity
Press.
25
94
The
study
design
involves
interviews
with
representative
media
executives
or
leaders
in
each
of
the
three
media
industry
sectors
drawn
respectively
from
the
elite/quality/public
service
end
of
the
market
and
with
representatives
from
the
popular
and
commercial
end.
The
research
seeks
to
balance
both
so-‐called
‘highbrow
media’
with
its
emphasis
on
journalistic
quality
with
so-‐called
‘lowbrow
media’
with
its
corresponding
emphasis
on
the
business
side
of
the
media
enterprise.
The
assumption
here
is
that
while
both
sections
of
the
industry
have
access
to
similar
techniques
of
audience
data
collection,
there
are
different
drivers
or
market
pressures
on
their
respective
operations
leading
potentially
to
a
differing
emphasis
and
conceptualisation
of
their
target
audience
groups.
The
key
distinction
here
is
not
so
much
between
‘high’
and
‘low’
ends
of
the
market
but
rather
the
reason
why
the
outlet
concerned
is
primarily
trying
to
reach
its
audiences.
The
framework
of
the
analysis
is
divided
into
four
main
sections.
1)
Conceptualisation
of
the
audience:
Our
interest
here
is
to
probe
and
investigate
further
how
media
organisations
understand
their
audience.
Under
this
heading,
we
ask
media
executives
to
describe
how
they
define
their
typical
core
audience
or
readership.
We
ask
about
the
kinds
of
information
available
relating
to
audiences’
consumption
habits
available
to
media
leaders
and
how
this
has
informed
a
view
of
when
and
how
audience
behaviours
have
changed
or
evolved.
Importantly,
we
also
try
to
understand
how
companies
or
organisations
have
adapted
to
take
account
of
a
shift
from
‘old’
to
‘new’
media.
2)
Uses
of
audience
measurement:
Here,
we
ask
if
audience
measurement
methods
used
by
so-‐called
traditional
media
organisations
are
sufficiently
adapted
to
the
new
media
paradigm.
If
so,
do
the
techniques
of
tracking
audience
b ehaviours
provide
valuable
information
from
the
perspective
of
producing
media
content.
Has
it
been
useful,
for
instance,
in
adapting
approaches
to
editorial
or
audience
targeting
strategies
or
how
has
it
resulted
in
the
development
of
new
offerings?
Furthermore,
we
enquire
also
about
the
limitations
of
currently
available
audience
measurement
systems.
While
large
volumes
of
data
are
available,
the
techniques
f or
extracting
useful
k nowledge
are
still
very
much
in
development.
There
is
also
the
gap
that
Ang
so
pointedly
referred
to,
between
institutionally
constructed
knowledge
and
the
‘real
world
of
audiences’,
however
k nowable
that
m ay
be.
3)
Promoting
audience
participation:
A
widely
recognised
feature
of
the
new
media
landscape
is
the
fact
that
it
facilitates
ever
greater
levels
of
participation
and
i nput
on
the
part
of
audiences.
Fundamentally
different
to
the
mass
communication
paradigm
based
on
a
linear
transmission
model
of
‘one
to
many’,
new
media
are
characterised
by
interactivity
and
networked
connectivity.
While
a
fundamental
transformation
from
completely
passive
to
a
fully
active
audiencehood
may
be
overstated,
the
degree
to
which
traditional
media
institutions
have
incorporated
new
opportunities
to
foster
audience
participation
is
highly
significant.
We
ask,
therefore,
how
companies
have
gone
about
the
task
of
promoting
new
modes
of
audience
participation.
What,
from
their
perspective,
are
the
most
important
ways
in
which
audiences
now
participate
and
with
what
effect?
Importantly,
have
there
any
attempts
from
a
media
industry
perspective
to
evaluate
the
nature
of
new
patterns
of
audience
contribution
to
media
content
production
and
if
this
has
had
consequent
impact
on
engagement
and
affiliation
on
the
part
of
audiences?
95
4)
Strategies
to
engage
younger
audiences
and
promote
media
literacy:
Finally,
in
the
context
of
an
evolving
new
media
audience
paradigm,
we
enquire
if
companies
have
adopted
any
particular
strategies
to
attract
and
to
engage
younger
audiences,
often
the
presumed
early
adopters
of
new
platforms
and
new
technologies.
We
ask
if
companies
have
adopted
any
formal
involvement
in
sector-‐wide
efforts
to
educate
audiences,
raise
awareness
of
new
media
opportunities
(and
risks)
and
to
contribute
in
any
particular
to
efforts
to
stimulate
media
literacy.
Media
literacy
is
a
multifaceted
concept
involving
varying
elements
of
practical
and
cognitive
skill
and
the
ability
on
the
part
of
audiences
to
use
those
skills
creatively
and
critically.26
Given
the
prominence
of
debates
about
media
literacy
within
regulatory
discourse
for
the
new
media
sphere,
we
have
used
this
as
an
opportunity
to
gauge
the
extent
to
which
companies
themselves
have
adopted
particular
strategies
around
the
concept.
In
order
to
ensure
comparability,
this
core
set
of
issues
is
used
as
a
guide
for
interviews
for
each
sector
and
in
each
country
participating
in
the
study.
Clearly,
there
will
be
significant
differences
between
media
industries
and
between
the
contrasting
cultural
contexts,
leading
to
potentially
striking
differences.
However,
our
aim
is
to
attempt
to
understand
the
common
trends
evident
across
the
media
as
it
grapples
with
the
challenges
of
transformation
in
modes
of
delivery
and
modes
of
consumption
i n
a
converging
media
system.
HOW
THIS
KNOWLEDGE
CAN
BE
USEFUL
The
objective
of
this
particular
research
project
is
to
produce
knowledge
that
may
be
useful
not
just
for
the
participants
but
which
through
wider
dissemination
and
knowledge
exchange
can
be
the
basis
for
i nsights
into
the
evolving
nature
of
convergence
and
identification
of
new
priorities
for
research.
It
is
intended
that
the
process
of
research,
through
interviews
with
leaders
of
media
industries
in
a
range
of
countries,
can
be
a
genuine
exchange
of
information
and
experiences.
Researchers
and
media
executives
inhabit
very
different
worlds
but
the
dialogue
which
this
research
involves
can
be
a
basis
for
learning
in
both
directions:
for
researchers
about
the
real
contexts
and
drivers
within
a
fast-‐moving
industry;
for
media
executives
about
the
significance
that
analysis
and
detailed
investigation
can
bring
to
i ssues
that
might
not
otherwise
attract
attention.
Previous
experiences
for
similar
research
projects
suggest
that
topics
that
industry
might
take
for
granted
can
b e
hugely
i mportant
for
researchers.
Under
COST
A20,
a
COST
Action
on
the
impact
of
the
Internet
on
mass
media
business
processes27,
we
looked
at
the
diverse
perspectives
on
digitalisation
among
leaders
in
the
radio
industry.
The
project
culminated
in
developing
a
map
of
possible
future
scenarios
for
radio
development
that
proved
invaluable
for
policy
planning
and
strategy.28
While
on
an
individual
level,
industry
participants
may
not
have
26
See
the
definition
of
media
literacy
offered
by
Ofcom
as
‘the
ability
to
use,
understand
and
create
media
and
communications’.
(2005).
Ofcom
|
Media
Literacy.
Retrieved
August
4,
2013,
from
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/.
27
ISCH
COST
Action
A20.
The
Impact
of
the
Internet
on
the
Mass
Media
in
Europe.
2011.
Retrieved
August
5,
2013,
from
http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/isch/Actions/A20.
28
Ala-‐Fossi,
M.,
Lax,
S.,
O'Neill,
B.,
Jauert,
P.,
&
Shaw,
H.
(2008).
The
future
of
radio
is
still
digital—but
which
one?
Expert
perspectives
and
future
scenarios
for
radio
media
in
2015.
Journal
of
Radio
&
Audio
96
regarded
the
topic
as
particularly
noteworthy,
the
value
of
collecting
data
in
a
comparative
way
allowed
for
an
exchange
of
information
across
branches
of
the
industry
and
between
countries
in
a
format
that
highlighted
the
state
of
development
and
future
options.
A
crucial
outcome
of
this
process
of
research
is
also
to
bring
matters
of
industry
concern
to
the
attention
of
researchers.
Relying
exclusively
on
theoretical
assumptions
about
the
nature
of
technological
convergence
or
processes
of
audience
participation
in
the
new
media
environment
fails
to
capture
the
unique
issues
and
challenges
from
the
perspective
on
media
producers.
Our
approach
to
the
audience
in
this
context
is
to
study
the
operationalised,
practical
version
as
perceived
from
the
producer’s
standpoint.
Rather
than
a
theoretical
construction,
this
is
to
introduce
the
very
real
concerns,
which
media
planners
have
to
contend
with
into
an
academic
field
that
is
sometimes
dismissive,
or
at
least
distant,
from
the
business
processes
of
producing
media.
This
is
not
to
exclude
a
critical
standpoint
or
to
reduce
objectivity:
rather
it
i s
to
make
the
study
of
audiences
perhaps
more
complex
by
introducing
a
range
of
local,
transient
and
day
to
day
concerns
about
the
challenge
of
meeting
audience
expectations
and
needs.
A
further
area
in
which
outcomes
from
the
research
may
be
useful
is
in
the
practical
application
of
sharing
good
practices.
Our
focus
on
strategies
adopted
by
industries
to
encourage
media
literacy
and
foster
public
understanding
of
media
systems
and
processes
comes
at
a
time
when
media
industries
are
being
asked
to
play
a
more
active
role
in
supporting
media
literacy.
The
European
Commission’s
‘Strategy
for
a
Better
Internet’
for
instance
calls
for
industry
to
actively
support
both
through
their
own
efforts
and
through
partnerships
with
education
and
with
NGOs
programmes
in
media
literacy
that
work
to
inform
and
educate
audiences.29
Media
literacy
first
b ecame
an
i mportant
political
topic
in
the
context
of
discussions
of
the
switchover
to
digital
television
and
was
conceived
as
an
important
means
of
empowering
audiences
to
understand
some
of
the
fundamental
changes
taking
place
in
the
media
industry. 30
Sharing
best
practice
in
media
literacy
education
is
recognised
as
particularly
important.
It
is
frequently
an
area
in
which
media
industries
have
little
experience
and
can
benefit
from
identifying
what
works
in
other
markets
or
sectors.
For
this
project,
we
can
compare
what
has
been
attempted
and
what
has
proved
effective
across
radio,
television
and
the
press
and
identify
where
relevant
how
different
country
experiences
can
provide
i nsights
f or
future
development.
CONCLUSION
In
seeking
to
make
our
research
relevant
and
to
communicate
it
to
a
wider
industry
readership,
we
have
sought
to
ensure
that
it
responds
to
topics
and
challenges
that
industry
practitioners
have
cited
as
important.
In
the
past,
communications
scholarship
has
sometimes
struggled
with
or
resisted
calls
to
become
more
relevant,
fearing
that
it
involves
losing
Media,
15(1),
4-‐25.
See
also
the
website
for
the
project:
Digital
Radio
Cultures
in
Europe
-‐
DRACE.
2004.
Retrieved
August
5,
2013,
from
http://www.drace.org/.
29
European
Commission.
(2012).
Communication
on
The
European
Strategy
for
a
Better
Internet
for
Children.
Brussels:
European
Commission.
30
Leaning,
M.
(2009).
Issues
in
Information
and
Media
Literacy
(M.
Leaning)
(Vol.
1).
Informing
Science.
Santa
Rosa,
California:
Informing
Science
Press.
See
also:
O'Neill,
B.,
&
Barnes,
C.
(2008).
Media
literacy
and
the
public
sphere:
a
contextual
study
for
public
media
literacy
promotion
in
Ireland
Dublin:
Broadcasting
Commission
of
Ireland.
97
objectivity
and
rigour.
On
the
contrary,
we
believe
that
greater
precision
and
rigour
can
be
a
result
of
focusing
efforts
on
emergent
challenges
in
the
digital
ecosystem
and
that
precisely
because
of
the
multifaceted
nature
of
the
challenges
involved,
communications
researchers
with
their
traditional
commitment
to
multidisciplinarity
are
well-‐positioned
to
make
a
contribution.
The
subject
of
the
Task
Force
–
the
transition
from
old
to
new
media
–
is
an
ongoing
and
enduring
process
of
evolution
and
industry
change
where
there
are
fewer
certainties
and
a
greater
reliance
on
creativity
and
innovation.
It
is
in
this
context
that
diverse
perspectives
–
from
both
an
industry
and
an
academic
standpoint
–
need
to
be
more
widely
understood,
assessed
and
evaluated.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Miri
Gal-‐Ezer,
Israel,
miri-‐gal@012.net.il
Nacho
Gallego
Perez,
Spain,
jigalleg@hum.uc3m.es
Stanislaw
Jedrzejewski,
Poland,
stjedrzejewski@gmail.com
Barbara
Lewandowska-‐
Tomaszczyk,
Poland,
b lt@uni.lodz.pl
Boris
Mance,
S lovenia,
Boris.Mance@fdv.uni-‐lj.si
Brian
O’Neill,
Ireland,
brian.oneill@dit.ie
Frauke
Zeller,
UK
&
Germany,
fraukezeller@gmail.com
98
METHODS
AND
SOFTWARE
FOR
STUDYING
SOCIAL
MEDIA
AND
SOCIAL
NETWORK
SITES
Jakob
Linaa
Jensen,
Denmark,
linaa@imv.au.dk
Leader
of
Task
Force
2
on
‘New
media,
n ew
methodological
approaches:
Methodological
horizons
of
social
relationships
and
ICT’
in
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships’
INTRODUCTION
This
report
is
compiling
the
useful
insights
from
around
Working
Group
3
of
use
and
relevance
from
the
perspective
of
Task
Force
2,
addressing
research
methods
and
software
for
studying
social
media
in
general,
specifically
social
network
sites.
SOCIAL
MEDIA
AND
SOCIETAL
IMPACT
Social
media
are
the
most
prominent
example
of
what
Jenkins
(2006)
has
called
a
participatory
media
culture,
which
has
evolved
due
to
the
establishment
of
new
information
and
communication
technologies.
Users
consider
themselves
as
experts
and
share
their
experiences
and
tips
in
forums
and
blogs.
With
the
possibilities
of
social
media
to
provide
text,
photo,
audio
and
video,
new
opportunities
of
social
participation
arise.
Digital
media
and
web
technology
enable
to
form
new
networks
and
communities,
allowing
for
an
increase
in
distribution
of
information
and
communication
between
the
individuals
who
use
this
technology.
These
low-‐
threshold
structures
of
communication
cause
that
an
exchange
on
private
and
intimate
issues
takes
place
online.
A
highly
relevant
aspect
when
focusing
on
social
media
methods
and
approaches
is
that
of
convergence.
The
concept
of
convergence
addresses
three
main
areas
related
to
this
Task
Force.
These
areas
are
targeted
at
all
levels
of
society—micro,
meso,
and
macro:
•
Micro-level:
Convergence
of
user
and
producer:
The
focus
is
on
civic
practices
with
social
media,
e.g.
research
directions
such
as
produsage31
(Bruns,
2009)
and
the
new
forms
of
media
production
and
reception.
•
Meso-level:
Convergence
within
organizations:
The
focus
i s
on
organisations
as
meaning-‐making
communities
of
practice
(Wenger,
1998).
How
do
they
adapt
new
technologies
within
their
local
and
global
community
borders?
•
Macro-level:
Convergence
within
society:
The
focus
is
on
monitoring
processes
and
digital
media
adoption
on
a
societal
level.
Have
the
main
actors
of
society
changed?
What
is
the
(new)
role
of
traditional
media
outlets,
political
actors
and
industries?
And
how,
in
turn,
have
the
expectations
of
citizens
changed?
31
By
‘produsage’,
Bruns
refers
to
the
changing
and
converging
roles
of
media
users
which
are
now
often
users
and
producers
at
the
same
time.
99
WHAT
HAS
BEEN
ACHIEVED
SO
FAR,
SEEN
FROM
THE
PERSPECTIVE
OF
THIS
TASK
FORCE?
For
the
specific
benefits
of
the
members
of
the
Task
Force,
this
COST
Action
has
been
a
tool
for
networking
with
researchers
across
Europe
who
are
interested
in
social
media,
not
at
least
in
identifying
and
evaluating
available
research
methods
and
software.
It
has
been
interesting
to
summarize
what
is
going
on,
and
it
has
been
highly
useful
to
learn
from
experiences,
from
those
using
methods
and
techniques
as
well
as
from
those
developing
new
software
and
methods.
The
aim
of
the
Task
Force,
which
is
to
create
a
concerted
European
research
agenda
within
the
field,
is
on
i ts
way
to
be
fulfilled,
so
we
in
the
future
might
be
able
to
cooperate
in
bigger
teams
r ather
than
in
isolated
groups
who
all
try
to
i nvent
‘the
deep
plate’
on
their
own.
As
part
of
this,
the
members
of
the
Task
Force,
lead
by
Jakob
Linaa
Jensen,
have
tried
to
establish
a
map
of
relevant
social
media
research
environments,
in
Europe
and
beyond.
This
mapping
is
highly
relevant,
not
only
for
researchers,
but
also
for
external
stakeholders
interested
in
knowing
what
is
going
on
in
which
research
environments,
and
where
to
get
the
necessary
expertise
or
advice
if
encountering
a
given
problem.
In
that
respect,
various
of
the
identified
research
environments
are
active
in
developing
and
testing
new
technologies
for
analysing
social
media
data,
for
compiling
and
analyzing
big
data.
Examples
i nclude:
• Digital
Humanities
Lab,
Denmark,
directed
by
Aarhus
University:
national
Danish
center
of
excellence
aimed
at
facilitating
and
developing
software-‐aided
research
within
the
humanities.
Software
is
tested
and
sometimes
developed,
also
within
the
field
of
social
media
and
social
network
analysis.
Key
persons
are
Niels
Brügger
and
Niels
Ole
Finnemann.
• University
of
Ghent,
Belgium:
research
unit
with
Cédric
Courtois,
Peter
Mechant,
Pieter
Verdegeem
and
others,
focusing
on
using
APIs
as
research
tools
and
on
developing
new
methods
for
applied
research.
APIs
are
technologies
inherent
in
Internet
services
that
can
be
used
f or
retrieving
and
analyzing
data.
• University
of
Amsterdam,
The
Netherlands:
Richard
Rogers
is
leading
The
Digital
Methods
Initiative.
Other
names
are
Sabine
Niederer
and
Esther
Weltevrede.
It
is
basically
a
collaboration
including
several
outside
institutions
as
well.
The
aim
is
to
study
and
develop
digital
methods
for
social
sciences.
One
of
the
best
examples
is
Richard
Rogers’
IssueCrawler,
which
is
an
easy-‐to-‐use
program
for
mapping
link
structures
and
relations
between
websites,
for
instance
very
appropriate
for
web
sphere
analysis.
• Universities
of
Urbino
and
Bologna,
Italy:
special
interest
group
on
social
network
analysis,
lead
by
Luca
Rossi
and
Matteo
Magnani
who
are
developing
network
analysis
software
as
well
as
using
it
for
applied
research.
WRITTEN
OUTPUTS
RELEVANT
TO
THE
TASK
FORCE
AND
RELATED
STAKEHOLDERS
The
work
so
far
has
resulted
in
a
special
double
issue
of
the
Journal
of
Technology
in
Human
Services,
which
has
been
published
as
a
book
as
well
(Bredl,
Hünniger
&
Linaa
Jensen,
100
2013)
(http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415818322/).
12
researchers
from
Europe
and
the
wider
world
have
discussed
various
research
methodologies,
from
the
very
general
framework
approach
to
the
very
specific
new
software.
These
articles
are
highly
relevant,
not
only
for
academics
but
also
for
corporations
(not
at
least
for
those
within
the
field
of
media
advisory,
strategic
communication
and
marketing).
Further,
government
and
non-‐
government
organisations
might
benefit
from
the
insights,
for
understanding
social
media
and
selecting
appropriate
strategies
for
their
use.
Furthermore,
several
colleagues
from
WG3
and
especially
this
Task
Force
contributed
to
the
COST
Action
edited
book
Audience
Research
Methodologies.
Between
Innovation
and
Consolidation
(Patriarche,
Bilandzic,
Linaa
Jensen
&
Jurisic,
2013)
(http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415827355/).
The
topics
included
everything
from
specific
technical
approaches,
for
example,
to
study
Twitter,
to
more
general
accounts
of
setting
up
frameworks
for
analyzing
user
practices
on
social
network
sites
like
Facebook.
Both
publications
address
ethical
implications
for
online
research.
This
is
important
for
policy
makers
in
the
area
of
media.
Especially
regulatory
bodies,
legislative
and
executive,
are
confronted
with
these
issues.
There
is
also
an
interest
of
the
general
public
to
get
insight
in
the
mechanisms
of
online
communication.
It
is
important
for
journalists
to
get
insight
into
the
state
of
the
art
of
online
research
and
to
access
scientific
results
of
studies
on
new
media
in
order
to
provide
a
reflective
and
up-‐to-‐date
coverage
of
social
media
phenomena
and
their
societal
consequences.
In
general,
the
articles
from
the
COST
Action
books
and
the
special
journal
issues,
organised
by
this
and
other
Task
Forces,
will
be
highly
relevant
to
a
range
of
stakeholders,
especially
companies
operating
within
the
field
of
social
media
research
and
marketing.
The
articles
provides
solidly
funded
and
ground-‐breaking
analyses
which
might
add
to
the
insights
already
achieved
by
social
media
corporations.
BUILDING
BRIDGES
–
GENERATING
NEW
FORMS
OF
COOPERATION
Besides
mapping
and
writing,
an
essential
outcome
of
the
COST
Action
from
the
perspective
of
the
Task
Force,
is
the
bridging
of
knowledge,
critical
perspectives
on
different
levels
of
society,
and
the
methods
of
diverse
disciplines.
The
dynamic
landscape
of
emerging
digital
media
is
motivated,
catalyzed
and
shaped
by
the
exigencies
of
social
communication
and
language,
as
evidenced
in
the
increasing
relevance
of
social
networks
and
the
interdependence
of
this
evolving
communication
paradigm
with
mobile
digital
technology
infrastructures.
Likewise,
given
the
centrality
of
information
communication
technologies
to
Europe’s
economic
future,
informed
perspectives
in
technology
studies,
e-‐business
and
the
socio-‐
economics
of
a
digitized
civic
culture
are
the
necessary
pillars
of
a
holistic
approach
to
digital
media
and
communication
research.
The
COST
Action
has
achieved
building
these
kinds
of
bridges,
first
and
foremost
between
various
European
research
environments
within
the
field
of
social
media
research,
a
bridge-‐building
which
is
highly
needed
in
order
to
form
a
concerted
European
r esearch
agenda
–
and
not
invent
something
brand
new
twice.
We
expect
many
interesting
future
co-‐operations
emerging
from
this
more
collective
research
agenda.
Our
catalogue
of
available
research
101
methods
and
software
is
being
constantly
updated
and
is
one
of
our
dedicated
efforts
to
reach
external
stakeholders,
corporate
or
governmental.
WHAT
STAKEHOLDERS
MIGHT
NEED
TO
KNOW
One
key
insight
of
the
Action
is
that
research
and
policy
should
refocus
attention
–
from
media
as
entities
to
communication
as
processes.
While
it
remains
easy
to
exaggerate
the
empowering
potentials
of
new
media
for
users
beyond
established
interests,
it
is
the
case
that
the
digital
media
environment
is
challenging
common
conceptions
of
‘media’
and
raising
important
questions
concerning
the
flow
of
communication
in
society
across
both
media
and
non-‐media
organisations.
One
way
of
approaching
this
situation
is
to
think
of
communication
in
terms
of
a
three-
step
flow
(Jensen,
2009,
2010).
Communication
occurs
one-‐to-‐one,
one-‐to-‐many,
as
well
as
many-‐to-‐many
in
new
patterns
that
research
is
only
beginning
to
uncover.
Further
research,
including
culturally
comparative
studies,
is
needed
in
this
regard.
Within
multi-‐step
flows
of
communication,
a
key
issue
that
continues
to
receive
too
little
attention
in
research
is
face-‐to-‐
face
communication
(f2f).
F2f
is
a
central
moment
in
the
distribution
of
essential
information
in
society;
f2f
is
increasingly
integrated
with
ICTs
in
everyday
contexts
of
work
as
well
as
leisure,
as
exemplified
by
mobile
media.
Below
are
some
more
specific
questions,
which
we
think
are
relevant
to
various
groups
of
stakeholders:
Politicians
and
policy
makers:
-‐
What
is
the
potential
of
social
media
for
political
communication?
-‐
How
can
the
politicians
and
policy
makers
involve
the
citizens
in
political
decisions
using
social
media?
-‐
How
should
they
interact
with
journalists
and
i ndividual
citizens
using
social
media?
Journalists:
-‐
What
are
the
dynamics
b etween
social
media
and
traditional
media?
-‐
How
can
journalists
develop
new
work
forms
by
the
approaches
and
information
available
through
social
media?
-‐
How
should
they
interact
with
politicians/policy
makers
and
individual
citizens
using
social
media?
Civil
Society:
-‐
How
can
social
media
facilitate
public
i nvolvement
and
(potentially)
i nfluence?
-‐
Do
social
media
have
the
potential
to
serve
as
a
public
sphere?
Market:
-‐
What
are
the
flows
of
communication
i n
society?
-‐
Understanding
social
media
and
thereby
getting
a
more
balanced
approach
to
new
technologies
as
the
solution
for
purposes
of
marketing,
branding,
public
relations,
etc.
SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES
WHERE
STAKEHOLDERS
HAVE
ALREADY
BENEFITED
1)
Industry
sources
and
content
providers:
While
industry
commissions
also
conduct
their
own
research,
the
value
of
academically-‐focused,
independently
produced
audience
102
research
is
appreciated
and
on
occasion
can
exert
important
influence.
The
European
research
project
‘EU
Kids
Online’
(http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx)
has
produced
extensive
empirical
work
for
policy
makers
but
it
has
also
been
useful
–
and
is
widely
cited
–
by
leading
i ndustry
players.
2)
News
media
and
opinion
formers:
Another
relevant
and
important
audience
for
research
and
for
whom
data
is
always
useful
are
the
news
media
themselves.
By
interactions
between
researchers
and
media
the
latter
might
be
better
equipped
to
distinguish
between
robust,
scientifically-‐conducted
research
and
some
of
the
less
solid
founded,
often
hyped,
findings
which
sometimes
find
their
way
onto
the
news.
This
form
of
dissemination
operates
both
at
the
European
level
(in
conjunction
with
major
events
or
announcements)
b ut
even
more
so
at
the
national
level
where
individual
researchers
draw
on
their
own
contacts
and
local
knowledge
of
the
issues
and
gaps
in
public
discourse.
In
Denmark,
the
COST-‐based
project
‘E-‐
Audiences
–
A
comparative
study
of
European
media
audiences’
includes
participation
from,
among
others,
the
main
Danish
public
service
broadcaster,
DR,
which
bears
witness
to
the
relevance
of
studies
comparing
audiences
–
across
media
and
across
cultures
–
for
k ey
players
i n
the
current
media
environment.
Within
the
‘E-‐Audiences’
project,
some
scholars
are
also
affiliated
with
private
web
development
and
analysis
companies
for
whom
the
design
is
of
interest
and
value.
3)
Civil
society
and
NGOs:
Co-‐producers
as
well
as
users
of
research
are
various
NGO
groups
operating
at
the
forefront
of
applied
research,
identifying
new
issues
or
problems
and
highlighting
needs
long
before
other
policy
actors.
NGOs
have
been
important
partners
in
facilitating
research,
supporting
access
and
underlining
the
r elevance
and
the
significance
of
the
project
for
wider
audiences.
SPECIFIC
FUTURE
AREAS
WHERE
EXTERNAL
STAKEHOLDERS
CAN
BENEFIT
FROM
THE
WORK
DONE
Here
we
will
emphasize
three
areas:
1)
Market
research
and
user
studies:
Social
scientists,
and
particularly
audience
and
reception
researchers,
have
the
necessary
skills
to
contribute
to
the
technological
development
of
Internet
infrastructures
with
the
necessary
user
studies’
data.
Particularly
when
it
comes
to
designing
and
programming
new
digital
environments
for
business
transactions,
our
inputs
might
be
useful
for
programmers
and
the
computer
scientists:
How
to
design
the
interfaces,
what
are
the
users’
expectations
and
how
do
they
receive
these
new
environments?
Above
all,
research
departments
of
media
companies
will
benefit
from
the
presented
research
and
the
new
methodologies
developed
in
this
context
for
analyzing
the
phenomena
related
to
the
use
of
new
media
in
connection
with
mass
or
‘old’
media.
2)
Policy
making
and
governance:
Our
research
results
are
also
being
used
by
policy
and
decision
makers
regarding
the
structuring
and
governance
of
these
new
digital
environments.
A
big
advantage
of
the
COST
Action
is,
for
example,
its
broad
scope
in
terms
of
participating
nations.
Developing
policies
and
governance
issues
on
the
European
level
is
an
intricate
and
complex
process,
which
needs
to
be
enriched
by
concrete
results
that
take
into
account
the
different
member
states’
legal
and
societal
frameworks.
103
3)
Schools
and
other
agencies
working
with
young
people:
The
insights
achieved
by
developing
and
discussing
research
methods
and
software
also
tell
us
something
about
the
nature
of
social
media,
social
network
sites
and
their
users
and
can
be
used
to
provide
guidelines
for
designing
pro-‐social
media
content.
This
is
particularly
relevant
for
schools,
all
kinds
of
educators
and
for
the
police
and
others
operating
in
an
environment
of
youth
culture,
where
social
media
might
b e
facilitators
for
education,
non-‐violence
and
mutual
respect.
REFERENCES
Bredl,
K.,
Hünniger,
J.
&
Linaa
Jensen,
J.
(eds.).
2013.
Methods
for
Analyzing
S ocial
Media.
London:
Routledge.
Bruns,
A.
2008.
Blogs,
Wikipedia,
Second
Life,
and
Beyond.
From
Production
to
Produsage.
New
York:
Peter
Lang.
Jenkins,
H.
2006.
Convergence
Culture:
Where
Old
and
New
Media
Collide.
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
Jensen,
K.
B .
2009.
“Three-‐step
flow”.
Journalism,
10
(3),
335-‐337.
Jensen,
K.
B.
2010.
Media
convergence:
The
three
degrees
of
network,
mass
and
interpersonal
communication.
London:
Routledge.
Patriarche,
G.,
Bilandzic,
H.,
Linaa
Jensen,
J.
&
Jurisic,
J.
(eds.).
2013.
Audience
Research
Methodologies:
Between
Innovation
a nd
Consolidation.
London:
Routledge.
Wenger,
E.
1998.
Communities
of
Practice:
Learning,
Meaning,
and
Identity.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Klaus
Bredl,
Germany,
bredl@phil.uni-‐augsburg.de
Klaus
Bruhn
Jensen,
Denmark,
kbj@hum.ku.dk
Pieter
V erdegem,
Belgium,
Pieter.Verdegem@UGent.be
104
MEDIA
AND
GENERATIONS:
AN
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
MAIN
TOPICS
AND
OF
THEIR
RELEVANCE
FOR
THE
STAKEHOLDERS
Andra
Siibak,
Estonia,
andras@ut.ee
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
3
on
‘Generations
and
mediated
relationships’
in
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships’
Nicoletta
Vittadini,
Italy,
nicoletta.vittadini@unicatt.it
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
3
on
‘Generations
and
mediated
relationships’
in
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
use
for
evolving
social
relationships’
INTRODUCTION
The
aim
of
this
chapter
is
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
main
topics
of
research
the
members
of
the
Task
Force
on
‘Media
and
generations’
(WG3)
have
b een
engaged
with
as
well
as
to
highlight
their
main
relevance
to
the
stakeholders.
The
chapter
is
based
on
eight
individual
reports
provided
by
the
members
of
WG3
who
deal
with
the
concept
of
generations
from
different
angles
and
in
different
cultural
contexts
(in
particular
Germany,
Ireland,
Israel,
Estonia,
Norway,
Turkey,
Czech
Republic).
The
concept
of
generation
in
those
individual
reports
refers
both
to
a
demographic
perspective,
which
sees
generations
as
age
cohorts
of
people
who
were
born
and
happen
to
live
at
about
the
same
time,
and
to
a
cultural
definition
of
generation,
which
stresses
that
generations
are
constituted
on
the
basis
of
shared
experience
of
the
same
formative
events
and
collective
memory.
According
to
the
latter
approach,
each
generation
has
its
own
so-‐called
‘generational
identity’.
The
way
generation
members
experience
media
and
technologies
in
their
formative
years
shapes
some
features
of
their
audience
practices,
and
influences
their
evolution
in
the
course
of
the
whole
lifecycle.
The
cultural
approach,
in
other
words,
stresses
the
relationship
between
generations
and
media
audiences.
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
TASK
FORCE
ON
‘MEDIA
AND
GENERATIONS’
The
work
of
several
scholars
from
WG3
(O’Neill,
Vinter
&
Siibak,
Hagen,
Yumlu)
has
dealt
with
the
r ole
of
new
media
technology
and
the
I nternet
in
young
people’s
lives,
focusing
both
o n
the
opportunities
related
to
new
media
use
(digital
literacy,
content
creation,
entertainment
and
communication,
civic
engagement)
as
well
as
possible
risks
involved
(cyber
bullying,
online
harassment,
commercial
risks).
All
of
these
studies
help
to
provide
greater
insight
into
the
processes
of
adoption
of
new
media
technologies
(computers,
mobile
phones)
and
the
possible
consequences
of
making
use
of
these
applications.
Some
WG3
scholars
(Hagen,
Kvale
Sørenssen)
have
also
b een
studying
topics
around
the
commercialization
of
childhood,
e.g.
media
and
consumer
competence,
commercial
and
peer
pressure
towards
children
online,
the
use
of
media
and
children’s
social
networks
to
create
brand
loyalty.
105
Studies
on
older
adults’
ICT
use
and
its
possible
effects
on
the
lives
of
the
elderly
(Reifova,
Gal-‐Ezer)
as
well
as
studies
regarding
differences
between
generations
and
their
adoption
of
digital
technologies
have
also
been
carried
out
(see
Vittadini
et
al.,
2013).
Studies
on
the
effects
of
traditional
media
(e.g.
television
use,
the
mass
media’s
potential
for
social
norm-‐setting)
have
been
a
bit
less
common
among
the
WG3
scholars
working
in
the
field
of
media
and
generations
(Bilandzic).
In
the
next
few
pages,
we
will
give
an
overview
of
the
main
sub-‐topics
that
have
emerged
from
the
studies
that
highlight
the
aspects
in
which
research
could
reach
out
for
social
practice.
We
will
start
by
highlighting
studies
related
to
children
and
young
people
and
then
we
will
propose
some
insights
regarding
different
generations
(for
example
older
people)
and
the
differences
between
generations.
CHILDREN
AND
YOUNG
PEOPLE
1. Education
The
first
area
scholars
working
on
the
topic
of
generations
in
general
and
young
people
and
children
in
particular
are
interested
in
is
education.
In
fact,
research
done
in
this
field
can
b e
integrated
in
educational
contexts
in
several
ways:
•
Various
media
resources
could
be
used
for
carrying
out
pro-social
interventions.
For
instance,
fictional
books,
TV
series
or
films
could
be
successfully
used
to
stimulate
specific
target
groups
to
reflect
on
their
behaviour
(e.g.
young
offenders)
(Bilandzic).
•
Educators
could
collaborate
with
students
in
developing
new
genres
and
content
creation
procedures.
Educational
assignments
could
be
compiled
in
order
to
engage
young
people
in
new
creative
ways
in
content
creation
both
for
offline
and
online
mediums,
e.g.
creating
content
for
cross-‐media
formats.
Furthermore,
these
new
genres
and
content
creation
procedures
can
also
serve
the
(unprivileged)
adult
population
in
need
of
social
assistance
–
e.g.
the
poor,
the
disabled,
elderly
citizens,
new
immigrants
and
other
disempowered
members
of
the
public
–
by
providing
them
with
additional
opportunities
for
self-‐
empowerment
(Gal-‐Ezer).
2. Policy
The
second
area
in
which
r esearchers
from
WG3
have
made
an
i mpact
while
carrying
out
studies
about
young
people
and
children
is
policy.
Several
of
the
scholars
working
in
the
field
of
media
and
generations
emphasized
the
need
for
evidence-‐based
policy
making,
especially
relating
to
regulation
and
awareness-‐raising
issues
related
to
risks
and
opportunities
of
digital
technologies.
•
A
need
for
evidence-based
policy
making:
Constant
and
detailed
research
is
needed
about
new
media
trends,
uses
and
problems
encountered
to
fill
the
gaps
i n
the
evidence
base.
Thus,
government
departments
need
to
liaise
closely
with
researchers
so
as
to
produce
independent
authoritative
research
(O’Neill).
106
•
Curriculum
reform
on
the
level
of
pre-schools
and
primary
schools:
Scholars
report
that
there
is
a
growing
need
to
include
media
education
in
the
curricula
of
pre-‐schools
and
primary
schools
as
in
several
countries
(e.g.
Estonia)
present
teacher
education
system
does
not
support
awareness-‐raising
among
teachers
on
the
topic
of
media
education.
It
is
proposed
that
media
education
in
pre-‐schools
could
include
a
variety
of
tasks,
for
example,
interpreting
media
messages
with
children,
do-‐it-‐yourself
tasks,
expressing
oneself
through
the
means
of
media,
and
learning
about
technical
means.
Furthermore,
media
education,
computer
training
and
didactics
of
media
education
should
be
included
in
the
teacher
training
courses
of
pre-‐schools
teachers
(Vinter
&
Siibak).
3. Opinion leaders
Studies
on
younger
generations,
especially
about
new
media,
also
have
high
relevance
to
opinion
leaders.
•
Awareness-raising
regarding
risks
and
opportunities
for
youth
engagement
with
online
technologies:
Politicians,
policy
makers,
NGOs,
teachers
psychologists,
family
councillors,
etc.
need
to
be
better
informed
about
the
potential
benefits
(e.g.
content
creation,
civic
activism,
self
presentation,
etc.)
children
and
young
people
can
gain
from
the
use
of
media
and
ICT,
as
well
as
the
potential
risks
of
media
and
Internet
use
(e.g.
being
exposed
to
paedophiles,
meeting
extremists
and
fanatics,
risk
to
be
bullied
or
harassed
online,
commercial
pressures,
etc),
hence,
such
topics
should
be
part
of
their
training
(Hagen,
Yumlu).
Researchers
may
provide
helpful
information
to
the
media
and
journalists
about
the
distinction
between
robust,
scientifically
conducted
research
and
the
poorly
constructed,
sensationalist
data
that
are
frequently
distributed
to
journalists
(O’Neill).
All
the
above-‐mentioned
parties
could
then
help
to
inform
the
general
public
and
thereby
create
a
more
complex
understanding
of
young
people
as
consumers
and
users
of
new
media
and
their
relationship
with
peers,
parents,
school,
and
the
media
(Kvale
Sørenssen).
4. Civil society
The
fourth
area
where
studies
about
younger
generations
should
have
a
greater
impact
is
civil
society.
I n
particular:
•
Establishing
partnerships
with
NGOs:
Various
NGOs
that
are
operating
at
the
forefront
of
applied
r esearch
should
be
more
often
viewed
as
co-‐producers
as
well
as
users
of
research.
In
case
of
the
former,
the
ideal
way
would
be
to
find
a
way
to
combine
the
applied
interest
with
a
theoretical
question
(Bilandzic).
In
case
of
the
latter,
partnership
with
NGOs
would
enable
the
researchers
to
identify
new
issues
or
problems
and
highlight
the
needs
long
before
other
policy
actors
(O’Neill).
Furthermore,
NGOs
could
also
be
engaged
in
helping
to
provide
a
more
complex
understanding
of
young
people
as
consumers
amongst
the
general
public
(Kvale
Sørenssen).
107
5. Industry and content providers
Generation
studies
about
children
and
young
people
should
also
provide
valuable
input
to
the
industry
and
content
providers.
•
Creating
media
content
for
educational
purposes,
i.e.
making
use
of
entertainment-education
approaches:
Content
providers
could
be
more
active
in
creating
content
(TV
or
radio
shows,
etc.)
with
specific
education
goals
in
mind.
Such
content
could
be
used
for
promoting
various
attitudes
and
behaviours,
e.g.
individual
responsibility,
good
governance,
tolerance
for
other
ethnic
and
religious
groups,
relationships
between
generations
(youth
and
their
parents)
as
well
as
respectful
gender
relationships
(Bilandzic).
DIFFERENT
GENERATIONS
AND
DIGITAL
AUDIENCES
Despite
the
social
and
cultural
relevance
of
children
and
young
people
and
the
interest
that
these
studies
have
for
different
stakeholders
(as
stated
in
the
previous
paragraph),
other
generations
(for
example
the
so-‐called
‘Boomers’
or
‘Millennials’)
and
the
r elationships
between
different
generations
are
equally
socially
and
culturally
r elevant.
In
many
European
countries
the
generation
of
Boomers,
the
so-‐called
Generation
X
and
the
Millennials
are
more
numerous
than
the
younger.
And
in
different
countries
the
generations
who
use
the
Internet,
social
network
sites
and
mobile
devices
the
most
are
members
of
Generation
X
or
Boomers.
Obviously
demographics
and
the
lifecycle
position
of
those
people
contribute
to
this.
These
generations
at
present
are
made
of
people
who
work
(i.e.
who
are
neither
students
or
retired)
and
have
the
opportunity
to
use
digital
technologies
at
work
and
the
economic
resources
to
buy
smart-‐phones.
At
the
same
time,
this
trend
suggests
that
besides
young
people
and
children,
there
are
three
(and
more,
including
the
‘Silver
Surfers’)
different
generations
engaged
in
using
the
same
digital
technologies
and
applications.
Besides
children
and
young
people
–
often
called
the
digital
natives
–
there
are
generations
of
so-‐called
digital
immigrants
and
late
adopters
who
however
also
use
digital
technologies.
The
coexistence
of
different
generations
(and
not
only
age
groups)
is,
then,
a
core
aspect
of
contemporary
digital
audiences
(or
users).
This
aspect
raises
an
important
issue:
the
difference
between
generations.
On
the
one
hand,
these
differences
can
be
described
through
national
and
European
surveys,
which
aim
to
document
which
applications,
devices
or
software
the
members
of
each
generation
use.
On
the
other
hand,
a
qualitative
or
cultural
analysis
of
the
differences
between
generations
(or
the
specificity
of
each
generation)
is
crucial
to
illustrate
which
values
and
meaning
each
generation
attributes
to
digital
technologies.
Each
generation
–
on
the
cultural
level
–
is
characterized
by
a
so-‐called
generational
identity,
which
includes
shared
historical,
cultural
and
media
experiences.
Thus
we
can
say
that
the
above-‐mentioned
generations
are
also
‘media
generations’,
which
could
b e
defined
as
‘collectively
produced,
shared
and
processed
r esponses
to
the
availability
or
pervasiveness
of
particular
technology,
which
becomes
an
element
of
generational
identity’
(Vittadini
et
al.,
2013,
p.
66).
We
can
argue
that
each
generation
uses
digital
technologies
according
to
their
media
habits
(or
‘habitus’,
according
to
the
French
sociologist
Bourdieu),
in
108
accordance
to
the
representation
of
the
media
landscape
that
they
developed
during
their
formative
years,
and
the
technologies
and
the
rituals
of
the
everyday
life
that
characterize
them.
Therefore,
each
generation
has
a
different
image
and
different
expectations
regarding
digital
technologies.
The
study
of
these
differences
between
generations,
however,
can
be
useful
on
different
levels:
On
the
level
of
marketing
and
content
production:
•
First,
such
a
study
can
provide
a
whole
comprehension
not
only
of
specific
targets
(age
groups
for
example)
but
also
of
the
complex
and
interrelated
landscape
of
digital
users
including
both
differences
in
uses
and
behaviours,
and
differences
in
incorporation
processes
and
values
of
digital
technologies.
•
Second,
this
comprehension
can
be
useful
to
projects
and
promote
applications
and
services
coherent
with
the
digital
technologies
imagination
and
needs
of
different
generations.
Content
producers
can
make
use
of
academically
produced
independent
audience
research
to
create
online
content
for
different
generations.
For
instance,
there
is
a
need
for
additional
initiatives
in
line
with
the
aims
of
the
CEO
Coalition
of
Internet
companies,
which
was
designed
by
the
European
Commission
to
make
the
I nternet
a
better
place
f or
different
generations
(O’Neill).
On
the
policy
level:
•
First,
in
order
to
base
digital
i nclusion
policies
on
strategies
that
are
coherent
with
the
practices,
imagination
and
values
that
each
generation
attributes
to
digital
technologies.
Thus
the
digital
inclusion
strategies
targeted
at
young
people,
adults
or
elderly
people
who
do
not
use
digital
technologies
should
be
different
according
to
differences
b etween
generations.
•
Second,
in
order
to
base
the
debate
on
privacy
and
on
the
strategies
to
overcome
the
privacy
paradox
(i.e.
people
are
aware
of
the
risks
and
of
the
issues
related
to
privacy
but
do
not
use
the
tools
which
could
help
them
to
better
safeguard
their
privacy)
on
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
perceived
need
of
privacy
of
different
generations.
The
culture
of
younger
generations,
for
example,
is
deeply
rooted
in
communication
practices
aimed
at
obtaining
sociality
or
other
advantages
in
return
for
the
transfer
of
personal
information
or
in
return
for
the
transfer
of
the
control
over
their
activities.
Young
people
are
indeed
especially
worried
about
their
expressive
privacy
(i.e.
the
right
to
control
their
online
identity
building,
for
example
deleting
a
friend’s
post
that
can
damage
their
reputation).
On
the
opposite
side,
members
of
older
generations
tend
to
be
worried
about
the
commercial
use
of
their
personal
data
and
do
not
perceive
sociality
or
the
opportunity
to
increase
the
number
of
‘friends’
or
contacts
as
a
sufficient
motivation
to
transfer
their
personal
data.
At
the
same
time,
they
do
not
worry
about
their
expressive
privacy
and
they
are
open
to
r educe
it
i n
order
to
protect
their
personal
data.
On
the
level
of
digital
literacy
diffusion:
•
First
the
study
of
the
relationships
between
generations
is
a
relevant
resource
in
order
to
diffuse
digital
literacy
and
promote
not
only
the
technological
i nclusion
of
109
people
(reducing
the
divide
between
have’s
and
have
not’s)
but
also
their
cultural
inclusion
(reducing
the
divide
between
people
who
can
use
profitably
digital
technology
and
people
who
can’t).
The
relationships
between
younger
and
older
generations
(also
on
the
family
level)
can
be
the
place
where
the
diffusion
of
digital
literacy
takes
place
(besides
schools
and
other
institutions)
and
the
study
of
those
relationships
and
how
digital
technologies
are
involved
in
sustaining
them
can
be
very
useful.
•
Second,
the
study
of
the
cultures
of
different
generations
can
be
useful
in
supporting
the
life-‐long
learning
activities
of
schools
and
in
the
context
of
family
life
experiences,
by
spreading
know-‐how
and
supporting
parents
in
child-‐rearing
in
a
technology-‐saturated
environment
(Vinter
&
Siibak).
•
Third,
the
study
of
digital
cultures
of
older
generations
can
be
useful
in
planning
and
implementing
new
courses
in
the
context
of
senior
education.
For
example,
a
course
entitled
Critical
Digital
Literacy
could
be
implemented
into
the
curricula
of
the
universities
of
the
third
age
in
Europe.
The
aim
of
the
course
could
be
to
provide
social-‐scientific
analysis
of
the
uses
of
new
media
i n
the
period
of
ageing.
I t
would
focus
on
the
risk
and
the
positive
effects
of
new
media
in
the
life
of
the
elderly,
as
well
as
on
the
absence
of
orientation
in
the
world
and
on
ontological
security
(Reifova,
Gal-‐Ezer).
CONCLUSIONS
Based
on
the
synthesis
of
the
reports
by
the
scholars
of
WG3
who
work
in
the
field
of
generation
studies
(from
the
view
points
of
both
the
demographic
and
the
cultural
perspectives)
we
b elieve
that
the
concept
of
generation
can
b e
useful
both
i n
helping
to
form
an
understanding
about
contemporary
digital
media
audiences
and
in
helping
to
shape
new
projects
and
activities
on
different
levels.
In
our
synthesis
we
emphasized
the
relevance
of
the
study
of
children
and
young
generations
who
are
representatives
of
a
new
digital
and
media
culture
and
are
at
the
same
time
the
object
of
various
educational
and
protection
policies.
We
suggested
that
evidence-‐based
research
on
young
generations
can
be
useful
in
education
to
carry
out
pro-‐social
interventions
and
i n
planning
curriculum
reforms
especially
on
the
level
of
pre-‐schools
and
primary
schools.
Moreover
we
suggested
that
studies
on
the
topic
can
be
useful
to
raise
people’s
awareness
regarding
risks
and
opportunities
about
youth
engagement
with
online
technologies,
and
for
creating
digital
media
content
for
educational
purposes.
We
also
emphasized
the
relevance
of
the
study
of
different
generations
and
of
the
differences
between
generations,
considering
that
besides
young
people
and
children
there
are
three
(and
more,
including
the
‘Silver
Surfers’)
different
generations
who
are
currently
making
use
of
the
same
digital
technologies
and
applications.
We
proposed
that
these
studies
can
prove
to
be
useful
on
the
marketing
and
content
production
level
in
order
to
have
a
whole
comprehension
of
digital
audiences
and
to
propose
applications
that
take
into
account
generational
differences.
We
also
suggested
that
these
studies
can
be
useful
on
the
policy
level,
for
example,
regarding
the
issues
of
privacy
and
digital
inclusion.
Finally
we
suggested
that
also
110
literacy
and
life-‐long
education
to
digital
technologies
can
be
supported
by
studies
on
generations.
We
believe
there
are
different
kinds
of
stakeholders
that
can
be
i nterested
in
these
kinds
of
studies:
various
institutions
(for
example
in
education),
policy
makers,
content
producers,
opinion
leaders,
newsmakers
(for
example
regarding
literacy
and
the
awareness
of
risks
and
opportunities)
and
NGOs,
which
can
function
as
both
co-‐producers
and
users
of
such
academic
studies.
REFERENCE
Vittadini,
N.,
Siibak,
A.,
Reifova,
I.,
and
Bilandzic,
H.
(2013).
Generations
and
Media:
The
Social
Construction
of
Generational
Identity
and
Differences.
In
N.
Carpentier,
K.
C.
Schrøder
and
L.
Hallett
(Ed.),
Audience
Transformations.
Shifting
Audience
Positions
in
Late
Modernity
(pp.
65-‐88).
London:
Routledge.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Helena
Bilandzic,
Germany,
h elena.bilandzic@phil.uni-‐augsburg.de
Miri
Gal-‐Ezer,
Israel,
miri-‐gal@012.net.il
Ingunn
Hagen,
Norway,
Ingunn.Hagen@svt.ntnu.no
Ingvild
Kvale
Sørenssen,
Norway,
ingvild.sorenssen@svt.ntnu.no
Brian
O’Neill,
Ireland,
brian.oneill@dit.ie
Irena
Reifova,
Czech
Republic,
reifova@seznam.cz
Kristi
V inter,
Estonia,
kristi.vinter@tps.edu.ee,
and
Andra
Siibak,
Estonia,
andras@ut.ee
Konca
Yumlu,
Turkey,
konca.yumlu@ege.edu.tr
111
THE
ROLE
OF
MEDIA
AND
ICT
USE
FOR
EVOLVING
SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS:
WG3
REPORT
BASED
ON
THE
‘BUILDING
BRIDGES’
DISCUSSION
IN
BELGRADE,
19.09.2013
Frauke
Zeller,
Canada,
fraukezeller@gmail.com
Chair
of
Working
Group
3
‘The
role
of
media
and
ICT
u se
for
evolving
social
relationships’
Guest
Speakers:
•
•
Andreea
M.
Costache,
Association
of
Consumers
of
Audiovisual
Media
in
Catalonia/TAC
Muriel
Hanot,
Studies
&
Research,
High
Authority
for
Audiovisual
Media/CSA
(French-‐
speaking
Belgian
r egulatory
authority)
•
Karol
Malcuzynski,
independent
journalist
and
former
TVP
News
Executive
(public
television)
•
Marius
Dragomir,
Senior
Manager/Publications
Editor,
Open
Society
Foundations,
London
Session
Chair:
Stanislaw
Jedrzejewski
The
discussion
started
with
presentations
from
each
WG3
Task
Force
leader,
i ntroducing
their
Task
Force
reports.
Then,
the
guest
speakers
gave
presentations,
referring
to
three
preparatory
questions
which
had
been
sent
in
advance
by
the
session
chair,
Stanislaw
Jedrzejewski:
1)
What
aspects
of
media
r esearch
(reception
and
consumption)
would
you
as
journalists,
media
regulators,
N GOs
or
r egulatory
b odies
find
useful?
2)
Where,
in
your
view,
are
the
gaps
that
this
r esearch
results
should
fill?
3)
What
do
you
see
as
areas
of
productive
collaboration
between
academia
and
various
non-‐
academic
groups
and
communities
in
the
area
of
studies
of
media
audiences?
The
following
report
will
provide
a
summarised
account
of
the
Building
Bridges
session
including
the
k ey
points
of
each
guest’s
presentation,
followed
by
a
summary
of
the
WG3
plenary
discussion
with
the
non-‐academic
stakeholders.
MURIEL
HANOT
1) What aspects of media research (reception and consumption) would you as
journalists, media regulators, NGOs or regulatory bodies find useful?
We
need
to
take
general
interest
into
account
when
it
comes
to
audiovisual
regulation.
For
instance
audiovisual
legal
frameworks
have
to
allow
everyone
the
freedom
of
expression
or
to
protect
consumers,
etc.
–
all
these
values
are
the
background
of
these
regulations.
When
looking
at
new
media,
one
sees
that
new
media
creates
a
fragmentation
of
the
audience.
It
is
important
in
a
sense
of
social
cohesion
that
could
be
of
general
interest
in
a
regulatory
point
of
view.
In
terms
of
research
this
means
a
lot
of
potential
questions:
112
-‐
If
we
take
into
account
the
questions
of
diversity,
then
more
media
allows
more
people/interests
to
appear
in
the
media.
But
what
is
the
place
of
underrepresented
communities
in
general
media,
can
they
have
a
place
in
a
public
debate
if
they
only
appear
in
specific
community
media?
-‐
Social
TV,
social
networks
(SN):
How
can
SN
take
part
in
a
debate
if
all
consumers
and
citizens
cannot
use
them
because
they
are
not
able
to
use
them
or
have
not
the
financial
means
to
buy
the
media/tools.
-‐
Public
Broadcasters
have
special
remits
of
social
cohesion.
And
if
they
are
targeting
special
groups/audiences,
are
they
fulfilling
their
mandate?
-‐
Pluralism,
or
the
right
to
be
informed:
New
platforms
on
a
commercial
basis
offer
all
kinds
of
programmes,
but
if
they
don't
do
so,
don't
we
have
to
fear
that
these
platform,
these
commercial
offers
are
meant
to
be
a
second
class
access
to
a
lower
type
of
programmes?
This
is
important
in
terms
of
social
cohesion:
New
questions
of
regulation
need
to
be
combined
with
a
new
question
of
audience.
2) Where, in your view, are the gaps that this research results should fill?
The
main
gap
is
the
traditional
orientation
of
research.
It
is
in
the
way
how
we
question
(new)
media.
What
does
it
mean
when
saying
that
research
must
be
relevant
for
society?
For
a
regulatory
body
it
is
to
encounter
values
:
regulation
is
an
exception
to
freedom
of
speech
and
it’s
justified
through
social/cultural
values.
Our
questions
must
be
relevant
to
take
into
account
values.
Are
those
rules/limitations
understood,
necessary
in
that
manner/subject,
are
the
new
rules
necessary
to
complete
the
regulation?
And
so
is
social
cohesion
necessary
to
regulate
media?
Those
are
questions
that
we
refer
to
audience.
And
these
questions
of
social
values
that
are
founding
r egulation
represent
a
gap
between
researchers
and
r egulators.
3) What do you see as areas of productive collaboration between academia and
various non-academic groups and communities in the area of studies of media
audiences?
In
the
context
of
Public
Relations:
N ew
uses
demand
a
new
form
of
regulation.
Through
regulation,
audio-‐visual
players
will
need
to
take
into
account
the
questions
of
self-‐accountability.
It
is
a
question
of
trust:
What
is
the
trust
the
audience
puts
into
the
media,
and
vice
versa?
Secondly,
the
question
of
media
literacy
is
very
i mportant
r egarding
the
users.
This
question
brings
a
different
scope
of
interest:
How
can
we
study
the
competences
of
the
viewers/listeners?
How
can
we
match
the
viewing
habits
with
a
way
to
understand
the
media?
These
are
old
and
new
questions
(media
literacy
is
old
and
new),
but
we
need
a
new
approach.
The
best
perspective
on
regulation
of
information
is
that
both
viewers
and
producers
need
information.
We
need
not
commercial
audience
information,
rather
information
on
users’
113
habits,
and
on
the
way
they
are
using
media.
We
need
to
understand
the
way
how
audiences
understand
media.
ANDREEA
M.
COSTACHE
1) What aspects of media research (reception and consumption) would you as
journalists, media regulators, NGOs and regulatory bodies find useful?
2) Where, in your view, are the gaps that this research results should fill?
Our
answer
starts
from
a
consensus
the
Working
Group
3
has
been
presenting
in
a
previous
work
that
“research
should
have
relevance
for
society”.
The
Association
of
Consumers
of
Audiovisual
Media
in
Catalonia
(TAC)
is
paying
attention
to
media
education
as
a
matter
of
great
social
relevance.
And
we
are
r eferring
to
children,
parents
and
educators
altogether.
First,
increased
attention
is
given
in
media
research
to
the
new
media
and
the
consumption
habits.
Nevertheless,
the
television
still
occupies
one
of
the
most
influential
places
in
the
lives
of
audiences
and
we
found
that
more
research
needs
to
be
directed
to
the
consumption
habits
of
the
parents
in
relation
with
the
influence
it
has
on
the
consumption
habits
of
the
children.
This
observation
comes
from
our
own
difficulties
with
the
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
“Learning
to
Watch”
in
actually
reaching
the
parents
with
our
conferences
and
seminars.
Therefore,
a
small
attendance
from
the
part
of
the
parents
to
our
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
leaves
us
with
some
questions
related
with
their
actual
consumption
habits,
interests
and
dedication
time
towards
the
consumption
habits
of
the
children.
Therefore,
we
would
like
to
learn
more
about
the
influence
of
the
TV
consumption
habits
of
parents
on
the
consumption
habits
of
the
children.
And
we
would
like
to
learn
how
we
can
use
this
relation
for
a
better
formation
of
the
adult
media
user
(the
parent)
and
of
the
future
adult
media
user
(the
child),
a
user
that
can
critically
reflect
on
the
media
content
and
the
consumption
habits.
In
the
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
“Learning
to
Watch”
the
conferences
with
parents
are
directed
to
teach
them
the
dangers
and
opportunities
of
the
screens
and
of
the
new
media.
But
what
about
the
dangers
and
the
opportunities
of
their
own
consumption
habits
on
the
consumption
habits
of
their
children?
How
can
we
better
educate
the
parents
in
relation
with
the
television
content
and
later
looking
to
the
consumption
habits
related
to
the
mobile
devices
and
the
Internet,
the
new
media?
We
have
here
two
generations
that
are
facing
the
advent
of
the
new
technologies
in
different
stages
of
their
lives
and
one
has
an
educational
duty
to
the
other.
The
parents
are
adapting
to
the
use
of
the
new
technologies
and
sometimes,
as
we
discovered,
at
a
slower
pace
than
the
youngsters,
when
we
talk
about
the
new
media
use
and
access.
But
when
it
comes
to
media
content
the
parents
should
be
better
prepared
on
what
social
values
they
want
to
transmit
to
their
children
when
evaluating
a
new
television
program,
video-‐game
or
website
content.
Therefore
we
have
some
challenges
regarding
both
media
content
on
one
side
and
use
and
access
on
the
other
side.
114
Second,
the
audits
on
consumption
habits
are
studies
that
need
a
permanent
application
and
adaptation
to
the
new
technologies,
the
new
media
entering
very
quickly
in
the
lives
of
minors
but
not
so
fast
perceived
by
the
parents
and
educators.
In
addition,
the
safe
use
of
the
Internet
is
a
recurrent
and
i ncreasingly
concern
of
the
parents
and
educators.
We
would
like
to
learn
how
school
performance
can
be
influenced
while
growing
up
with
the
new
technologies,
with
the
access
to
Internet
on
so
many
platforms.
Should
this
translate
into
the
dangers
presented
by
the
increased
consume
of
the
new
media
and
on
the
increased
hours
spent
on
the
Internet
social
networks?
Or
should
this
translate
into
technological
educational
opportunities
that
new
media
presents
and
the
programs
that
can
be
created
to
further
educate
in
the
critical
media
consumer,
the
minor,
like
the
“Contraste
App”
for
the
evaluation
of
different
programs
and
movies
on
TV,
cinema
or
DVD.
The
objective
here
would
be
to
take
the
academic
input
and
translate
it
into
practical
answers
and
actually
try
to
be
“the
forefront
of
applied
science”
as
it
has
been
mentioned
in
the
previous
work
of
WG3.
3) What do you see as areas of productive collaboration between academia and
various non-academic groups and communities in the area of studies of media
audiences?
On
one
side,
in
the
“Learning
to
Watch”
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
the
academia
has
an
important
role
with
the
implications
in
the
conferences
and
teachers
training
conducted
by
media
experts
and
academics.
Therefore
we
rely
heavily
on
the
studies
of
the
academia.
When
we
look
at
the
work
of
COST
and
the
research
promoted
from
the
academics
from
different
countries
we
would
like
to
bring
the
new
theoretical
developments
to
be
used
for
the
interest
of
media
consumer.
We
are
open
to
improve
and
apply
the
newest
methodological
techniques
and
approaches
in
audience
research
and
media
consumption
to
our
Audiovisual
Educational
Program.
The
evolution
of
our
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
depends
on
the
rapid
technological
developments
and
the
changes
on
the
consumption
habits
of
the
audiences
but
the
end
result
depends
on
applying
the
newest
r esearch
techniques.
Our
main
point
here
is
to
have
a
permanent
access
to
your
newest
work
and
this
could
be
based
on
a
permanent
channel
of
dialogue.
Learning
about
the
work
of
the
academia
gives
us
a
better
application
of
our
objectives
and
we
can
have
a
rapid
answer
to
different
changes
mentioned
before.
On
the
other
side,
the
collaboration
between
the
academia
and
organizations
for
the
protection
of
the
consumer
like
TAC
needs
to
be
strengthened
when
it
comes
to
the
work
for
new
media
policies
for
the
protection
of
minor
and
promotion
of
media
literacy.
And
we
have
the
example
of
the
work
that
we
can
use
on
a
definition
of
children's
programs
which
does
not
exist
in
the
Audiovisual
Media
Service
Directive.
We,
as
a
consumer
association
of
the
audio-‐visual
media,
we
don't
represent
a
big
voice
when
it
comes
to
the
EU
construction
of
media
policy
for
the
constant
protection
of
the
consumer
and
we
can
find
a
stronger
voice
in
this
direction
while
bringing
along
the
academic
evidence.
115
The
final
message
is
that
we
do
not
want
to
be
confined
to
the
Catalan
and
Spanish
territory
with
our
Audiovisual
Educational
Program.
We
want
to
learn
and
apply
the
latest
academic
advancements
from
all
the
researchers
involved
in
audience
research
and
media
education
to
our
program
while
sharing
our
framework
of
the
“Learning
to
Watch”
Audiovisual
Educational
Program
to
other
countries
that
could
apply
it
according
to
their
cultural
particularities
and
needs.
MARIUS
DRAGOMIR
[Answers
the
first
two
questions
by
means
of
presenting
some
of
the
findings
of
his
institution.]
“The
Mapping
Digital
Media
project
examines
the
progress
of
digitization
and
its
impact
on
the
values
and
principles
that
underpin
the
Open
Society
Foundations’
work
in
media
and
communications.
Active
in
more
than
50
countries
worldwide,
involving
several
hundred
researchers
and
activists,
Mapping
Digital
Media
is
the
most
extensive
investigation
of
today’s
media
landscapes
undertaken
b y
any
nongovernmental
organization.”32
Mapping
Digital
Media
is
a
research
project
that
was
started
4
years
ago.
It
includes
5
regional
editors,
covers
all
continents
(with
a
focus
on
Europe).
The
work
is
mainly
done
with
local
researchers,
applying
the
same
method
i n
order
to
have
comparable
results.
Why
do
we
do
this
research?
We
want
to
offer
some
tools
for
media
society,
results
for
policy
makers.
The
project
covers
7
diverse
focal
areas.
The
first
area
i s
media
consumption,
and
r elated
to
this
we
would
be
interested
in
adding
a
specific
additional
area:
the
migration
from
traditional
to
online
media.
So
far,
we
have
indicators
but
that
is
an
area
we
would
like
to
collaborate
with
academic
to
further
investigate
and
measure.
Questions
would
be:
Who
migrated
why
and
where
and
how
in
the
past
years?
Another
area
i s
public
services:
Here,
models
of
funding
vary
a
lot
across
the
globe.
Other
relevant
questions
are
how
have
social
networks
and
social
media
hindered
journalists
to
do
their
work?
One
core
finding
that
came
out
of
our
work
refers
to
the
increasing
relevance
of
news
consumption
in/through
social
media.
Who
is
actually
consuming
news
from
social
media
how
and
when?
Finally,
what
are
the
threats
that
social
media
pose
on
traditional
journalism?
Here,
plagiarism
r epresents
a
pivotal
aspect.
We
want
to
look
more
into
election
norms
and
regulation
and
how
they
extent
or
not
to
new
media.
3) What do you see as areas of productive collaboration between academia and
various non-academic groups and communities in the area of studies of media
audiences?
Why
do
we
collaborate?
Why
do
we
do
these
reports?
First,
we
want
to
have
a
more
informed
public.
Secondly,
we
believe
in
informed
policy
making,
which
is
why
we
also
collaborate
with
governments.
32
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/mapping-‐digital-‐media/background
116
Hence,
before
starting
research,
it
is
important
to
ask
the
questions
who
is
this
for,
and
who
i s
going
to
work
with
it?
Two
aspects
are
vital
in
this
respect:
First
of
all,
targeting
the
various
target
groups.
For
example,
policy
makers
don't
read
a
lot,
so
one
should
write
condensed
policy
papers.
Secondly,
we
try
to
come
up
with
targeted
recommendations,
on
different
levels.
Furthermore,
one
should
r ecognise
the
i mportance
of
local
languages.
I n
many
countries
one
has
to
translate
the
results
in
order
to
get
them
through.
KAROL
MALCUZYNSKI
[Addresses
the
three
questions
i ndirectly
through
i s
account
of
his
work.]
I
worked
as
a
journalist
in
broadcasting
and
print
for
over
30
years,
and
I
know
little
about
media
research,
apart
from
market
research.
I
am
talking
about
commercial
driven
research,
Website
metrics,
etc.,
but
now
I
know
there
is
a
lot
of
other
research
done.
There
is
a
Tsunami
of
research
all
over
the
world.
How
often
do
newsmakers
hear
about
the
outcome
of
these
studies?
Not
often,
but
I’d
say
often
enough.
We
hear
from
researchers
when
we
are
needed
as
a
sample,
either
individual
sample
when
researchers
do
qualitative
studies
and
need
quotes
for
their
conclusions,
or
sometimes
in
groups
when
they
conduct
surveys.
I
think
also
we
don’t
hear
enough
about
the
outcomes
of
these
studies
and
how
they
are
supposed
to
help
us
in
our
work
and
better
understand
our
audiences.
We
want
to
know
what
our
audience
i s
but
we
also
want
to
shape
it
to
a
large
extent
–
the
r ole
of
public
services.
So
answering
perhaps
the
first
or
third
question
would
be
that
we
need
to
find
ways
to
talk
to
each
other.
Your
community
needs
to
find
ways
to
let
journalists
know
your
findings.
Sometimes
you
send
long
documents
written
in
language
that
only
you
understand.
Journalists
tend
to
think
we
are
too
busy.
My
first
point
is
we
need
to
put
the
results
in
front
of
us,
the
results
have
to
speak
our
language.
Second,
we
need
to
work
out
how
the
data
are
r elevant
to
us.
What
are
you
learning
form
audiences
that
we
need
to
hear?
How
can
we
respond?
And
not
just
in
terms
of
catering
to
the
lowest
common
denominator.
I
think
also
i n
the
end
we
need
to
b e
consulted
about
some
of
the
designs
of
the
research
before
it
b egins.
I’ve
noticed
that
there
are
a
large
number
of
endless
media
conferences
around
the
world.
But
these
meetings
seem
to
be
gatherings
of
various
sub
groups.
It
seems
that
very
seldom
these
groups
work
together/talk.
117
PART
IV.
Audience
Transformations
and
Social
Integration
118
MEDIA,
CITIZENSHIP
AND
SOCIAL
DIVERSITY
Alexander
Dhoest,
Belgium,
alexander.dhoest@ua.ac.be
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
1
on
‘Media,
citizenship
and
social
diversity’
in
Working
Group
4
‘Audience
transformations
and
social
integration’
INTRODUCTION
This
report
synthesises
the
input
provided
by
members
of
Working
Group
4
on
issues
relevant
to
Task
Force
1
on
‘Media,
citizenship
and
social
diversity’.
In
this
report,
first
a
brief
summary
is
given
of
the
concrete
research
topics
addressed
by
the
contributors
of
this
overview.
This
is
necessary
to
better
understand
and
situate
the
observations
and
recommendations
that
follow.
Second,
the
different
relevant
stakeholders
are
introduced
and
shortly
discussed.
Third,
a
selection
of
relevant
findings
is
listed,
which
is
not
in
any
way
exhaustive
for
the
research
done
in
the
Working
Group
let
alone
in
the
broader
field
of
research.
However,
these
are
examples
of
the
kinds
of
insights
we
could
provide,
as
well
as
some
recommendations
based
on
these
insights.
Fourth,
some
examples
are
given
of
concrete
ways
in
which
our
own
research
has
been
helpful
for
stakeholders
in
the
past.
This
helps
us
to
discuss,
finally,
future
ways
in
which
our
research
could
be
(more)
useful
to
stakeholders.
Here,
it
is
necessary
to
first
reflect
on
the
specificities
of
academic
research,
on
its
connections
to
society
and
on
opportunities
and
constraints
arising
in
this
context.
B ased
on
this,
we
conclude
by
listing
a
number
of
ways
i n
which
future
interactions
between
academic
research
and
stakeholders
could
be
improved.
RESEARCH
TOPICS
Although
not
all
contributing
authors
are
formal
members
of
Task
Force
1,
all
the
research
discussed
below
deals
with
issues
relevant
to
Task
Force
1.
As
defined
in
the
Working
Group’s
work
plan,
the
focus
of
this
Task
Force
is
on
issues
of
citizenship
and
social
diversity.
This
Task
Force
considers
inclusion
in
the
public
sphere
and
research
on
the
media
uses
of
d iverse
social
groups.
In
a
globalised
society
where
national
and
cultural
borders
are
continuously
questioned,
which
social
groups
do
we
include
in
our
research
and
how
do
we
define
these
groups?
Who
b elongs
to
the
conceived
and
actual
audiences
of
public
and
private
media?
B eside
more
traditional
factors
of
social
diversity
such
as
age
and
gender,
other
sources
of
difference
such
as
sexual
orientation
and
ethnicity
beg
our
attention,
but
how
to
include
this
diversity
in
our
research
in
a
satisfying,
non-‐essentialist
way?
This
Task
Force
tries
to
tackle
these
issues,
focusing
in
particular
(but
not
exclusively)
on
the
ethnic
and
cultural
diversity
and
(diasporic)
hybridity
of
audiences
as
opposed
to
their
assumed
(national)
homogeneity.
In
essence,
the
challenge
is
for
audience
research
to
do
justice
to
the
actual
complexity
of
audiences
and
to
find
accurate
methods
to
grasp
media
uses
in
our
increasingly
diverse
societies.
Within
this
broad
field,
the
authors
work
on
different
groups
and
media,
using
diverse
methods
and
approaches.
Reflecting
the
diverse
national
origins
and
contexts
of
the
contributing
researchers,
a
wide
range
of
ethnic
and
cultural
minority
and/or
socially
disadvantaged
groups
119
are
studied.
Young
audiences
are
often,
but
not
always,
the
research
subjects.
The
focus
is
always
on
their
media
uses
and/or
representations,
including
both
‘old’,
mass
media
(such
as
television,
film,
radio)
and
‘new’
media
(particularly
the
Internet).
The
approaches
are
mostly
qualitative
and
often
use
mixed
methods.
The
issues
addressed
are
generally
related
to
migration
and
media
use,
including
themes
such
as
inclusion,
identification,
representation,
participation,
and
social
and
cultural
integration.
STAKEHOLDERS
In
research
on
such
matters,
there
are
different
kinds
of
stakeholders
to
be
considered,
each
i n
different
potential
relations
to
academic
research.
1. State
In
this
context,
governments,
policy
makers
and
regulatory
bodies
at
different
levels
are
relevant:
national,
international
and
transnational
(e.g.
EU),
but
also
regional
and
local
(e.g.
cities).
In
many
European
countries,
policies
and
governments
concerning
minorities
and
media
are
situated
not
only
in
different
institutions,
but
also
on
different
regional
levels
(e.g.
in
Belgium:
federal
and
regional;
i n
Switzerland:
federal,
cantonal
and
municipal).
This
multiplicity
of
‘official’
stakeholders
with
often
overlapping
jurisdiction
complicates
the
targeting
of
research
on
these
matters.
These
stakeholders
are
generally
the
ones
we
as
academics
want
to
inform
and
influence
(e.g.
in
r elation
to
broadcasting
policies,
social
and
minority
policies,
etc.).
These
state
stakeholders
can
not
only
devise
and
implement
policies
in
the
fields
we
discuss,
but
also
directly
commission
and
pay
for
academic
research
on
these
topics,
which
is
a
more
direct
way
for
academic
r esearchers
to
have
an
i mpact.
2. Civil society
If
we
understand
this
as
non-‐governmental
and
non-‐commercial
associations
representing
citizens,
there
are
many
local
(e.g.
community
centers)
and
more
large-‐scale
organisations
(e.g.
NGOs)
working
on
the
topics
and
groups
relevant
to
our
research.
Key
stakeholders
here
are
organisations
working
on
media
and
diversity
such
as
community
media
and
community
services
(at
the
local
level)
or
media
watchdogs
and
consumer
associations
(at
the
regional
or
national
level).
However,
other
relevant
stakeholders
here
are,
on
the
one
hand,
minority
associations
of
all
kinds
(e.g.
representing
particular
ethnic
groups),
and
media
associations
of
all
kinds
(e.g.
professional
organisations
of
journalists,
etc.).
Minority
associations
are
usually
the
stakeholders
academic
research
explicitly
or
implicitly
takes
side
with,
protecting
their
interests
and
drawing
attention
to
their
needs
and
those
of
the
people
they
represent.
As
we
will
elaborate
below,
academic
research
may
also
support
these
civil
society
organisations
by
advising
and
collaborating
with
them.
On
the
other
hand,
media
associations
are
usually
the
stakeholders
academic
research
aims
to
inform
and
advise
on
better
ways
to
deal
with
and
cater
for
minority
audiences.
One
key
group
of
civil
society
stakeholders,
who
are
often
–
ironically
–
forgotten
in
thinking
about
audience
research,
is
the
public
at
large
including
the
diverse
audiences
we
research.
Giving
feedback
about
our
research
to
these
audiences,
either
directly
or
through
the
120
civil
society
organisations
representing
them,
is
one
of
the
key
yet
most
difficult
challenges
in
research
on
media,
citizenship
and
diversity.
Another
group
of
civil
society
stakeholders,
partly
overlapping
with
the
above,
are
teachers
and
educators
of
all
kinds
(media
educators,
adult
educators,
also
including
parents,
etc.).
They
are
crucial
in
spreading
insights
on
media
and
diversity
to
the
broader
public,
for
instance
through
media
literacy
programs,
in
particular
dealing
with
media
representations
of
social
and
cultural
diversity.
3. Market
Here,
media
and
communication
companies
and
professionals
are
the
obvious
stakeholders,
but
in
relation
to
inclusion
and
diversity
they
are
generally
not
addressed
by
nor
very
interested
in
academic
research.
As
most
media
and
communication
companies
have
commercial
purposes,
research
which
would
help
to
understand,
target
and
make
a
profit
out
of
minority
audiences
would
be
most
interesting
to
them.
As
this
is
not
the
purpose
of
academic
research,
the
connection
with
those
stakeholders
i s
generally
limited.
The
main
exception,
here,
are
public
media,
primarily
public
service
broadcasting
as
one
of
the
main
media
players
in
most
European
countries.
These
usually
have
the
explicit
obligation
to
address
and
cater
for
the
current
diverse,
multi-‐ethnic
and
multicultural
society,
social
inclusion
being
one
of
their
key
remits.
This
is
often
the
media
stakeholder
that
is
most
open
to
academic
research
and
input.
Journalists
and
editors
constitute
a
particular
category
of
stakeholders,
both
in
public
and
commercial
media,
which
can
be
interested
in
and
addressed
by
academic
research.
They
are
gatekeepers,
allowing
communicating
our
findings
with
wider
audiences
(see
below)
but
also
independently
reporting
on
the
groups
and
topics
we
research.
They
can
provide
representation
in,
as
well
as
access
to,
the
public
sphere
for
the
minority
groups
we
are
studying.
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
One
key
finding,
relevant
to
all
stakeholders,
is
that
media
do
matter
for
the
inclusion
of
(ethnic
and
cultural)
minority
g roups
in
the
public
sphere.
Media
are
both
a
resource
to
construct
and
negotiate
identities,
and
a
source
of
information
and
representations
for
both
majority
and
minority
audiences.
Academic
research
on
the
ways
minority
audiences
use
and
consume
media,
as
well
as
on
the
ways
they
are
represented
and
addressed
by
the
media,
is
instrumental
for
a
better
understanding
and
appreciation
of
this
important
social
role
of
the
media.
It
can
support
government
actions
and
policies
aiming
to
work
on
social
inclusion
and
cohesion,
providing
a
better
understanding
of
different
ethnic
and
cultural
communities
and
their
needs
and
media
uses.
As
most
research
in
this
field
is
qualitative,
it
may
complement
the
generally
quantitative,
statistical
approach
of
minority
groups
in
government
research.
Research
on
minority
media
audiences
may
also
help
to
b etter
reach
them
through
appropriate
channels.
From
this,
some
r elated,
more
specific
findings
follow.
121
1. Media representations
Cultural
and
ethnic
minorities
are
generally
not
included
sufficiently
nor
accurately
in
media
r epresentation.
Therefore,
a
general
recommendation
to
all
commercial
and
public
media
stakeholders
is
to
be
more
diverse
(quantitatively)
but
also
(qualitatively)
more
culturally
sensitive
in
reporting
about
diversity.
Quality
information
and
balanced
representations
are
crucial
i n
creating
an
i nclusive
public
sphere.
2. Diversity in media research
Minority
audiences
are
generally
not
included
in
mainstream
media
research.
Therefore,
a
recommendation
to
all
academic
and
non-‐academic
researchers
is
to
not
limit
research
on
these
groups
to
specific
'minority'
research,
but
to
make
sure
all
research
is
inclusive
of,
and
therefore
representative
of,
the
actual
diversity
i n
society.
3. Media in diversity research
Media
are
generally
only
marginally
considered
in
policies
and
actions
in
relation
to
ethnic
and
cultural
minorities,
where
socio-‐economic
issues
(such
as
housing,
education,
employment
etc.)
are
often
prioritised.
Therefore,
a
recommendation
to
the
different
stakeholders
working
on
or
representing
ethnic
and
cultural
minorities
is
to
be
more
aware
of,
and
to
actively
exploit,
the
power
of
the
media
as
a
source
to
inform,
emancipate
and
include
their
target
groups.
It
is
impossible
in
this
context
to
summarize
the
multitude
of
concrete
research
findings
in
relation
to
the
media
uses
of
minority
audiences.
However,
reflecting
on
the
field
there
is
one
overarching
finding
which
is
relevant
to
all
stakeholders.
To
simplify
–
and
to
paraphrase
Facebook
–
we
may
say:
it's
complicated.
On
the
one
hand,
we
have
a
multitude
of
media
which
all
have
different
uses
and
dynamics,
and
which
are
continuously
evolving.
Digitization,
in
particular,
has
uprooted
the
traditional
national
boundaries
of
media
production
and
consumption,
and
provides
new
opportunities
for
communication
and
identification.
On
the
other
hand,
we
have
a
multitude
of
social
groups
and
minorities,
whose
b oundaries
are
generally
unstable
and
who
are
also
continuously
evolving.
They
use
media
in
different
ways
to
negotiate
multiple,
hybrid
identities.
As
a
result,
any
generalisation
is
problematic,
so
the
recommendation
is
to
be
cautious.
For
instance,
different
media
may
play
different
roles
for
minorities,
may
be
governed
by
different
logics
and
dynamics,
etc.
Similarly,
it
is
important
not
to
generalise
too
easily
across
or
within
minority
groups.
It
is
also
wise
not
to
assume
that
ethnicity
or
cultural
identities
are
of
continuous
and
primary
importance
in
media
use.
It
is
equally
important
to
avoid
taking
a
purely
Western,
Eurocentric
and
ethnocentric
approach
in
talking
to
and
about
non-‐Western
minorities,
setting
them
apart
as
radically
and
essentially
'other'.
The
overall
aim
should
be
to
b e
as
inclusive
as
possible,
both
in
mainstream
(audience)
research
and
in
mainstream
media
representations.
122
HOW
HAS
OUR
RESEARCH
BEEN
HELPFUL
TO
STAKEHOLDERS?
Considering
the
different
ways
in
which
academic
research
by
the
contributing
authors
has
been
useful
to
stakeholders
i n
the
past,
may
help
us
to
better
devise
future
strategies.
1. Research commissioned by and effectuated for stakeholders
This
is
the
most
direct
way
to
contribute
to
the
field
one
studies.
In
particular,
state
stakeholders
and
other
policy-‐making
institutions
are
willing
and
able
to
fund
such
research,
which
is
perhaps
less
validated
academically
but
which
is
certainly
stimulated
by
universities
looking
for
outside
funding.
Some
contributors
effectuated
such
‘contract
research’
(e.g.
for
the
EU,
for
national
and
regional
authorities,
…)
which
has
the
highest
chance
of
being
used
to
evaluate
and
develop
policies.
2. Research presented to stakeholders
Presenting
research
to
stakeholders
of
different
kinds
is
a
good
way
to
have
an
impact:
presenting
it
at
non-‐academic
conferences,
meetings
and
debates,
for
governing
bodies,
media
representatives
or
civil
society
organisations,
in
publications
in
the
national
language(s)
and/or
with
a
broader
non-‐academic
audience.
Some
contributors
presented
their
research
on
such
occasions
(e.g.
to
Senate,
to
public
broadcasters,
…).
Mass
media,
in
particular,
are
a
good
way
to
reach
a
broad
audience,
not
only
to
communicate
about
one's
findings
but
also
to
weigh
on
the
public
agenda.
Several
Task
Force
members
had
good
experiences
with
contributions
to
TV
programmes,
radio
interviews,
interviews
and
opinion
pieces
in
newspapers,
etc.
3. Advising stakeholders
It
is
sometimes
possible
to
be
actively
involved
in
organisations,
as
a
member
of
advisory
boards
or
as
an
outside
specialist.
Policy
makers,
media
as
well
as
civil
society
organisations
are
often
looking
for
specialised
input,
particularly
from
university
specialists.
Some
contributors
are
members
of
such
formal
or
informal
advising
bodies
(e.g.
for
public
broadcasting
diversity
policies).
4. Collaborating with stakeholders
Finally,
actually
working
together
is
perhaps
one
of
the
most
gratifying
ways
for
research
to
be
useful
to
stakeholders,
jointly
setting
up
and/or
executing
research,
sharing
resources
and
insights,
collaborating
with
organisations
or
particular
audiences
during
the
research
process.
This
is
most
clearly
the
case
in
the
participatory
action
research
done
by
some
contributors,
working
together
with
socially
disadvantaged
communities
and
youth
centres,
involving
them
not
only
as
study
objects
b ut
also
aiming
to
help
them
develop
personal
and
social
identities
and
competencies,
through
media
creation
(e.g.
photography
and
radio).
This
is
particularly
valuable
when
working
with
young
and
marginalised
audiences,
who
can
feel
more
included
through
the
very
process
of
research.
More
generally,
working
with
minority
audiences,
ethical
considerations
are
of
particular
importance,
not
only
talking
about
them
but
also
with
them,
putting
their
needs
and
interests
123
central
stage.
Giving
feedback
about
the
results
of
the
research
to
the
research
participants
or
their
communities
is
another
way
of
contributing
to
social
inclusion
and
participation.
HOW
COULD
OUR
RESEARCH
BE
MORE
HELPFUL
TO
STAKEHOLDERS?
Before
we
address
this
point,
it
i s
i mportant
to
r eflect
on
the
q uestion
whether
academic
research
can
and
should
always
be
relevant
to
stakeholders
outside
university.
Of
course
it
is
important
for
researchers
to
also
play
an
active
role
in
society,
particularly
when
they
work
on
such
crucial
social
themes
as
diversity
and
inclusion.
However,
this
is
not
the
prime
purpose
of
academic
research,
which
has
some
particular
characteristic
properties
and
objectives.
Academic
audience
research
has
the
possibility
and
duty
to
take
a
step
back
from
concrete,
pressing
issues
to
look
at
more
abstract
and
long-‐term
patterns.
It
should
also
address
issues
nobody
else
is
thinking
about,
taking
a
critical
distance
from
the
taken
for
granted,
everyday
concerns
in
media
and
policy
making.
Academic
research
does
not
always
have
to
be
immediately
applicable
and
instrumental,
let
alone
profitable.
In
its
choice
of
topics
and
methods,
therefore,
it
should
not
always
and
completely
be
guided
by
the
needs
and
interests
of
stakeholders.
This
being
said,
beside
academic
impact,
the
social
relevance
of
our
research
is
without
doubt
important.
In
what
follows,
building
upon
previous
experiences
as
well
as
un-‐
or
underexplored
possibilities,
we
list
a
number
of
ways
to
make
our
research
more
significant
for
stakeholders.
1. Contact with stakeholders
Even
before
starting
r esearch,
i t
is
i mportant
to
k now
and
get
i n
touch
with
the
different
relevant
stakeholders
in
the
field.
It
helps
to
know
about
the
problems
and
questions
they
are
dealing
with,
the
kinds
of
research
they
do
themselves
and
the
data
they
have,
the
kinds
or
research,
data
and
insights
they
miss,
etc.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
aim
is
not
to
always
and
only
cater
for
stakeholders
needs,
but
some
degree
of
mutual
understanding
and
coordination
is
advisable.
Contact
with
stakeholders
may
also
help
to
better
understand
the
ways
they
think
and
operate
(as
policy
makers,
as
media,
as
minority
organisations,
etc.),
their
possibilities
and
constraints,
to
better
f ocus
and
calibrate
advice
or
critique.
2. Communicating with stakeholders
Our
usual
ways
of
communicating
about
and
disseminating
our
findings
(such
as
academic
papers
and
conference
presentations,
usually
in
English)
have
very
little
impact
outside
university.
Spreading
these
papers
more
widely
is
not
the
key
issue,
as
their
language
and
approach
is
generally
not
very
accessible
to
people
outside
academia.
Instead,
a
translation
to
more
accessible,
practical
outputs
in
the
national
language
is
r equired,
such
as:
-‐
popular
publications
(newspaper
reports,
opinion
pieces,
...);
-‐
toolkits,
lists
of
recommendations
and
best
practices
(how
to
represent
and
address
minority
audiences,
...);
-‐
training,
workshops
and
educational
activities.
124
3. Advice and feedback
As
mentioned
earlier,
it
is
possible
to
be
involved
in
an
advisory
role
before
policies
or
actions
are
devised.
It
is
also
possible
to
provide
feedback
and
information
on
the
impact
or
effect
of
such
policies
and
actions,
and
to
make
suggestions
for
i mprovement.
Advice
can
also
be
useful
for
civil
society
stakeholders,
who
can
learn
from
academic
research,
for
instance
about
the
strategies,
challenges
and
opportunities
of
their
counterparts
in
other
countries,
about
practical
tools
they
can
use
and
strategies
to
reach
wider
audiences
as
well
as
governing
bodies,
etc.
4. Involving audiences
Finally,
in
the
current
media
landscape
and
particularly
in
r elation
to
minority
audiences,
it
is
important
for
academics
to
stimulate
the
active
involvement
of
the
groups
they
study
in
the
media
they
study.
Reacting
and
talking
back,
seeking
representation
and
creating
user
generated
content,
minority
audiences
can
be
(co)creators
of
media,
thus
participating
i n
the
public
sphere,
making
it
more
diverse.
In
this
way,
they
can
not
only
feel
but
also
actually
be
included.
Particularly
useful,
again,
are
the
more
ethnographic,
participatory
methods
described
above,
where
the
researcher
not
only
does
research
b ut
also
develops
a
methodological
guide
and
tools
to
further
i mplement
such
research
in
other
contexts.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Maria
José
Brites,
Portugal,
britesmariajose@gmail.com
Marta
Cola,
Switzerland,
colam@lu.unisi.ch
Alexander
Dhoest,
Belgium,
a lexander.dhoest@ua.ac.bez
Şirin
Dilli,
Turkey,
s irindilli@hotmail.com
Nelly
Elias
and
Dafna
Lemish,
Israel,
enelly@bgu.ac.il
a nd
dafnalemish@siu.edu
Brigitte
Hipfl,
Austria,
brigitte.hipfl@uni-‐klu.ac.at
Ragne
Kõuts,
Estonia,
ragne.kouts@neti.ee
Marijana
Matovic,
S erbia,
marijana.matovic@gmail.com
Daniel
Meirinho,
Portugal,
danielmeirinho@hotmail.com
Liliana
Pacheco,
Portugal,
Liliana.Teresa.Pacheco@iscte.pt
José
Carlos
S endín,
Spain,
josecarlos.sendin@urjc.es
125
TRANSFORMING
SOCIETIES
–
TRANSFORMING
FAMILIES
Sascha
Trültzsch-‐Wijnen,
Austria,
sascha.trueltzsch-‐wijnen@sbg.ac.at
Leader
of
the
Task
Force
2
on
‘Transforming
societies,
transforming
families’
in
Working
Group
4
‘Audience
transformations
and
social
integration’
FIELDS
OF
RESEARCH
Research
in
Working
Group
4
is
focused
on
social
integration
and
families
as
audiences
of
both
the
more
traditional
and
the
so-‐called
new
media
(i.e.
the
internet
and
the
social
web).
The
diverse
interests
of
Task
Force
2
on
‘Transforming
societies,
transforming
families’
evolve
around
media
usage
and
youth,
families,
and
generations.
The
research
within
the
Task
Force
can
b e
described
in
three
clusters:
Cluster 1: Children, Youth and TV
Children
and
youth
as
audiences
are
subject
to
research
in
various
dimensions.
While
some
research
evaluates
youth
programming
(for
example
in
Austria)
other
works
are
more
specific
and
examine
the
motivations
and
gratifications
of
young
people
when
they
watch
reality
TV
shows.
But
also
the
question
of
diversity
and
the
representation
of
children’s
rights
in
the
media
are
subject
to
research.
Results
are
relevant
for
programmers
as
well
as
for
educators
discussing
the
program
with
young
people.
Cluster 2: Children and the news
The
second
cluster
includes
research
on
children
as
an
audience
of
news
in
general
and
addresses
questions
such
as
how
children
are
represented
in
the
news
media
and
how
their
lifeworld33,
specific
problems
and
sometimes
problematic
neighborhood
are
represented.
Additionally
specific
news
programs
for
children
are
subject
to
research
in
the
UK,
Portugal
and
Israel.
Studying
these
programs
and
their
audiences
requires
several
methods,
which
all
together
aim
to
evaluate
the
acceptance
and
appropriateness
of
such
TV
news
for
kids.
Some
studies
go
beyond
this
point
and
discuss
the
programs
with
children
to
explore
alternatives
in
content
and
presentation.
The
existing
cooperation
between
researchers
and
program
makers
on
different
levels
so
far
turned
out
to
be
not
as
productive
as
the
researchers
wish
it
could
be.
As
one
example
from
the
UK
shows,
program
makers
often
find
it
hard
to
make
use
of
research
results
and
are
not
so
much
open
to
the
researchers’
suggestions
or
refuse
to
discuss
implications
of
r esearch
for
specific
elements
of
their
programs.
Cluster 3: New Media and Generations
Since
the
so-‐called
new
media
b ecame
part
of
everyday
life
–
especially
of
young
people
–
another
group
of
research
i s
focusing
on
the
Internet
and
the
social
web.
New
possibilities
came
33
‘Lifeworld’
is
understood
here
as
the
children’s
everyday
life
in
their
specific
social
situation,
with
particular
resources
and
chances,
etc.
126
up,
such
as
staying
in
touch
with
family
members
living
abroad
(which
leads
to
new
forms
of
virtualized
families),
for
older
people
to
communicate
about
the
issues
that
matter
to
them
in
online
communities
and
also
for
learning
(during
school
and
spare
time)
with
social
web
tools
such
as
Wikis.
Additionally
the
research
in
the
area
addresses
various
media
and
social
transformations
such
as
general
changes
in
the
mediascapes
across
generations
(sometimes
excluding
older
or
less
wealthy
people),
changing
language
in
the
media
(such
as
Anglicisms,
Neologisms,
technical
terms,
etc.)
related
to
media
innovations
and
changes
in
concepts
such
as
privacy
in
relation
to
social
web
usage
–
including
the
disclosure
of
private
information.
The
research
r esults
often
include
recommendations
for
educators,
program
makers
and
journalists.
HOW
THE
RESEARCH
OF
OUR
TASK
FORCE
COULD
BE
USEFUL?
The
research
of
the
WG4
members
in
Task
Force
2
could
be
and
has
been
useful
on
several
levels
and
in
different
fields.
First
of
all
it
is
essential
to
get
in
touch
and
into
productive
discussion
with
stakeholders
and
their
representatives.
From
our
point
of
view
the
discussion
should
start
with
questions
arising
from
the
practice
of
stakeholders.
However,
since
so
far
this
is
the
case
only
in
very
few
examples,
we
can
only
assume
what
questions
actually
come
up
in
their
work
and
in
their
respective
fields.
Therefore
the
present
report
intends
to
focus
on
the
stakeholder’s
point
of
view
and
to
address
their
interests
by
asking
how
academic
audience
research
could
be
useful
for
stakeholders
i n
the
field?
As
a
key
element
we
want
to
point
out
the
advantages
of
academic
research
in
comparison
to
(commercial)
market
research.
The
latter
is
mostly
based
on
short-‐term
results
and
on
standardized
quantitative
data,
such
as
telephone
interviews
(CATI).
The
design
of
such
research
limits
its
results
to
an
overall
perspective
for
a
general
population
–
accordingly
it
is
based
on
representative
samples.
The
audience
is
asked
to
answer
specific
questions
the
researcher
wants
to
explore.
According
to
the
nature
of
(commercial)
market
research,
i t
focuses
on
commercial
aspects,
such
as
advertisements,
favorite
(existing)
programs,
etc.,
and
it
is
possibly
influenced
by
the
research
f unding
companies.
In
turn,
academic
research
faces
the
problem
of
time
lag,
since
i t
sometimes
takes
several
years
from
the
very
b eginning
of
a
research
project
to
the
publication
of
the
r esults.
On
the
other
hand
academics
use
a
range
of
methods
–
most
often
qualitative
methods
such
as
interviews
–
that
do
not
predominantly
aim
to
provide
short-‐term
results,
but
rather
to
gain
in-‐depth
insights
into
specific
groups.
Such
results
do
not
necessarily
need
to
be
representative,
but
should
give
a
sense
of
the
motivations,
b enefits,
needs,
etc.
of
audiences.
For
example
the
research
question
i n
academic
terms
is
more
often:
‘How
would
be
your
ideal
TV
program?’
or
‘How
would
you
wish
that
people
like
you
would
be
presented
in
the
news?’
instead
of
the
market
research
perspective
that
asks
‘What
is
your
favorite
TV
program?’
or
‘What
news
channel
do
you
prefer?’
Thus
academic
audience
research
can
provide
insights
about
the
needs,
perspectives
and
motivations
of
specific
audiences.
In
our
Task
Force
such
results
are
available,
e.g.
concerning
the
elderly,
young
people
and
migrant
families,
with
a
focus
on
one
or
more
countries
where
research
has
been
conducted.
Moreover,
detailed
information
and
recommendations
can
be
given
with
regard
to
mediation
(conflict
management)
and
media
education.
Especially
media
skills
and
questions
of
127
media
literacy
have
been
addressed
and
typologies
of
specific
skills
and
needs
have
been
developed.
Thus
the
research
carried
out
within
the
Task
Force
could
serve
as
a
motor
for
educational
innovations,
such
as
including
internet
and
social
web
resources
in
educational
programs,
with
best
practice
examples
from
different
European
countries.
Integrating
such
new
technologies
into
educational
contexts
can
empower
both
young
and
older
people
to
participate
in
educational
and
civic
matters.
Audience
research
could
also
help
media
agencies
to
improve
and
reshape
their
programming
in
order
to
better
meet
the
needs
and
wishes
of
their
audience.
This
includes
the
audience’s
perspectives
on
how
a
balanced
program,
sensitive
to
representations
of
specific
groups
in
the
media
should
look
like.
These
kinds
of
results
could
be
interesting
for
journalists
as
well
as
TV
program
makers.
Additionally,
research
facilitates
the
perspective
of
successful
participation
of
different
groups
in
different
types
of
media.
Examples
show
ways
of
integrating
different
society
groups
into
the
processes
of
media
production
and
advisory
comities
for
media
agencies.
HOW
OUR
RESEARCH
COULD
BE
USEFUL
FOR
WHICH
STAKEHOLDERS?
1. State
The
results
of
our
research
could
be
useful
for
regulatory
bodies
and
policy
makers
regarding
the
representation
in
the
media
and
the
needs
of
specific
societal
groups,
especially
young
people,
the
elderly
and
those
with
a
migration/minority
background.
Additionally
education
agencies
and
authorities
could
benefit
from
results
regarding
media
use
in
several
ways,
such
as
enhancing
their
understanding
of
representations
of
several
societal
groups
in
media
products
and
online
media
–
with
specific
focus
on
biased
images,
stereotypes,
etc.
This
awareness
may
also
empower
online
communication,
based
on
recommendations
for
media
literacy,
technical
skills
and
civic
engagement.
2. Civil Society
Public
service
broadcasters
and
their
program
makers
could
make
use
of
our
research
i n
order
to
better
meet
the
needs
of
specific
audiences
such
as
children,
elderly
and
those
with
a
migration/ethnic
minority
background.
From
the
point
of
view
of
many
agencies
in
civil
society,
our
research
results
often
do
not
seem
to
be
useful
or
are
considered
too
specific.
Therefore
researchers
should
better
meet
the
needs
of,
and
improve
their
communication
with
stakeholders
in
this
field.
So
far
it
seems
that
community
media
are
more
open
to
the
academia’s
input
and
may
b e
more
easily
addressed
by
academics.
The
cooperation
between
academics
and
civic
agencies
in
actions
such
as
the
Safer
Internet
Day
has
shown
that
our
research
can
be
useful.
Similarly,
our
research
results
could
also
be
useful
for
NGOs
in
the
fields
of
education,
gender
(including
the
policy
on
gender
mainstreaming)
and
diversity.
Not
only
educators
and
social
workers,
but
also
journalists
and
program
makers
could
make
use
of
our
research
–
therefore
it
is
necessary
to
better
communicate
with
such
specific
agencies
and
NGOs.
128
3. Market
Cooperation
with
market
stakeholders
in
our
field
is
particularly
difficult
since
it
is
not
easy
for
academics
and
academic
research
to
meet
the
needs
and
expectations
of
private
companies.
It
seems
that
there
are
different
languages,
which
result
from
different
orientations
addressed
above.
The
two
groups
also
have
to
face
different
challenges.
Funding
by
market
organizations
and
companies
i s
often
useful
to
realize
specific
academic
r esearch
in
times
of
decreasing
public
funding.
Yet
companies
have
very
specific
questions
related
to
commercial
interests
and
normally
want
short-‐term
results
for
representative
samples,
covering
the
whole
society
or
at
least
large
groups.
These
interests
are
in
contrast
to
the
orientation
and
logic
of
the
academic
field.
At
the
moment,
academic
research
seems
to
be
too
specific,
too
complex
and
not
enough
up
to
date
for
market
organisations.
To
improve
cooperation,
a
common
basis
between
these
two
different
logics
needs
to
be
found.
This
applies
also
to
organisations
such
as
PR
agencies,
journalist
organisations
(also
see
above
NGOs)
and
commercial
broadcasters.
EXAMPLES
OF
HOW
OUR
RESEARCH
HAS
BEEN
USEFUL
In
order
to
give
further
inspiration
of
how
our
research
could
be
useful
for
stakeholders
outside
the
academia,
examples
of
successful
cooperation
and
integration
of
results
into
different
fields
will
illustrate
what
has
b een
done
so
far.
The
cooperation
with
public
service
broadcasters
often
consists
in
providing
evaluations
of
and
recommendations
for
children’s
programs.
Beside
the
evaluation
of
the
TV
programming
for
children
in
general,
specific
news
programs
have
been
subject
to
particular
research.
Some
Task
Force
members
have
been
involved
in
such
kind
of
research.
The
results
did
help
the
journalists
to
better
meet
the
young
audience’s
needs,
especially
how
they
want
to
be
addressed
and
what
aspects
of
daily
news
are
of
particular
importance
to
them.
However,
in
some
cases,
the
cooperation
with
public
service
broadcasters
has
not
been
without
difficulties,
since
the
program
makers
did
not
really
want
to
revise
their
concepts
and
had
already
planned
to
re-‐design
the
news
reel
prior
to
the
researchers’
input.
Additionally,
the
scientific
evaluation
of
TV
programs
has
not
been
often
used
by
those
responsible
in
the
media
industry,
except
in
the
context
of
the
advertising-‐oriented
market
research.
Task
Force
members
have
also
developed
and
discussed
recommendations
with
stakeholders
such
as
program
makers
and
journalists
regarding
the
elderly
and
families
as
represented
in
the
media
and
as
audiences
of
media.
This
cooperation
has
worked
much
b etter
on
a
regional
or
local
level
and
with
respective
organisations
than
with
public
service
broadcasters
on
a
national
level.
It
is
on
the
local
and
regional
levels
that
the
best
practice
examples
for
participation
of
audiences
with
migration
background
turned
out
to
be
fruitful
for
both
academics
and
journalists.
The
most
positive
cooperation
examples
from
our
Task
Force
are
located
on
an
individual
level,
i.e.
involving
journalists,
community
media
members
and
other
individuals
open
to
academic
research.
For
instance,
the
community
media
were
keen
to
learn
lessons
from
our
research
results
for
their
production
and
programming
strategies,
and
129
were
even
open
to
discussions
with
researchers
on
air
–
which
is
related
to
their
specific
aims
and
audiences.
Guidelines
and
related
materials
have
been
developed
with
and
(partly)
i mplemented
b y
educational
stakeholders.
In
the
field
of
media
education,
some
Task
Force
members
have
been
engaged
in
studies
of
media
usage
and
in
analyses
of
media
images
and
their
appropriateness,
with
a
view
to
encourage
more
active
and
participative
media
usage
(especially
the
Internet)
by
young
audiences,
families
and
migrants.
This
kind
of
cooperation
takes
place
at
different
levels,
from
regional
schools
and
educational
authorities
to
student
projects,
classes
and
s pecific
individual
educators.
In
this
context
it
has
proved
to
be
useful
to
focus
on
one
very
specific
topic
or
question,
thus
reducing
the
complexity
of
academic
research
in
order
to
increase
the
accessibility
for
stakeholders.
Additionally
research
has
been
useful
for
mediation
and
counseling
guidelines
for
both
professional
educators
and
parents.
Related
to
the
Insafe
program34,
academic
audience
research
has
entered
schools
and
students’
everyday
life,
as
results
have
been
presented
in
an
easily
accessible
way
for
example
a t
Safer
I nternet
workshops.
With
regard
to
public
presentation
of
research
results
and
recommendations,
the
experience
of
the
Task
Force
members
shows
that
especially
on
local
and
community
levels
there
is
an
interest
in
cooperating
with
academics
that
has
been
underestimated
so
far.
This
cooperation
should
be
activated
prior
to
those
with
stakeholders
on
a
higher
level.
In
terms
of
civic
responsibility
researchers
should
aim
to
increase
their
impact
on
local
and
community
levels
while
not
f orgetting
the
national
and
European
levels.
This
chapter
is
based
on
individual
reports
by:
Michal
Alon-‐Tirosh
and
Dafna
Lemish,
Israel,
dafnalemish@siu.edu
Piermarco
Aroldi,
Italy,
piermarco.aroldi@unicatt.it
Mariyan
Dimitrov
Tomov,
Bulgaria,
mdttm@mail.bg
Andrea
Dürager,
Austria,
andrea.duerager@sbg.ac.at
Ana
Jorge,
Portugal,
anaratojorge@gmail.com
Jasmin
Kulterer,
Austria,
Jasmin.Kulterer@sbg.ac.at
Barbara
Lewandowska-‐Tomaszczyk
and
Jerzy
Tomaszczyk,
Poland,
tomas@uni.lodz.pl
Lidia
Marôpo,
Portugal,
lidiamaropo@gmail.com
Marijana
Matovic,
S erbia,
marijana.matovic@gmail.com
Galit
Nimrod,
Israel,
gnimrod@bgu.ac.il
Ingrid
Paus-‐Hasebrink,
Austria,
ingrid.paus-‐hasebrink@sbg.ac.at
Cristina
Ponte,
Portugal,
Cristina.ponte@fcsh.unl.pt
Sascha
Trültzsch-‐Wijnen,
Austria,
sascha.trueltzsch-‐wijnen@sbg.ac.at
34
‘Insafe
is
a
European
network
of
Awareness
Centres
promoting
s afe,
responsible
use
of
the
Internet
and
mobile
devices
to
young
people.’
http://www.saferinternet.org/
130
AUDIENCE
TRANSFORMATIONS
AND
SOCIAL
INTEGRATION:
BUILDING
BRIDGES
AND
MAKING
A
REAL
DIFFERENCE
IN
THE
WORLD
–
REPORT
OF
WG4
DIALOGUE
TH
WITH
STAKEHOLDERS,
BELGRADE,
SEPTEMBER
19
,
2013
Dafna
Lemish,
United
States,
dafnalemish@siu.edu
Member
of
Working
Group
4
“Audience
Transformations
and
Social
Integration”
Twenty
years
ago,
a
leading
scholar
of
children
and
media,
Ellen
Wartella
made
a
call
f or
action:
“The
recent
history
of
public
controversies
about
children
and
television
issues
suggest
that
there
is
ample
opportunity
for
communication
research
to
have
a
visible
influence
in
shaping
public
debates,
but
this
happens
far
too
rarely.
My
suggestion,
then,
for
going
beyond
agendas
is
to
review
our
commitment
to
public
scholarship
and
to
reinvigorate
the
public
face
of
our
field”
(Wartella,
1993,
p.
147).
Since
that
time
we
have
expanded
our
focus
from
children
to
entire
families,
and
from
television
to
all
media.
Nevertheless,
the
call
for
public
scholarship
and
for
researchers
to
become
engaged
academics
in
the
wider
society
is
as
relevant
and
pressing
as
ever.
Twenty-‐five
individual
contributions
from
members
of
WG4
formed
the
basis
for
two
Task
Force
reports
on
“Building
Bridges
with
Stakeholders.”
The
first,
authored
by
Alexander
Dhoest,
which
focused
on
“Media,
Citizenship
and
Social
Diversity,”
integrated
the
reports
on
the
role
of
media
in
the
lives
of
immigrants
and
minorities.
The
second
report,
authored
by
Sascha
Trültzsch-‐Wijnen,
focused
on
“Transforming
Families,”
and
integrated
the
reports
on
children
and
their
rights
as
audiences,
children’s
news
consumption
and
needs,
and
the
more
general
discussion
of
new
media
i ntegration
across
generations.
Both
of
these
topical
areas
lend
themselves
remarkably
well
to
applied
aspects:
the
potential
of
media
for
making
a
significant
difference
in
the
wellbeing
of
children
and
in
the
integration
of
minorities
and
immigrants
in
the
host
societies
while
maintaining
their
cultural
and
personal
connections
to
their
homelands.
Both
are
heavily
invested
in
issues
of
identity
and
diversity
–
gender,
ethnicity,
class,
religion
and
generation.
Both
are
also
strongly
related
to
the
many
efforts
at
using
media
for
development
and
for
promotion
of
human
rights
in
Europe
and
beyond.
Members
of
WG4
met
in
Belgrade
on
September
19,
2013
for
a
dialogue
session
with
stakeholders’
representatives,
in
order
to
receive
feedback
from
the
group’s
reports
and
engage
in
constructive
exchange
of
ideas.
STAKEHOLDERS
AND
HABITAT
TYPES
We
can
distinguish,
conceptually,
among
four
types
of
stakeholders
for
whom
research
on
audiences
has
immediate
r elevancy:
•
State
–
Governments,
policy
makers
and
regulatory
bodies
at
different
levels:
regional,
national,
international
and
transnational.
This
stakeholder
was
represented
in
the
WG4
dialogue
meeting
by
the
UN
Fund
for
children’s
rights,
131
UNICEF.
This
meeting
was
attended
by
Jadranka
Milanovic,
from
UNICEF
B elgrade,
who
is
responsible
for
the
Media
and
Children's
Rights
field
i n
Serbia
and
was
also
able
to
i ntroduce
the
national
context.
•
Civil
society
–
Non-‐governmental
and
non-‐profit
organizations
representing
citizens,
including,
for
example,
media
watchdog
organizations,
community
services,
consumer
groups,
minority
associations,
teachers
and
educators.
Dragan
Kremer,
the
Media
Program
Coordinator
for
the
Open
Society
Foundation
in
Serbia,
represented
this
type
of
stakeholder
at
the
meeting.
•
Market
–
Media
and
communication
companies
and
professionals,
most
of
which
are
commercial
enterprises,
including
industries
related
to
broadcast,
journalists,
movies,
gaming,
computers,
mobile
phones,
and
other
communication
technologies
and
services.
This
type
of
stakeholder
was
represented
by
Michele
Arlotta
who
is
Head
of
Strategy,
Marketing
&
Sales
-‐
TV
Channels
of
DeAgostini
in
Italy.
•
The
public
at
large
–
for
which
our
research
is
highly
r elevant
and
can
contribute
to
their
quality
of
life,
includes
the
audiences
we
study,
children,
families,
caregivers,
minority
and
i mmigrant
groups,
and
ways
of
reaching
them
through
all
forms
of
traditional
and
new
media.
Each
group
of
stakeholders,
as
well
as
academia,
occupies
a
different
“habitat”
with
its
own
mindset,
priorities,
goals,
professional
norms
and
expectations,
language
and
jargon,
as
well
as
different
work-‐styles.
One
critical
difference
emerging
from
the
discussion
is
the
framing
of
the
mission
of
academia
as
creator
of
knowledge.
As
such,
it
is
heavily
process
oriented,
appreciating
k nowledge
for
the
sake
of
knowledge.
I n
contrast,
other
stakeholders
are
more
goal
and
product
oriented
–
e.g.,
they
have
a
program
to
put
on
the
air,
a
policy
paper
to
draft,
an
advertisement
to
put
on
line.
The
tension
resulting
from
the
differences
in
habitats
of
the
academic
world
and
many
of
the
stakeholders
creates
many
challenges
in
attempting
to
build
constructive
and
collaborative
relationships
among
them.
“For
us”
explained
Piermarco
Aroldi,
“knowledge
is
an
end
in
itself…
and
I
don’t
know
how
this
knowledge
might
be
used
in
the
company
I
am
providing
it
to…
I
worry
about
it.
It
i s
hard
to
understand
where
our
role
ends
and
where
the
stakeholder’s
role
begins,
where
the
boundary
between
the
researcher
and
the
stakeholder
is…”
Some
of
the
differences
discussed
i ncluded:
•
Differences
in
timetable
expectations:
Academics
take
a
much
longer
time
to
design
a
study,
seek
funding,
execute
the
study,
write
it
up
and
finally
publish
it.
The
process
usually
takes
several
years.
Goal-‐oriented
stakeholders
have
strict
deadlines
that
require
information
to
become
available
immediately,
if
it
is
to
be
implemented
in
the
next
“product”
they
are
working
on.
As
Michele
Arlotta
put
it:
“We
are
in
two
different
worlds,
academic
research
is
just
too
slow,
and
for
us
it
is
a
problem,
and
honestly,
it
is
not
easy…”
And,
Marta
Cola
added:
“For
the
company,
time
is
money.”
•
The
existence
of
inherent
distrust/misunderstandings
between
academia
and
market
stakeholders:
Scholars
are
often
perceived
by
the
media
industries
as
being
detached
from
the
reality
of
the
market,
particularly
its
financial
132
constraints.
Market
organizations
are
being
perceived
by
scholars
as
being
only
concerned
about
profit,
as
lacking
a
social
consciousness
and
thus
manipulating
and
exploiting
audiences.
Representatives
of
both
sides
are
often
called
upon
to
participate
in
panels,
symposiums,
and
news
coverage,
their
views
being
pitted
against
each
other
so
they
are
entrenched
i n
seemingly
opposing
sides
(e.g.,
on
the
effects
of
violence
i n
the
media,
obesity,
or
r acial
stereotypes).
•
Differing
uses
of
language:
Academic
language
is
often
difficult
to
understand,
as
it
uses
jargon
and
inaccessible
terminology.
Attempts
at
“translation”
to
layman
language
often
fail
to
interpret
results
and
implications
appropriately
and
may
present
misleading
conclusions.
Academics
also
find
it
hard
to
adjust
their
reporting
to
journalistic
requirements
that
expect
clarity,
simplicity
and
more
“sound
bite”
language
that
highlights
the
unique,
the
new,
the
relevant
–
and
often
times
–
the
negative.
Journalists
also
have
a
preference
for
quantitative
results
that
can
be
expressed
in
numbers
and
percentages.
“The
challenge
is
how
to
communicate.
As
academics,
we
have
to
think
in
a
different
way,”
said
Cristina
Ponte:
“What
are
journalists’
interests
in
our
topics
of
research?
We
have
good
stories
to
tell…
what
is
my
story?
How
can
I
tell
i t
to
the
journalist?
How
can
I
build
relationships
with
journalists?”
•
The
interdisciplinary
nature
of
our
field:
This
often
results
in
multiple
voices
within
academia,
with
scholars
focusing
on
internal
disagreements
on
research
traditions
and
theoretical
backgrounds
and
thus
not
communicating
effectively
with
stakeholders.
The
latter
are
looking
for
unified
conclusions
and
clear
recommendations
that
can
be
b ased
on
them.
•
Funding:
A
thorny
concern
f or
both
academia
as
well
as
stakeholders,
as
everyone
is
competing
for
limited
r esources
for
conducting
research.
POSSIBLE
RELATIONSHIP
MODELS
The
differences
among
the
various
stakeholders
and
the
many
challenges
faced
in
attempts
to
cultivate
constructive
collaborations
with
academia
lend
themselves
to
different
types
of
possible
relationships
–
one
is
required
to
communicate
differently
to
a
foundation,
a
corporation,
an
educational
system,
or
a
journalist.
Indeed,
Jadranka
Milanovic
pointed
out
the
need
to
address
different
audiences
with
research
findings.
“It
has
to
be
different
for
policy
makers;
and
different
when
sharing
results
with
the
media,
because
the
state
pays
attention
to
what
the
media
say
i n
debates;
and
then
different
i mplications
of
the
findings
for
training
needs,
or
for
policymaking;
and
of
course
–
articles
for
scientific
and
professional
outlets.”
These
relationships
can
take
the
f orm
of
one
of
several
possibilities,
depending
to
a
large
degree
on
the
“power
balance”
between
them:
who
is
funding
the
research,
who
formalizes
the
research
q uestions
and
methods,
and
who
owns
the
data
and
i s
responsible
for
disseminating
it.
•
Research
sponsored
by
the
stakeholder
and
thus
aimed
to
serve
its
goals
and
interest.
For
example,
Michele
Arlotta
reported
on
the
strong
relationship
his
station
had
with
a
member
of
WG4,
Piermarco
Aroldi
in
Milan:
“For
us
it
is
a
very
important
133
relationship
and
the
best
opportunity
to
link
the
company
with
academic
research.”
However,
he
also
pointed
out
that
“the
relationship
between
the
company
and
the
academic
is
like
between
a
sponsor
and
a
supplier.”
Examples
are
many:
an
advertising
company/political
party
hiring
an
academic
to
perform
a
marketing
survey/political
poll;
a
production
company
piloting
a
new
program
for
language
learning;
a
policy-‐maker
sponsoring
a
study
on
immigrants’
use
of
governmental
websites.
•
Research
presented
to
stakeholders
by
a
researcher(s)
who
initiates
contact
with
the
stakeholders
and
calls
their
attention
to
results
of
a
study
that
may
be
relevant
to
their
mission
(e.g.,
after
discovering
that
minority
youth
make
heavy
use
of
on-‐line
websites
for
news
consumption,
suggesting
to
educators
to
engage
more
with
on-‐line
resources;
advising
media
producers
that
sexualized
images
of
girls
have
been
documented
to
negatively
affect
self-‐image
and
promote
legitimization
of
sexual
violence).
•
Research
partnership
between
the
stakeholder
and
academics
in
which
the
two
collaborate
in
all
aspects
of
the
research
project,
from
inception
to
diffusion
of
results
and
application
in
the
relevant
ways.
Such
collaborations,
for
example,
were
noted
by
Jadranka
Milanovic
in
UNICEF,
where
all
interventions
on
behalf
of
children
are
designed
in
full
collaboration
with
academics.
Similarly,
Dragan
Kremer
argued
that
the
Open
Society
Foundation
employs
academics
as
part
of
their
permanent
team
through
representation
on
different
boards.
“We
work
together,
academics
are
part
of
drafting
the
strategies,
the
whole
concept
of
having
as
many
academics
on
boards
and
introducing
them
to
different
activities
and
research
we
are
doing.”
•
No
relationship
–
in
many
cases
there
is
no
relationship
between
academics
and
stakeholders
despite
their
shared
interests
and
the
fact
that
stakeholders
find
value
in
academic
research
as
a
source
of
credibility
for
their
decision-‐making
processes.
While
the
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
“build
bridges”
b etween
them,
it
i s
also
necessary
to
recognize
that
working
separately
and
sustaining
independence,
also
has
value.
As
pointed
out
by
Myria
Georgiou:
“This
is
the
case
because
critical
scholarship
that
keeps
a
distance
from
stakeholders
can
critique
media
and
communication
practices
in
ways
that
industries
and
policy
makers
might
find
unwelcoming
at
a
particular
historical
moment.
But
such
research
can
have
a
long
term
impact
for
media
and
policy.”
She
illustrated
that
argument
by
pointing
out
that
research
on
representations
and
stereotypes
in
the
media
that
were
held
independently
in
academia
contributed
to
the
growing
debates
within
the
media
about
fair
representation
of
gender,
as
well
as
ethnic
and
sexual
minorities.
Advancing
true
partnerships,
institutionalized
or
ad-‐hoc,
seems
to
be
the
most
effective
way
to
overcome
some
of
the
challenges,
as
such
collaborations
can
f orm
newly
shared
habitats,
where
language,
timetables,
goals,
and
funding
can
be
jointly
shared.
Such
partnerships
can
be
advanced
by
the
following
strategies:
134
•
Both
stakeholders
and
academics
need
to
be
i nvolved
i n
the
project
from
the
start,
so
they
have
equal
say
in
designing
the
research
project
and
responsibility
for
carrying
it
through.
•
Academics
should
take
the
initiative
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders
with
respect
and
trust
and
to
advance
an
atmosphere
of
deep
listening
to
stakeholders’
concerns
and
needs.
•
Institutions
of
higher
education
should
prepare
their
graduate
students
to
also
be
employed
within
various
stakeholder-‐organizations,
not
only
in
traditional
academia.
•
Academics
should
learn
to
communicate
more
effectively
with
the
public
through
journalists
and
other
media
professionals,
as
well
as
offer
accessible
information
about
their
research
through
b logging.
For
example,
Myria
Georgiou
reported
on
the
introduction
of
a
required
course
in
communicating
to
the
media
and
other
stakeholders
for
graduate
students
at
the
London
School
of
Economics
and
Political
Science
as
well
as
practices
of
research-‐
blogging
and
dissemination
of
short
research
reports.
Dafna
Lemish
reported
on
a
planned
pre-‐conference
for
the
2014
conference
of
the
International
Communication
Association
that
i s
designed
to
teach
such
skills.
•
Creating
multiple-‐relationships
–
perhaps
more
rare
and
complicated,
but
the
possibility
of
several
stakeholders
joining
forces
to
advance
research
and
its
application
can
enhance
the
value
of
the
research
and
provide
more
solid
funding
opportunities,
a
key
concern
for
all.
For
example,
Dragan
Kremer
reported:
“Our
situation
in
Serbia
is
that
we
have
very
little
funding
resources
so
we
sit
together
with
other
stakeholders
and
define
the
problems
and
try
to
think
together
how
we
can
collaborate
in
finding
funding.
We
often
include
commercial
agencies
and
I
have
no
illusion
about
their
interests,
but
as
long
as
we
are
getting
what
we
need
and
we
are
reducing
the
price
we
are
willing
to
negotiate
in
collaborative
manner…
and
then
we
share
the
same
set
of
results
and
data
base
as
we
believe
that
there
should
be
liberal
use
of
the
results
for
public
presentations,
trainings,
academics,
and
so
on.”
Similarly,
even
Michele
Arlotta,
representing
the
market,
echoed
similar
sentiments
when
he
suggested:
“we
need
to
share
this
kind
of
research
with
different
stakeholders…
Even
with
the
competing
corporation,
we
have
to
work
together.”
Another
example,
presented
earlier
to
the
group,
was
of
a
resource
package
developed
for
UNICEF
on
communicating
with
children,
particularly
the
most
marginalized
and
vulnerable,
that
was
based
on
work
created
through
the
collaboration
of
multiple
stakeholders
(Kolucki
&
Lemish,
2011).
In
summary,
the
dialogue
reconfirmed
the
important
role
that
engaged
academics
can
have
for
society
and
the
value
of
creating
collaborations
with
stakeholders
in
a
joined
attempt
to
make
a
difference
in
the
world.
I t
is
clear
that
today,
perhaps
more
than
ever
before,
and
despite
the
multiple
challenges,
the
ground
is
ripe
for
everyone
to
roll
up
their
sleeves
and
make
sure
that
media
are
used
to
better
the
lives
of
people
world-‐wide.
135
REFERENCES
Kolucki,
B.
&
Lemish,
D.
(2011).
Communicating
with
Children:
Principles
and
Practices
to
Nurture,
Inspire,
E xcite,
Educate
and
Heal.
NY:
UNICEF.
http://www.unicef.org/cwc/
Wartella,
Ellen
(1993).
Communication
research
on
children
and
public
policy.
In
P.
Gaunt
(Ed.),
Beyond
Agendas:
New
Directions
in
Communication
Research
(pp.
137-‐148).
Westport,
CT
&
London:
Greenwood
Press.
136
J. Ignacio Gallego