Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In the Interest of Audiences: An Agenda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Audiences

Abstract

This chapter formulates an agenda, in the interest of audiences, in the context of the rapid datafication of society amidst the arrival of emerging technologies including the Internet of Things. We develop our priorities in this agenda following a collaborative analysis of emerging trends and gaps arising in the field of audience studies over the past transformative decade—a decade marked by conversations on ‘transforming audiences’, and one which overlapped with the pervasion of social media platforms, the arrival of connected gadgets, and growing interest in and concern about datafication. We focus in this chapter on formulating an agenda with substantial and intellectual priorities for the field of audience research, also touching upon systemic and research-political matters.

The chapter has been published, in a partly modified version, as Ytre-Arne, B., & Das, R. (2018). An agenda in the interest of audiences: Facing the challenges of intrusive media technologies. Television & New Media.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ang, I. (1996). Living room wars. Rethinking media audiences for a postmodern world. London and New York: Psychology Press/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang, I., & Hermes, J. (1991). Gender and/in media consumption. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 307–328). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, K. (1999, June 22). That ‘Internet of Things’ thing. RFID Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. (2006). I have seen the future and it is not here yet…, or, On being ambitious for audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. E. (2011). Are we all producers now? Convergence and media audience practices. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 502–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabham, D. (2015). Studying normal, everyday social media. Social Media + Society, 1(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., & Schmidt, J. (2011). Produsage: A closer look at continuing developments. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher, T. (2016). Neither black nor box: Ways of knowing algorithms. In S. Kubitschko & A. Kaun (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. (2014). When news sites go native: Redefining the advertising-editorial divide in response to native advertising. Journalism, 16(7), 849–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, N., Schrøder, K., & Hallett, L. (Eds.). (2014). Audience transformations: Shifting audience positions in late modernity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerbone, D. (2006). Understanding phenomenology. Stocksfield: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N. (2013). A necessary disenchantment: Myth, agency and justice in a digital world. Inaugural Lecture, London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N. (2015). Researching social analytics: Cultural sociology in the face of algorithmic power. In L. Hanquinet & M. Savage (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of the sociology of art and culture (pp. 383–395). Routledge International Handbooks. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N. (2017). Surveillance-democracy. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(2), 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, R. (2017). Audiences: A decade of transformations—Reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture and Society, 39(8), 1257–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, R., & Graefer, A. (2017). Provocative screens: Offended audiences in Britain and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2017a). Audiences, towards 2030: Priorities for audience analysis. Guildford: University of Surrey. Retrieved from http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/842403/.

  • Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2017b). Critical, agentic and trans-media: Frameworks and findings from a foresight analysis exercise on audiences. European Journal of Communication, 32(6), 535–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deuze, M. (2009). Media industries, work and life. European Journal of Communication, 24(4), 467–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N., & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G., & Moe, H. (Eds.). (2015). Social media and election campaigns. Key tendencies and ways forward. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. (2011). The internet of things: How the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. Cisco White Paper, April. Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2014). Critique of the political economy of informational capitalism and social media. In C. Fuchs & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Social media and the information society (pp. 51–65). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. Retrieved from www.tarletongillespie.org/essays/Gillespie%20-%20The%20Relevance%20of%20Algorithms.pdf.

  • Gray, A. (2003). Research practice for cultural studies. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greengard, S. (2015). The Internet of Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsper, E., & Reisdorf, B. (2013). A quantitative examination of explanations for reasons for internet nonuse. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance society—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 11(9), 731–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, H. (2017). Feeling numbers: Why understanding the emotional dimensions of engaging with data matters for democracy and in media work. Keynote lecture at the Digital Democracy: Critical Perspectives in the Age of Big Data Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, November 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2004). The challenge of changing audiences or, What is the audience researcher to do in the age of the internet? European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2008). Engaging with media – a matter of literacy? Communication, Culture and Critique, 1(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2013). The participation paradigm in audience research. Communication Review, 16(1–2), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2015). Active audiences? The debate progresses but is far from resolved. Communication Theory, 25, 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2017). Keynote address to the Audiences 2030 Conference. Lisbon, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2012). Media regulation. Governance and the interests of citizens and consumers. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mankekar, P. (1999). Screening culture, viewing politics: An ethnography of television, womanhood, and nation in postcolonial India. Duke, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, D., & Pavlíčková, T. (2017). Cross-media within the Facebook newsfeed: The role of the reader in cross-media uses. Convergence, 23(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517700383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, V. (2016). The places where audience studies and production studies meet. Television & New Media, 17(8), 706–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002 [1945]). Phenomenology of perception. London and New York: Routledge Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), 1–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murru, M. F. (2016). Listening, temporalities, and epistemology: A hermeneutical perspective on civic mediated engagement. Participations, 13(1), 392–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, R., & Graves, L. (2017). ‘News you don’t believe’. Audience perspectives on fake news. Factsheet. Oxford: Reuters Institute of Digital Journalism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, J. C. (2015). The poverty of television: The mediation of suffering in class-divided Philippines. Cambridge: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, L., & Wilson, J. (2011). Women’s work: Affective labour and convergence culture. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 548–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parameswaran, R. (2001). Feminist media ethnography in India: Exploring power, gender, and culture in the field. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 69–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media and Society, 15(7), 1041–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raboy, M., Abramson, B. D., Proulx, S., & Welters, R. (2001). Media policy, audiences, and social demand: Research at the interface of policy studies and audience studies. Television & New Media, 2(2), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radway, J. (1988). Reception study: Ethnography and the problems of dispersed audiences and nomadic subjects. Cultural Studies, 2(3), 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandvik, K., Thorhauge, A., & Valtysson, B. (2016). The media and the mundane. Communication across media in everyday life. Gothenburg: Nordicom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrøder, K. (2012). Audiences as citizens. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies 4:5:23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahata, A., Wadbring, I., & Hopmann, D. N. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of news-avoidance over three decades: From public service monopoly to smartphones. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siles, I., & Boczkowski, P. (2012). At the intersection of content and materiality: A texto-material perspective on the use of media technologies. Communication Theory, 22(3), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundin, O. (2017). Critical algorithm literacies: An emerging framework. Paper presented at ECREA Digital Culture and Communication Section Conference, Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syvertsen, T. (2017). Media resistance. Protest, dislike, abstention. London: Palgrave Pivot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, T. (2017). Keynote to audiences 2030—Imagining a future for audiences. Lisbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turow, J. (2017). The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bulck, J. (2006). Television news avoidance: Exploratory results from a one-year follow-up study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, G. (2017). Big data is not only about data. Big Data and Society, 4(1), Online First.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. (2009). Understanding media users. From theory to practice. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (2002). After word? On some dynamics of duality interrogation. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5–6), 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Brita Ytre-Arne

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK

    Ranjana Das

Authors
  1. Brita Ytre-Arne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranjana Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brita Ytre-Arne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

    Ranjana Das

  2. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Brita Ytre-Arne

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ytre-Arne, B., Das, R. (2018). In the Interest of Audiences: An Agenda. In: Das, R., Ytre-Arne, B. (eds) The Future of Audiences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75638-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation