Öffentliche Kommunikation in Zeiten künstlicher Intelligenz

Warum und wie die Kommunikationswissenschaft Licht in die Black Box soziotechnischer Innovationen bringen sollte

Public communication in times of artificial intelligence

Why and how communication science should crack open the black box of sociotechnical innovations

Zusammenfassung

Die Kommunikationswissenschaft tendiert dazu, aktuelle soziotechnische Innovationen, etwa im Bereich der künstlichen Intelligenz, als Black Box zu behandeln und sich in nachlaufender Aufräumarbeit vornehmlich mit deren zeitversetzten manifesten Folgen zu beschäftigen. Da diese Innovationen die Gegenstände unseres Faches aber zunehmend prägen und erheblichen Einfluß auf den Öffentlichkeits- und Medienwandel haben, führt dies zu beträchtlichen Erklärungsdefiziten der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Wir schlagen daher eine Reorientierung der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Forschung vor, die die Entstehung potenziell folgenreicher Innovationen in neuen emergenten Handlungsfeldern sowie deren Auswirkungen auf die strukturellen Bedingungen und kulturellen Prägungen von Öffentlichkeiten in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Für diese Reorientierung lassen sich Ansätze aus der Journalismusforschung (Redaktionsforschung; Pioneer Communities), der sozialkonstruktivistischen Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung (Social Construction of Technology; reflexive Technikfolgenabschätzung) sowie der kritisch-interventionistischen Innovationsforschung (Values in Design; Critical Data Studies) nutzen. Wir plädieren für einen gegenstandsangemessenen, theoriegenerierenden und kooperativen Forschungsprozess, der die Erklärungskraft und Zukunftstauglichkeit der Kommunikationswissenschaft stärken soll.

Abstract

Public communication is changing—a change manifested in a crisis of legacy media’s business models, the proliferation of new channels of communication and increasingly individualized media repertoires, among other things. Often, these changes are associated with sociotechnical innovations, i.e. with novel ideas, methods and applications emerging from the interaction of technical infrastructures and technologies with human action. It was suggested, for example, that users’ ability to configure their own information sources and content in mobile and social media led to the creation of echo chambers, that algorithmic curation on search engines and social networks resulted in filter bubbles, or that social bots led to an over-representation of certain public positions and a higher prevalence of mis- and disinformation in public debates.

In this essay, we criticize the reaction of communication science to these developments and its role in the corresponding scientific and public discussions: Communication science too often imports problem diagnoses from the outside, limits itself to the post hoc description and measurement of these phenomena, and excludes relevant contexts of their origin. In addition, too little knowledge from our discipline makes its way into public debate, and only few communication scientists dare to make regulatory proposals, or are even perceived as relevant providers of such proposals.

This is problematic in two respects: Firstly, it hampers communication science’s standing in the concert of academic disciplines. Its current mode of analysis means that the discipline is often late in defining social problems, and consequently leaves agenda setting to other disciplines or actors. On the one hand, this opens the door to questions about the relevance and analytical value of communication science as a discipline. On the other hand, it leads to simplified views or misinterpretations of social phenomena which could be avoided if expertise from communication science had been included earlier, but is difficult to remedy after the fact.

Secondly, it is also problematic for the cognitive core and epistemological perspective of communication science. If we analyze sociotechnical innovation and its effects detached from its origins, the values and institutional logics inscribed into these innovations are “blackboxed”: they move into the blind spot of our discipline.

We argue that communication science should pay more attention to sociotechnical innovations that are (potentially) relevant to public communication. This demand could have been made for early innovations like the printing press or the telegraph already, but is more urgent for digital innovations, which proliferate more quickly, permeate almost all areas of life, and influence human interaction directly and deeply. To do so, it is necessary to incorporate sociotechnical innovations into the conceptual foundations of public communication that has, so far, mostly taken structural and cultural conditions into account. It is necessary to broaden this conceptualization, and to assess the socio-techno-cultural foundations of public communication. This includes the actor constellations around sociotechnical innovations, e.g. financiers, potential customers, programmers, researchers, but also regulators, and users. It also encompasses innovation practices, such as decisions on the development, testing and implementation of innovations, involving a variety of “systems of thought, finance, politics, legal codes and regulations, materialities and infrastructures, institutions [and] inter-personal relations” (Kitchin). And it includes technical artefacts, e.g. hardware and software affordances which enable and limit pathways of action.

The endeavor we propose can stand on the shoulders of several seasoned and recent approaches from within and outside communication science: Within communication science, it should make use of recent approaches in ethnographic journalism research which analyzes the organizational makeup and procedural workings of newsrooms. This strand of research produces “thick descriptions” of a social context that is decisive for public communication, using multi-methodical, primarily qualitative approaches and a quasi-ethnographic perspective. Similarly, the “Pioneer Communities” approach may be instructive. Its focus on “communities” that are relevant for public communication extends the view beyond journalism and facilitates a prospective, future-oriented perspective.

Beyond our discipline, social constructivist approaches from science and technology studies, namely “Social Construction of Technology” (SCOT) approaches and “reflective technology assessment” are promising. Both emphasize the social embedding and construction of technologies, with a historical and a forward-looking perspective, even though they do not focus strongly on public communication.

Finally, a re-orientation of communication science can benefit from interventionist innovation research. “Values in Design” approaches combine ideas from science and technology studies with influences from computer science and philosophy, arguing that technology and innovation design can already have moral consequences and trying, accordingly, to inscribe desirable values in technologies. “Critical Data Studies” examine the social processes underlying the generation, analysis and use of data. Like “Values in Design”, it aims to reconstruct how social contexts shape technology or data, and to improve the respective practices.

A re-oriented communication science can learn from all of these approaches. Overall, we plead for a contextualized, theory-generating and cooperative research process, which would strengthen the explanatory power and future viability of communication scholarship.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Altmeppen, K. D. (2007). Das Organisationsdispositiv des Journalismus. In K. D. Altmeppen, T. Hanitzsch & C. Schlüter (Hrsg.), Journalismustheorie: Next Generation (S. 281–302). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altmeppen, K. D., Bieber, C., Filipović, A., Heesen, J., Neuberger, C., Röttger, U., Stieglitz, S., & Thomas, T. (2019). Öffentlichkeit, Verantwortung und Gemeinwohl im digitalen Zeitalter. Publizistik, 64, 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Altmeppen, K. D., Donges, P., & Engels, K. (2002). Technisierung und organisatorischer Wandel. In I. Neverla, E. Grittmann & M. Pater (Hrsg.), Grundlagentexte zur Journalistik (S. 350–355). Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1995). The californian ideology. London: Mute.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 739–768.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bijker, W. E. (2009). Social construction of technology. In J. K. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen & V. F. Hendricks (Hrsg.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (S. 88–94). New York: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Hrsg.). (1989). The social construction of technological systems. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble. Ethics and Information Technology, 17, 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brennen, J. S., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). An industry-led debate: how UK media cover artificial intelligence. Oxford: Reuters Institute & Oxford Internet Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bruns, A. (2018). Facebook shuts the gate after the horse has bolted, and hurts real research in the process. Internet Policy Review. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/facebook-shuts-gate-after-horse-has-bolted-and-hurts-real-research-process/786. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2020.

  12. DeVito, M. A. (2017). From editors to algorithms: a values-based approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news feed. Digital Journalism, 5, 753–773.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dogruel, L. (2013). Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Konzeption von Medieninnovationen. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dose, D. (2019, 19. Februar). „Wissenschaftlich nicht haltbar“: Kommunikations-Experte Jörg Matthes kritisiert die Sprachanleitung für ARD-Mitarbeiter scharf. Südkurier.

  15. Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Erdal, I. J. (2009). Cross-media (re) production cultures. Convergence, 15, 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Esser, F. (1998). Editorial structures and work principles in British and German newsrooms. European Journal of Communication, 13, 375–405.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating Affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding Affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (Hrsg.). (2017). The handbook of science and technology studies. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Rucht, D., & Gerhards, J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fletcher, R., Schifferes, S., & Thurman, N. (2020). Building the ‘Truthmeter’: training algorithms to help journalists assess the credibility of social media sources. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 26, 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Flichy, P. (2008). Understanding technological innovation. A Socio-technical approach. New York: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14, 330–347.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Borning, A. (2007). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Hrsg.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (S. 348–372). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fürst, S., Vogler, D., Sörensen, I., Schäfer, M. S., & Eisenegger, M. (2020). Wirklich irrelevant? Sichtbarkeit und thematische Einordnung der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft in Schweizer Medien. Publizistik, 4 (erscheint demnächst).

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gitelman, L. (Hrsg.). (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Grunwald, A. (2004). Vision assessment as a new element of the technology futures analysis toolbox. Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: new technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, Seville.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: Karlsruher Studien Technik und Kultur.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: a human-machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22, 70–86.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Die Struktur des journalistischen Felds. In K. D. Altmeppen, T. Hanitzsch & C. Schlüter (Hrsg.), Journalismustheorie: Next Generation (S. 239–260). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hepp, A. (2016). Pioneer communities: collective actors in deep mediatisation. Media, Culture & Society, 38, 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716664484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hepp, A. (2020a). Artificial companions, social bots and work bots: communicative robots as research objects of media and communication studies. Media, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720916412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hepp, A. (2020b). The fragility of curating a pioneer community: deep mediatization and the spread of the quantified self and maker movements. International Journal of Cultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877920922867.

  37. Hepp, A., & Loosen, W. (2019). Pioneer journalism: conceptualizing the role of pioneer journalists and pioneer communities in the organizational re-figuration of journalism. Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919829277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jarren, O. (2019). Fundamentale Institutionalisierung: social media als neue globale Kommunikationsinfrastruktur. Publizistik, 64, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2018). Moving beyond self-castigation: let’s reinvigorate communication policy research now! Journal of Communication, 68, 327–336.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Katzenbach, C. (2018). Die Regeln digitaler Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Knobel, C., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: the work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35, 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2019). The “Arbiters of what our voters see”: Facebook and Google’s Struggle with Policy, Process, and Enforcement around Political Advertising. Political Communication, 36, 499–522.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Dolezal, M., Helbling, M., Höglinger, D., Hutter, S., & Wüest, B. (2012). Political conflict in western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Latour, B. (2002). Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lösch, A. (2013). Vision Assessment zu Human-Enhancement-Technologien. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 22(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lösch, A., Böhle, K., Coenen, C., Dobroc, P., Ferrari, A., Heil, R., Schulz-Schaeffer, I., et al. (2016). Technikfolgenabschätzung von soziotechnischen Zukünften. Diskussionspapiere 3/2016. Karlsruhe: KIT / Institut für Technikzukünfte.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mager, A. (2012). Algorithmic ideology: how capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 769–787.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Meier, K. (2011). Journalismusforschung als interaktive Innovationsforschung. In O. Jandura (Hrsg.), Methoden der Journalismusforschung (S. 67–82). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Meier, K., Bracker, I., & Verhovnik, M. (2017). Technological innovation and convergent journalism. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación: Mediterranean Journal of Communication, 8, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Neff, G., Tanweer, A., Fiore-Gartland, B., & Osburn, L. (2017). Critique and contribute: a practice-based framework for improving critical data studies and data science. Big Data, 5(2), 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Nielsen, R. K. (2018). No one cares what we know: three responses to the irrelevance of political communication research. Political Communication, 35, 145–149.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2009). Cosmopolitan communications. Cultural diversity in a globalized world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11, 522–538.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Peters, B. (2007). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Peters, B., & Wessler, H. (2006). Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten – analytische Dimensionen, normative Standards, sozialkulturelle Produktionsstrukturen. In K. Imhof (Hrsg.), Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft (S. 125–144). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Peterson, R. A., & Anand, N. (2004). The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pfetsch, B. (2003). Politische Kommunikationskultur. Politische Sprecher und Journalisten in der Bundesrepublik und den USA im Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M., & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung. Publizistik, 63, 477–495.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts. Social studies of science, 14, 399–441.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Welche Forschenden erscheinen in den Medien? www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/welche-forschenden-erscheinen-in-den-medien-befunde-aus-der-schweiz-21015. Zugegriffen: 27. Mai 2020.

  64. Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389–410.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ropohl, G. (1979). Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Scheu, A. M. (2012). Adornos Erben in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Köln: von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schölzel, H. (2017). Die Komposition politischer Öffentlichkeiten. Konturen einer Kommunikations- und Mediensoziologie in den Arbeiten Bruno Latours und der Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Publizistik, 65, 313–329.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2017). The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv:1707.07592, 96, 104.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Simon, J. (2016). Values in Design. In J. Heesen (Hrsg.), Handbuch Medien- und Informationsethik (S. 357–364). Stuttgart: JB Metzler.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Simonis, G. (2001). Die TA-Landschaft in Deutschland – Potenziale reflexiver Techniksteuerung. In G. Simonis, R. Martinsen & T. Saretzki (Hrsg.), Politik und Technik (S. 425–456). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Srugies, A. (2016). Journalismus als Organisation. In M. Löffelholz & L. Rothenberger (Hrsg.), Handbuch Journalismustheorien (S. 507–522). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Tanweer, A., Bolten, N., Drouhard, M., Hamilton, J., Caspi, A., Fiore-Gartland, B., & Tan, K. (2017). Mapping for accessibility: a case study of ethics in data science for social good. arXiv:1710.06882.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wiedemann, T., & Meyen, M. (Hrsg.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu und die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Internationale Perspektiven. Köln: von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research policy, 25, 865–899.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Zeng, J., Chung-hong, C., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on wechat and people’s daily Online. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776372.

  78. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Dieser Artikel geht auf eine Vielzahl von Diskussionen und Gesprächen im Rahmen des von Otfried Jarren initiierten „Vitznauer Kreises“ zurück. Wir danken den TeilnehmerInnen dieser Gespräche für hilfreiche Anmerkungen.

Förderung

Eine finanzielle Förderung war für diesen Artikel nicht notwendig.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. Mike S. Schäfer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schäfer, M.S., Wessler, H. Öffentliche Kommunikation in Zeiten künstlicher Intelligenz. Publizistik 65, 307–331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00592-6

Download citation

Schlüsselwörter

  • Öffentlichkeit
  • Öffentliche Kommunikation
  • Theorie
  • Künstliche Intelligenz
  • Innovationen

Keywords

  • Public sphere
  • Public communication
  • Theory
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Innovation