Institutional Cultural Intermediation

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Within media organizations, cultural intermediaries are the conduits between the organizational, management and production stakeholders, and the audiences wishing to participate in the co-production of cultural artefacts. They are translators of tastes, languages, norms, rules and regulatory frameworks between the organizational and audience stakeholder groups. Cultural intermediaries have historically been perceived as one of three substructures. First, cultural intermediaries have been observed as the construction of new facilitating roles between production and consumption of cultural goods (Bourdieu in A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge, London, 1984). Second, they are conceived as the taste agents that promote a relationship between creativity and economy (Smith Macguire and Miller 2014). Third, cultural intermediaries can be conceived as both new cultural production facilitators and economic taste agents within the cultural industries. In the context of this book, cultural intermediation takes on the role of the third substructure by both representing emerging new roles within media organizations that engage the increasingly blurred lines between cultural productions, while also incorporating the significance of the marketplace within cultural production. Further, and within public service media, cultural goods production facilitates a particular role within society insofar as content performs specific normative functions, for example, to educate, innovate and entertain. In this context, this chapter makes a case for the importance of cultural intermediation and how it is applied within the public service media sector engaging in co-creative cultural production, primarily through the efforts of online communities. This chapter then explores how online communities tend to employ heterarchy models of governance, where lead users influence the community norms and collaborative efforts. Heterarchy governance models indicate the rejection of top-down hierarchies, presenting a tension in how these spaces are governed: Is it by the hosting organization or the participants? Contradictorily, institutions operate through hierarchies as indicated through levels of management, which are in place to provide a clear focus for the organization’s goals while also facilitating the management of multiple individuals to mitigate concerns surrounding group complexity. The praxis of heterarchies and hierarchies indicates the necessity for cultural intermediation to not only manage the difference between polities, but to also ensure the interests of the stakeholders are calibrated and that information and knowledge are suitably exchanged to collaboratively produce cultural artefacts. Cultural intermediation provides the backdrop for exploring co-creation within the media organization setting, particularly when exploring participation across non-organizational platforms as the basis for the following four case studies. In doing so, this chapter also looks at the role new media technologies, specifically social media, play in the production methodology and ecology of institutional arrangements.

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

References

  1. ABC. 2012. ABC Open. Retrieved 7 February 2012, from http://open.abc.net.au.
  2. ———. 2014a. ‘360documentaries’. Retrieved 25 June 2014, from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/360/about.
  3. ———. 2014b. ‘About RN’. Retrieved 25 June 2014, from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/about.
  4. ———. 2014c. ‘About unearthed’. Retrieved 25 June 2014, from http://www.triplejunearthed.com/comps-and-resources/about.
  5. Bacon, J. 2009. The art of community. Sebastopol, IN: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  6. Banks, J. 2002. ‘Gamers as co-creators: Enlisting the virtual audience. A report from the net face’. In Mobilising the audience, ed. M. Balnaves, T. O’Regan, and J. Sternberg. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2009. ‘Co-creative expertise: Auran Games and Fury—A case study’. Media International Australia 130: 77–89.Google Scholar
  8. Baym, N.K. 2000. Tune in log on: Soaps fandom and online community. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bergquist, M., and J. Ljungberg. 2001. ‘The power of gifts: Organizing social relationships in open source communities’. Information Systems Journal 11: 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boler, M., and M. Ratto. 2014. DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bonniface, L., L. Green, and T. McMahon. 2007. ‘Adapting a new identity’. M/C Journal 10 (2). Retrieved 24 April 2017, from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/13-bonnifacegreenmcmahon.php.
  13. Bourdieu, P. 1983. ‘The forms of capital’. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. J. Richardson, 112–41. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1984. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Bruns, A. 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, second Life and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Burgess, J., and J. Green. 2009. YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Carpentier, N. 2009. ‘Participation is not enough: The conditions of possibility of mediated participatory practices’. European Journal of Communication 24 (4): 407–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2011. Media and participation: A site of ideological-democratic struggle. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  20. Castells, M. 2011. ‘A network theory of power’. International Journal of Communication 5: 773–87.Google Scholar
  21. Cronin, A.M. 2004. ‘Regimes of mediation: Advertising practitioners as cultural intermediaries?’ Consumption Markets and Culture 7 (4): 349–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cunningham, S., and G. Turner. 2010. Media and communication in Australia, 3rd ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. Cunningham, S., T. Flew, and A. Swift. 2015. Media economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Debrett, M. 2010. Reinventing public service television for the digital future. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  25. Enli, G.S. (2008). ‘Redefining public service broadcasting’. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14 (1): 105–20.Google Scholar
  26. Fuchs, C. 2014. Social media: A critical introduction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldhaber, M. (2006). ‘The value of openness in an attention economy’. First Monday 11 (6). doi: 10.5210/fm.v11i6.1334.
  28. Hall, S. 1999. ‘Encoding, decoding’. In The cultural studies reader, ed. S. During. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hartley, J. 1999. Uses of television. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2003. A short history of cultural studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Herman, A. 2014. ‘Production, consumption, and labor in the social media mode of communication and production’. In The social media handbook, ed. J. Hunsinger and T. Senft, 30–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Hinton, S., and L. Hjorth. 2013. Understanding social media. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Hunsinger, J. 2014. ‘Interface and infrastructure in social media’. In The social media handbook, ed. J. Hunsinger and T. Senft. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Hutchinson, J. 2013. ‘Collaboration, connections and consequences: A study of cultural intermediation within the ABC Pool institutional online community’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  35. Itō, M., et al. 2010. Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, C. 2013. ‘Activism or slacktivism? The role of social media in effecting social change’. Research Paper, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
  38. Lovink, G. 2008. Zero comments: Blogging and critical internet culture. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malaby, T.M. 2009. Making virtual worlds, linden lab and second life. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Moor, L. 2008. ‘Branding consultants as cultural intermediaries’. The Sociological Review 56 (3): 408–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Negus, K. 2002. ‘The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption’. Cultural Studies 16 (4): 501–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ohlsson, J., J. Lindell, and S. Arkhede. 2016. ‘A matter of cultural distinction: News consumption in the online media landscape’. European Journal of Communication 32 (2): 116–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papadakis, M. 2003. Computer-mediated communities: The implications of information, communication, and computational technologies for creating communities online. Arlington, VA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  44. Rheingold, H. 1994. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  45. Shirky, C. 2008. ‘Here comes everybody’: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2011. ‘The political power of social media’. Foreign Affairs 90 (1): 28–41.Google Scholar
  47. Smith Maguire, J., and J. Matthews. 2014. The cultural intermediaries reader. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Terranova, T. 2004. Network culture. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  49. Turner, G. 2012. What’s become of cultural studies? London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. van Dijck, J. 2009. ‘Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content’. Media, Culture & Society 31 (1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2011. ‘Facebook as a tool for producing sociality and connectivity’. Television & New Media 13 (2): 160–76.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2013. The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. von Hippel, E., S. Thomke, and M. Sonnack. 1999. ‘Creating breakthroughs at 3M’. Harvard Business Review 43 (4): 20–7.Google Scholar
  54. Wellman, B. 2001. ‘Physical place and cyber-place: Changing portals and the rise of networked individualism’. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research 25 (2): 227–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wellman, B., and M. Gulia. 1999. ‘Virtual communities as communities’. In Networks in the global village, ed. B. Wellman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wellman, B., et al. 2005. ‘Connected lives: The project’. In Networked neighbourhoods, ed. P. Purcell. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Williams, R. 1965. The long revolution. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  58. Williams, D., N. Contractor, M.S. Poole, J. Srivastava, and D. Cai. 2011. ‘The virtual worlds Exploratorium: Using large-scale data and computational techniques for communication research’. Communication Methods and Measures 5 (2): 163–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, C.K., J. Hutchinson, and P. Shea. 2010. ‘Public service broadcasting, creative industries and innovation infrastructure: The case of ABC Pool’. Australian Journal of Communication 37 (3): 15–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations