Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Audiences, Towards 2030: Drivers, Scenarios and Horizons of the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Audiences

  • 704 Accesses

Abstract

The year 2030 seems to be beckoning a fair amount of prospection and critical speculation, with regard to the roles of ICTs in governance, public policy in a variety of sectors, and its interfaces with digital futures, with the arrival of Big Data. In the context of a book located theoretically within the long tradition of audience studies, we report in this chapter, from the unique third step of our foresight analysis—a horizon scanning exercise on the future of audiences in the year 2030, anticipating the ubiquity of connected technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT), amidst interfaces governed by algorithms, and the rise of datafication and its myriad consequences. Tracing a set of future scenarios along the dimensions of diverging responses to the IoT on the one hand, and the changing nature of institution-individual relationships on the other, we follow a set of 16 drivers of societal change, as audiences, users, and those who analyze them move towards 2030. We conclude, by drawing attention to media and data literacies as fundamentally crucial for audience agency in the futures we envisage.

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

  • Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AIOTI. (2017). About AIOTI. Retrieved at https://aioti.eu/.

  • Andersen, J. G. (2012). Welfare states and welfare state theory. Aalborg: Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies (CCWS), Department of Political Science, Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M. (2009). Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of user-generated labor. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 406–423). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment & Urbanization, 13(2), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Askanius, T., & Uldam, J. (2011). Online social media for radical politics: Climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(1–2), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athique, A. (2016). Transnational audiences: Media reception on a global scale. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation, and journalism. Big Data & Society, 2(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachen, C., Raphael, C., Lynn, K. M., McKee, K., & Philippi, J. (2008). Civic engagement, pedagogy, and information technology on web sites for youth. Political Communication, 25(3), 290–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakardjieva, M., & Gehl, R. (2017). Critical approaches to communication technology—The past five years. Annals of International Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holoquist, Eds., and V. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldersheim, H., & Keating, M. (2015). Small states in the modern world: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barassi, V., & Trere, E. (2012). Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0. Deconstructing theoretical assumptions through practice. New Media and Society, 14(8), 1269–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, A. (2010). Around me: Relevance and exploitation in the age of cloud services and location positioning. Paper presentation at Internet research 11.0 (AOIR), Gothenburg, Sweden, 22 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, A., & Lomborg, S. (2012). Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society, 15(5), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(November), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benessia, A., & Guimarães Pereira, A. (2015). The dream of the internet of things: Do we really want, can and need to be smart? In A. Guimarães Pereira & S. Funtowicz (Eds.), Science, philosophy and sustainability: The end of the Cartesian dream (pp. 78–99). Routledge Explorations in Sustainability and Governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action. Information, Communication and Society, 14(6), 770–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective actions: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Journal of Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 736–768.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, P., Nascimento, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2014). Ethics dialogues (JRC Science and Policy Reports). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Giraud, O. (2004). Models of citizenship and social democratic policies. In D. Braun & O. Giraud (Eds.), Social democratic party policies in contemporary Europe (pp. 43–65). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkart, P., & Christensen, M. (2013). Geopolitics and the popular. Popular Communication, 11(1), 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (2010). The public sphere in the field of power. Social Science History, 34(2), 301–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (2011). Civil society and the public sphere. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford handbooks in politics & international relations (pp. 311–323). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195398571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volume 1: The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, A. & Weiss, J. (2012). Privacy by design and user interfaces: Emerging design criteria—Keep it user centric. Retrieved from www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/pbd-user-interfaces_Yahoo.pdf.

  • Chen, Y., Conroy, N.J., & Rubin, V.L. (2015, November). Misleading online content: Recognizing clickbait as false news. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection (pp. 15–19). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2002). Media and identity in contemporary Europe: Consequences of global convergence. Bristol: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curvelo, P., Guimarães Pereira, A., Boucher, P., Breitteger, M., Ghezzi, A., Rizza, C., et al. (2014). The constitution of the hybrid world (JRC Science and Policy Reports). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2001). The public sphere and the net: Structure, space, and communication. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated Politics, Communications in the Future of Democracy (pp. 33–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2013). Online journalism and civic cosmopolitanism. Journalism Studies, 14(2), 156–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2017b). Audiences, towards 2030: Priorities for audience analysis. Guildford: CEDAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolber, B. (2016). Blindspots and blurred lines: Dallas Smythe, the audience commodity, and the transformation of labor in the digital age. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 747–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, M. A. (2002). Dialogue, difference and multicultural public sphere. In A. Bailey & P. J. Smithka (Eds.), Community, diversity and difference: Implications for peace (pp. 33–44). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H. (2014). Putting things to work: social and policy challenges for the internet of things. info, 16(3), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmison, M., & Frow, J. (1998). Information technology as cultural capital. Australian Universities’ Review, 41(1), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015). Time to unleash the potential of internet of things in Europe. Retrieved at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/time-unleash-potential-internet-things-europe.

  • European Commission (2016a). One year of Alliance for internet of things Innovation (AIOTI): What has been achieved and what’s next? Retrieved at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/one-year-alliance-internet-things-innovation-aioti-what-has-been-achieved-and-whats-next.

  • European Commission (2016b). Staff working document: Advancing the internet of things in Europe. Retrieved at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/staff-working-document-advancing-internet-things-europe.

  • European Commission (2017a). The internet of things. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/internet-of-things.

  • European Commission (2017b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Building a European data economy. Retrieved at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-building-european-data-economy.

  • Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, A., Frenzel, F., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Protest camps. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, D. (2015). Internet of things. In M. Blowers (Ed.), Evolution of Cyber Technologies and Operations to 2035 (pp. 19–32). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2012). Dallas Smythe today—The Audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. Prolegomena to a digital labour theory of value. tripleC, 10(2), 692–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajjala, R. (2011). Snapshots from sari trails: Cyborgs old and new. Social Identities, 17(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2011.570977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the economics of information. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou, M. (2006). Diaspora, identity and the media: Diasporic transnationalism and mediated spatialities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gleibs, I.H. (2016). Are all ‘research fields’ equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places. Behavior Research Methods, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodier, H. (2012). BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The participation choice. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/05/bbc_online_briefing_spring_201_1.html.

  • Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable, and what we can do about it. London: Bantam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1991 [1962]). The structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamelink, C. (2001). The ethics of cyberspace. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations, 9(2), 757–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodkinson, P. (2002). Goth. Identity, style and subculture. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. (2015). Pax Technica. How the internet of things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (2000). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimãraes Pereira, A., Benessia, A., & Curvelo, P. (2013). Agency in the internet of things (JRC Scientific and Policy Reports). European Commission. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICA (International Communication Association) (2013, June 16). Global communications and national policies: The return of the state? Preconference. London: University of Westminster.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (International Telecommunication Unit). (2012). Measuring the Information Society. Geneva: International Telecommunication Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of coproduction. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The Co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York and London: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., Gubbi, J. & Marusic, S. (2013). An Information framework of creating a smart city through internet of things. IEEE, 2013. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4851/fa729df5c475d80713f66f763105284f3ef1.pdf.

  • Kaiser, K. (1972). Transnational relations as a threat to the democratic process. In R. Keohane & J. Nye (Eds.), Transnational relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, M. (2015). The political economy of small states in Europe. In H. Baldesheim & M. Keating (Eds.), Small states in the modern world: Vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 3–22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kiwan, D. (2010). Active citizenship: multiculturalism and mutual understanding. In B. Crick & A. Lockyer (Eds.), Active citizenship (pp. 100–111). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., & Vedel, T. (2016). Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media and Society, 18(9), 1807–1816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, J. B. (1998). Feminism, the public and the private. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W. (2009). Globalization of the ICT labour force. In C. Avgerou, R. Mansell, D. Quah, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies (pp. 75–99). Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: From the mass audience to the interactive media user. In A. Valdivia (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to media research (pp. 337–359). Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. M., & Haddon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. M., & Lunt, P. K. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. M., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg, S., & Mortensen, M. (2017). Users across media: An introduction. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. M. (2013). Media studies’ fascination with the concept of the public sphere: Critical reflections and emerging debates. Media, Culture and Society, 35(1), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2014). Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion, 30(1), 174–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In M. K. Gold (Ed.) Debates in the digital humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2011/04/new-article-by-lev-manovich-trending.html.

  • Micheletti, M. (2002). Consumer choice as political participation. Statsvetenskapling Tidskrift, 105(3), 218–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, A. & Lycett, M. (2013, October). Big data and humanitarian supply networks: Can Big Data give voice to the voiceless? Presented at Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2013 IEEE (pp. 432–437).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraru, A. (2016). New Media Dimensions: Personalization of Politics. Revista de Administratie Publica si Politici Sociale, 16(1), 140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, A. (2014). Facebook and coaxed affordances. In A. Poletti & J. RakIdentity (Eds.), Technologies: Constructing the self online (pp. 112–131). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010). Development theory (2nd ed.). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Machine-to-machine communications: Connecting billions of devices. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 192. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9gsh2gp043-en.

  • OECD. (2016). The Internet of Things: Seizing the benefits and addressing the challenges. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 252. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzz8td0n-en.

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media Society, 4(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlíčková, T., & Kleut, J. (2016). Produsage as experience and interpretation. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 349–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzanesi, S., & Leurs, K. (2014). On digital crossings in Europe. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. (2016). The European Union and its member states. In A. Peterson, I. Davies, E. Chong, T. Epstein, C. Peck, A. Ross, et al. (Eds.), Education, globalization and the nation (pp. 145–169). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, R., & Bruwer, R. (2016). Defining Web 3.0: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Library, 34(1), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2014-0140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santucci, G. (2014). Keynote speech. In Internet of things: Philosophy Conference, 3–5 July 2014, York, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saritas, O., & Smith, J. E. (2011). The big picture—Trends, drivers, wild cards, discontinuities and weak signals. Futures, 43(3), 292–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrøder, K. C. (2011). Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge. Communication Management Quarterly, 18(6), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. (2014). Big data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Society, 1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjølsvold, T. M. (2014). Back to the futures: Retrospecting the prospects of smart grid technology. Futures, 63, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, D. (1981). On the audience commodity and its work. Dependency road: Communications, capitalism, consciousness, and Canada (pp. 22–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B., & Ramana, M. (2015). Back to the future: Small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(1), 96–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, A. (2015). Small states and national elites in a neoliberal era. In Harald Baldersheim & Michael Keating (Eds.), Small States in the modern world. Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Chetlenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehling, M., Finger, J., & Jorge, A. (2016). Comparative audience research: A review of cross-national and cross-media audience studies. Participations: Journal of Audiences and Reception Studies, 13(1), 321–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, R., & Wivel, A. (2010). Introduction. In R. Steinmetz & A. Wivel (Eds.), Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 3–15). Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolpe, M. (2016). The internet of things: Opportunities and challenges for distributed data analysis. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter archive, 18(1), 15–34, June 2016. Retrieved at http://www.kdd.org/exploration_files/18-1-Article2.pdf.

  • Strengers, Y. (2013). Smart energy technologies in everyday life: Smart utopia?. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, P. (2011). The concept of small states in the international political economy. The Round Table, 100(413), 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syvertsen, T., Mjøs, O., Moe, H., & Enli, G. S. (2014). The media welfare state: Nordic media in the digital era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thussu, D. (1998). Localizing the global: Zee TV in India. In D. Thussu (Ed.), Electronic Empires—Global Media and Local Resistance (pp. 273–294). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsatsou, P. (2016). Internet studies: Past, present and future directions. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, H. A. (2014). Handbook of political citizenship and social movements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario development: A typology of approaches. Think scenario, rethink education (pp. 69–84). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesnić-Alujević, L., Guimãraes Pereira, A., & Breitteger, M. (2015). What smart grids tell about innovation in the EU: Hopes, visions and regulation. Energy Research and Social Science, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesnić-Alujević, L., Guimãraes Pereira, A., & Breitegger, M. (2016). ‘Do‐it‐yourself’ medicine? Imaginaries of health and healthcare through wearable sensors. Science and Engineering Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A. G. (1999). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? In B. N. Hague & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 154–177). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollebæk, D., Selle, P., & Lorentzen, H. (2001). Frivillig innsats. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooley, S., & Howard, P. (2016). Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents. Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4882–4890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (2002a). Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, N. Y., Zhang, C., Waluyo, A. B., & Park, J. J. (2015). Social media Services and Technologies. Introduction. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(14), 5007–5013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youmans, W. L., & York, J. (2012). Social media and the activist toolkit: User agreements, corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 315–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, L., & Nagurney, A. (2008). A network equilibrium framework for Internet advertising: Models, qualitative analysis, and algorithms. European Journal of Operations Research, 187, 456–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zagreb University, Zagreb, Croatia

    Lucia Vesnić-Alujević

  2. Western Norway Research Institute (Vestlandsforsking), Sogndal, Norway

    Gilda Seddighi

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

    Ranjana Das

  4. Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    David Mathieu

Authors
  1. Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gilda Seddighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ranjana Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Mathieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia Vesnić-Alujević .

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

Vesnić-Alujević, L., Seddighi, G., Das, R., Mathieu, D. (2018). Audiences, Towards 2030: Drivers, Scenarios and Horizons of the Future. In: Das, R., Ytre-Arne, B. (eds) The Future of Audiences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75638-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation