Mediatization: From Structure to Agency (and Back Again)

Part of the Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research book series (TCSCMR)


The central argument of this chapter is that mediatization as a multi-level process needs to be empirically analysed both at the institutional level and at the level of practice. Mediatization as structuration thesis (Hjarvard 2014) is expanded by relating the media system as structure to media use as agency. Several empirical studies that relate the structural and the action/practice level are examined as examples. To map the differences in the state of mediatization of media systems, a set of indicators for macro-level mediatization are proposed and tested comparatively in 33 East- and West-European countries. Five clusters of digital media landscapes are obtained according to likeness of the indicator values. The chapter argues for further empirical study of the structuration process and the increased attention to agency within the institutional approach to mediatization as well as for the adoption of a multi-level mixed methods research program for empirically investigating mediatization as a multi-level and multi-dimensional social process.


Digital mediaDigital Media Hjarvard newsNews audienceAudience Deep Mediatization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This chapter was developed within the strategic area of Mediatization of Media Systems and Public Sphere in the Context of Transition at the Centre for Media and Communication Research, Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb, and the research project ‘Cinema and Television in Post-Transition in Spain’ (CSO2012-31895) at the University Carlos III, Madrid, funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competividad del Gobierno de España [Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Government of Spain].


  1. Acemoğlu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. Ampuja, Marko. 2012. Globalization theory, media-centrism and neoliberalism: A critique of recent intellectual trends. Critical Sociology 38 (2): 281–301. Originally published online 21 Sept 2011. doi: 10.1177/0896920510398018.
  3. Appadurai, Arjun. 2000[1990]. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In Readings in contemporary political sociology, ed. Kate Nash, 100–114. Oxford UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Aroldi, Piermarco, Antonija Čuvalo, Marina Micheli, Francesca Pasquali, Zrinjka Peruško, Nicoletta Vittadini, and Dina Vozab. 2015. Spaces across Europe: Where people use media. Paper presented at the 65th ICA Annual Conference “Communication across the Life Span”, May 20–25, 2015, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, Rodney. 2014. Strategy follows structure: A media sociology manifesto. In Media sociology: A reappraisal, ed. Silvio Waisbord, 25–45. Cambridge UK, Malden MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Benson, Rodney, and Erik Neveu. 2005. Bourdieu and the journalistic field. Cambridge UK, Malden MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blumler, J.G., and M. Gurevitch. 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolin, Göran. 2010. Media events, Eurovision and societal centres. In Media events in a global age, ed. Nick Couldry, Andreas Hepp, and Friedrich Krotz, 124–138. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bolin, Göran. 2014. Institution, technology, world: Relations between the media, culture, and society. In Mediatization of communication, ed. Knut Lundby, 175–198. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  10. Bolin, Göran. 2017. Media generations. Experience, identity and mediatised social change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2005. The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In Bourdieu and the journalistic field, ed. Rodney Benson, and Erik Neveu, 29–47. Cambridge UK, Malden MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brüggemann, Michael, Sven Engesser, Florin Buchel, Edda Humprecht, and Laia Castro. 2014. Hallin and Mancini revisited: Four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication 64 (6): 1037–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the networked society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chadwick, Andrew. 2013. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Couldry, Nick. 2012. Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Couldry, Nick. 2014. Mediatization and the future of field theory. In Mediatization of communication, ed. Knut Lundby, 227–245. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Couldry, Nick, and Andreas Hepp. 2017. The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Couldry, Nick, Sonia Livingstone, and Tim Markham. 2007. Media consumption and public engagement: Beyond the presumption of attention. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, John W., and Vicky L.Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Deacon, David, and James Stanyer. 2014. Mediatization: Key concept or conceptual bandwagon? Media, Culture and Society 36 (7): 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deuze, Mark. 2011. Media life. Media, Culture and Society 33 (1): 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dreher, A. 2006. Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a New Index of Globalization, Applied Economics 38 (10): 1091–1110.Google Scholar
  24. Esser, Frank. 2013. Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Esser, Jörg Matthes, Marc Bühlmann, and Daniel Bochsler, 155–176. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finnemann, Niels O. 2014. Digitization: New trajectories of mediatization? In Mediatization of communication, ed. Knut Lundby, 297–321. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Flew, Terry, and Silvio Waisbord. 2015. The ongoing significance of national media systems in the context of media globalization. Media, Culture and Society 37 (4): 620–636. doi: 10.1177/0163443714566903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fortunati, Leopoldina. 2005. Mediatization of the net and internetization of the mass media. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 67 (1): 27–44. doi: 10.1177/0016549205049177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fries, Christopher J. 2009. Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research: An application to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (4): 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardy, Jonathan. 2012. Comparing media systems. In The handbook of comparative communication research. ICA Handbook Series, ed. Frank Esser, and Thomas Hanitzsch, 185–206. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Hasebrink, Uwe, and Hanna Domeyer. 2012. Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 9 (2): 757–779.Google Scholar
  33. Hepp, Andreas, and Uwe Hasebrink. 2014. Human interaction and communicative figurations: The transformation of mediatized cultures and societies. In Mediatization of communication, ed. Knut Lundby, 249–271. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Hepp, Andreas, Stig Hjarvard, and Knut Lundby. 2010. Mediatization: Empirical perspectives: An introduction to a special issue. Communications 35: 223–228. doi: 10.1515/COMM.2010.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herkman, Juha. 2012. Convergence or intermediality? Finnish political communication in the New Media Age. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 18 (4): 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hjarvard, Stig. 2008. The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review 29 (2): 105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hjarvard, Stig. 2013. The mediatization of culture and society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Hjarvard, Stig. 2014a. From mediation to mediatization: The institutionalization of new media. In Mediatized worlds. Culture and society in a media age, ed. Andreas Hepp, and Friedrich Krotz, 123–142. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Hjarvard, Stig. 2014b. Mediatization and cultural and social change: An institutional perspective. In Mediatization of communication, ed. Knut Lundby, 199–226. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Hjarvard, Stig, and Line N. Petersen. 2013. Mediatization and cultural change. Special issue of MedieKultur. Journal of media and communication research 54: 1–7.Google Scholar
  41. Jansson, André. 2002. The mediatization of consumption: Towards an analytical framework of image culture. Journal of Consumer Culture 2: 5. doi: 10.1177/146954050200200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen, Klaus Bruhn, and Rasmus Helles. 2015. Audiences across media: A comparative agenda for future research on media audiences. Introduction. International Journal of Communication. 9: 291–298.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, Matthew R., and Helena Karsten. 2008. Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly 32 (1): 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krotz, Friedrich. 2009. Mediatization: A concept with which to grasp media and societal change. In Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences, ed. Knut Lundby, 19–38. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  45. Krotz, Friedrich. 2014. Mediatization as a mover in modernity: Social and cultural change in the context of media change. In Mediatization of communication. Handbooks in Communication Science, ed. Knut Lundby, 131–162. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  46. Livingstone, S. 2009. On the mediation of everything. Journal of Communication 59 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt. 2014. Mediatization: An emerging paradigm for media and communication research? In Mediatization of communication. Handbooks in communication science, ed. Knut Lundby, 703–724. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  48. Lundby, Knut. 2009. Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  49. Lundby, Knut. 2014a. Introduction. Mediatization of communication. In Mediatization of communication. Handbooks in communication science, ed. Knut Lundby, 3–38. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  50. Lundby, Knut. 2014b. A pattern in social theories of change within mediatization research. Paper for the panel in the TWG on Mediatization, ECREA Conference Lisboa Nov 2014 13.10.2014.Google Scholar
  51. Magin, Melanie. 2015. Shades of mediatization: Components of media logic in German and Austrian elite newspapers (1949–2009). The International Journal of Press/Politics 20 (4): 415–437. doi: 10.1177/1940161215595944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2009. Cosmopolitan communications. Cultural diversity in a globalized World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peruško, Z. 2013. Rediscovering the Mediterranean characteristics of the Croatian media system. East European Politics and Societies 27 (4): 709–726. doi: 10.1177/0888325413494770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peruško, Zrinjka. 2016. Historical institutionalist approach in comparative media systems research: The case of Post-Yugoslavia. Javnost—The Public 2. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2016.1210461.
  55. Peruško, Zrinjka, Dina Vozab, and Antonija Čuvalo. 2013. Audiences as a source of agency in media systems: Post-socialist Europe in comparative perspective. Medialni Studia (Media Studies) 2: 137–154.Google Scholar
  56. Peruško, Zrinjka, and Antonija Čuvalo. 2014. Comparing socialist and post-socialist television culture. Fifty years of television in Croatia. View—Journal of European Television, History and Culture 3 (5): 131–150. Accessed 22 Apr 2017.
  57. Peruško, Zrinjka, and Dina Vozab. 2015. Mediatization of political engagement in digital mediascapes: Comparing European online audiences. Paper presented at the ECREA Communication and Democracy Section Conference: “Political Agency in the Digital Age”, Oct 9–10, 2015, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  58. Peruško, Zrinjka, Dina Vozab, and Antonija Čuvalo. 2015. Digital mediascapes, institutional frameworks, and audience practices across Europe. International Journal of Communication 9: 342–364.Google Scholar
  59. Peruško, Z., Vozab, D., Čuvalo, A. 2016. Mediatization of journalism: Comparing European digital mediascapes. Paper presented at the 6th European Communication Research and Education Conference (ECREA), Nov 9–12, Prague.Google Scholar
  60. Poole, Marshall S. 2009. Response to Jones and Karsten, “Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research”. MIS Quarterly 33 (3): 583–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rantanen, Terhi. 2013. A critique of the systems approaches in comparative media research: A Central and Eastern European perspective. Global Media and Communication 9 (3): 257–277. doi: 10.1177/1742766513504175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scannell, Paddy. 2016. Media and religion. Editor’s introduction to the special issue. Media, Culture and Society 38 (1): 3–7. doi: 10.1177/0163443715615410.
  63. Schrott, Andrea. 2009. Dimensions: Catch-all labels or technical terms. In Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences, ed. Knut Lundby, 41–62. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  64. Schulz, Winfried. 2004. Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication 19 (1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schulz, Winfried. 2014. Mediatization and new media. In Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies, ed. Frank Esser, and Jesper Strömbäck, 57–73. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwarz, Jonah Andersson. 2016. Public service broadcasting and data-driven personalization: A view from Sweden. Television and New Media 17 (2): 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strömbäck, Jesper. 2008. Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. Press/Politics 13 (3): 228–246. doi: 10.1177/1940161208319097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Udris, Linards, and Jens Lucht. 2014. Mediatization at the structural level: Independence from politics, dependence on the market. In Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies, ed. Frank Esser, and Jesper Strömbäck, 114–136. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Umbricht, Andrea, and Frank Esser. 2013. Changing political news? Long-term trends in American, British, French, Italian, German, and Swiss press reporting. Working paper 57, National Centre for Competence in Research (NCCR), Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century. 32 p.Google Scholar
  70. Vittadini, Nicoletta, Marina Micheli, Francesca Pasquali, and Piermarco Aroldi. 2015. Spaces across Europe: Where people use media. International Journal of Communication 9: 412–434.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, Raymond. 2003[1974]. Televisio: Technology and cultural form. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations