Advertisement

Interfaces and Engagement: From Implications to Responsibilities

  • Ranjana Das
Chapter

Abstract

I formulate this chapter as a response to an overarching question that this work, and the network it emerged from, has consistently come across. We have often been asked, that, given that there are myriad ways in which agentic audiences engage, respond, interact with and make sense of media technologies, what can audiences can do to resist intrusive interfaces? I select this question, out of all the questions we have been asked, because the question has beckoned us to think carefully about the variety of implications we see emerging out of this project, and why, in the end, we have struggled with the way the question is phrased. In responding, I make use of the implications arising out of CEDAR’s work to expand the focus from what audiences should do, to what a variety of others need to do, in order to champion the interests of audiences.

References

  1. Ang, I. (2006). Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, M., Arthurs, J., & Harindranath, R. (2001). The Crash controversy: Censorship campaigns and film reception. New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, S. E. (2003). The audience in everyday life: Living in a media world. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, S. E. (2011). Are we all produsers now? Convergence and media audience practices. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Ignazio, C., & Bhargava, R. (2015, September). Approaches to building big data literacy. In Proceedings of the Bloomberg Data for Good Exchange Conference.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlgren, P. (1998). Critique: Elusive audiences. In R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath, & O. Linne (Eds.), Approaches to audiences: A reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  10. Das, R. (2011). Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication, 26(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Audiovisual Observatory. (2016). Mapping of media literacy practices and actions in EU-28. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory/European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Kaun, A., & Velkova, J. (2017). Opening the black box: Challenging algorithms. Paper presented at Digital Democracy: Critical Perspectives in the Age of Big Data Conference, Stockholm, November 2017.Google Scholar
  13. Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. M. (2006). Introduction to the first edition (2002): The social shaping and consequences of ICTs. In Handbook of new media: Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs (pp. 15–32).Google Scholar
  14. Livingstone, S. M. (2008). Engaging with media—A matter of literacy? Communication, Culture & Critique, 1(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livingstone, S. M., & Das, R. (2013). The end of audiences? Theoretical echoes of reception amid the uncertainties of use. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 104–121). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Livingstone, S. M., & Lunt, P. K. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lomborg, S., & Mortensen, M. (2017). Users across media: An introduction. Convergence?, 23, 343–351. Google Scholar
  18. Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sundin, O. (2017). Critical algorithm literacies: An emerging framework. Paper presented at Digital Culture Meets Data Conference, Brighton, November 2017.Google Scholar
  21. van Zoonen, L., et al. (2017). ‘Seeing more than you think’: A ‘data walk’ in the smart city. In S. Hussey (Ed.), Public engagement with the smart city. Bang the Table: Carleton, Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations