Advertisement

Emerging Trends in Small Acts of Audience Engagement and Interruptions of Content Flows

  • Jelena Kleut
  • Tereza Pavlíčková
  • Ike Picone
  • Sander De Ridder
  • Bojana Romic
  • Jannie Møller Hartley
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter develops a set of findings around audiences’ small-scale acts of engagement with media content made available through digital media technologies. We identify and discuss three articulations of these small acts: (1) one click engagement, (2) commenting and debating and (3) small stories. In contrasting them with more collaborative and convergent productive practices, we further conceptualise these engagements in relation to two main dimensions: effort and intentionality. Lastly, we suggest a conceptualisation of the outcome of these acts which we have labelled interruption. Content flows can be challenged, if not transformed, due to the volume of small acts, which is realised by the producing audiences as well as by mainstream media. Profound changes in the way information is produced and distributed are fuelled by small acts of engagement, and these trends are likely to continue into the futures this book speaks about.

References

  1. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  2. Ashton, K. (2009, June 22). That ‘Internet of Things’ thing. RFiD Journal. Retrieved from www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4986.
  3. Bechmann, A., & Lomborg, S. (2013). Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society, 15(5), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergström, A. (2008). The reluctant audience: Online participation in the Swedish journalistic context. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 5(2), 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird, E. (2011). Are we all produsers now? Convergence and media audience practices. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Bruns, A. (2008). The future is user-led: The path towards widespread produsage. Fibreculture Journal, 11. Retrieved from http://eleven.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-066-the-future-is-user-led-the-path-towards-widespread-produsage/.
  8. Bruns, A. (2011). Gatekeeping, gatewatching, real-time feedback: New challenges for journalism. Brazilian Journalism Research Journal, 7(2), 117–136.Google Scholar
  9. Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2007). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. In R. Ann Lind (Ed.), Produsing theory in a digital world: The intersection of audiences and production (pp. 15–32). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling. Continuum, 20(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpentier, N. (2011). Contextualising author-audience convergences: New technologies claims to increased participation, novelty and uniqueness. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cherubini, F., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Editorial analytics: How news media are developing and using audience data and metrics. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
  14. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cover, R. (2012). Performing and undoing identity online: Social networking, identity theories and the incompatibility of online profiles and friendship regimes. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 177–193.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, J. (2012). Prosuming identity: The production and consumption of transableism on Transabled.org. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 596–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Ridder, S., & van Bauwel, S. (2015). The discursive construction of gay teenagers in times of mediatization: Youth’s reflections on intimate storytelling, queer shame and realness in popular social media places. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(6), 777–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Ridder, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Romic, B. (2016). Challenges when researching digital audiences: Mapping audience research of software designs, interfaces and platforms. Participations, 13(1), 374–391.Google Scholar
  19. Deuze, M. (2012). Media life. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Dimmick, J., Feaster, J. C., & Hoplamazian, G. J. (2011). News in the interstices: The niches of mobile media in space and time. New Media & Society, 13(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B., & Vujnovic, M. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 326–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eberholst, M. K., & Hartley, J. M. (2015). Research: Online debate, Not angry but neutral. European Journalism Observatory. Retrieved from http://en.ejo.ch/media-politics/press-freedom/research-online-debate-not-angry-neutral.
  23. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html.
  24. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillmor, D. (2004). We the media. Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Cambridge: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  26. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  27. Halupka, M. (2014). Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt, K., & Karlsson, M. (2014). ‘Random acts of journalism?’ How citizen journalists tell the news in Sweden. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1795–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jensen, K. B., & Helles, R. (2017). Speaking into the system: Social media and many-to-one communication. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karlsson, M. (2011). Flourishing but restrained—The evolution of participatory journalism in Swedish online news, 2005–2009. Journalism Practice, 5(1), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Lessard, K. (2014). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18(3), 502–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kümpel, A. S., Karnowski, V., & Keyling, T. (2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  35. Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Livingstone, S. (2017). Mediation, mediatization and the history of audiences. Keynote presented at Audiences 2030: Imagining a Future for Audiences Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2017.Google Scholar
  37. Lövgren, J., & Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative media: Production, consumption and design interventions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mathieu, D., & Pavlíčková, T. (2017). Cross-media within the Facebook newsfeed: The role of the reader in cross-media uses. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 425–438.Google Scholar
  40. Meyers, E. A. (2012). ‘Blogs give regular people the chance to talk back’: Rethinking ‘professional’ media hierarchies in new media. New Media & Society, 14(6), 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milioni, D. L., Vadratsikas, K., & Papa, V. (2012). ‘Their two cents worth’: Exploring user agency in readers’ comments in online news media. Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 6(3), 21–47.Google Scholar
  42. Nahon, K., & Hemsley, J. (2013). Going viral. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nielsen, R. K., & Ganter, S. A. (2017). Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms. New Media & Society, Online First.Google Scholar
  44. O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1.
  45. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pavlíčková, T., & Kleut, J. (2016). Produsage as experience and interpretation. Participations, 13(1), 349–359.Google Scholar
  47. Picone, I. (2011). Produsage as a form of self-publication. A qualitative study of casual news produsage. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plantin, J.-C. (2014). Participatory mapping: New data, new cartography. London: ISTE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pullen, C. (2012). Gay identity, new storytelling and the media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Recuber, T. (2012). The prosumption of commemoration: Disasters, digital memory banks, and online collective memory. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosen, J. (2004, April 16). Brain food for BloggerCon [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://archive.pressthink.org/2004/04/16/con_prelude.html.
  52. Rosen, J. (2006, June 27). The people formerly known as the audience [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.
  53. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J. L., Diaz-Noci, J., Masip, P., & Meso, K. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487.Google Scholar
  54. Rushkoff, D. (2017). Throwing rocks at Google bus: How growth became the enemy of prosperity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Scholz, T. (2016). Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schrøder, K. C. (2000). Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(2), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schrøder, K. (2011). Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge. CM: Communication Management Quarterly, 18(6), 5–27.Google Scholar
  58. Stone, J. (2017, October 25). Me too: Members of the European Parliament protest against sexual harassment. MEPs debated the issue. The Independent.Google Scholar
  59. Trültzsch-Wijnen, C., Trültzsch-Wijnen, W., & Siibak, A. (2015). Using and not using social media: What triggers young people’s practices on social network sites? In F. Zeller, C. Ponte, & B. O’Neil (Eds.), Revitalising audience research. Innovations in European audience research (pp. 176–194). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you: Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture and Society, 31(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  62. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitehouse, G. (2016). Amazon’s mechanical Turk a digital sweatshop? Transparency and accountability in crowdsourced online research. Journal of Media Ethics, 31(4), 260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Woermann, N. (2012). On the slope is on the screen: Prosumption, social media practices, and scopic systems in the freeskiing subculture. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 618–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wuest, B. (2014). Stories like mine: Coming out videos and queer identities on YouTube. In C. Pullen (Ed.), Queer youth and media cultures (pp. 19–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelena Kleut
    • 1
  • Tereza Pavlíčková
    • 2
  • Ike Picone
    • 3
  • Sander De Ridder
    • 4
  • Bojana Romic
    • 5
  • Jannie Møller Hartley
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Media StudiesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.Charles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  3. 3.imec-SMIT, Department of Communication StudiesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Universiteit Ghent, Vakgroep CommunicatiewetenschappenGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Malmö UniversitySoeborgDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations