Zusammenfassung
Die Kommunikationswissenschaft tendiert dazu, aktuelle soziotechnische Innovationen, etwa im Bereich der künstlichen Intelligenz, als Black Box zu behandeln und sich in nachlaufender Aufräumarbeit vornehmlich mit deren zeitversetzten manifesten Folgen zu beschäftigen. Da diese Innovationen die Gegenstände unseres Faches aber zunehmend prägen und erheblichen Einfluß auf den Öffentlichkeits- und Medienwandel haben, führt dies zu beträchtlichen Erklärungsdefiziten der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Wir schlagen daher eine Reorientierung der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Forschung vor, die die Entstehung potenziell folgenreicher Innovationen in neuen emergenten Handlungsfeldern sowie deren Auswirkungen auf die strukturellen Bedingungen und kulturellen Prägungen von Öffentlichkeiten in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Für diese Reorientierung lassen sich Ansätze aus der Journalismusforschung (Redaktionsforschung; Pioneer Communities), der sozialkonstruktivistischen Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung (Social Construction of Technology; reflexive Technikfolgenabschätzung) sowie der kritisch-interventionistischen Innovationsforschung (Values in Design; Critical Data Studies) nutzen. Wir plädieren für einen gegenstandsangemessenen, theoriegenerierenden und kooperativen Forschungsprozess, der die Erklärungskraft und Zukunftstauglichkeit der Kommunikationswissenschaft stärken soll.
Abstract
Public communication is changing—a change manifested in a crisis of legacy media’s business models, the proliferation of new channels of communication and increasingly individualized media repertoires, among other things. Often, these changes are associated with sociotechnical innovations, i.e. with novel ideas, methods and applications emerging from the interaction of technical infrastructures and technologies with human action. It was suggested, for example, that users’ ability to configure their own information sources and content in mobile and social media led to the creation of echo chambers, that algorithmic curation on search engines and social networks resulted in filter bubbles, or that social bots led to an over-representation of certain public positions and a higher prevalence of mis- and disinformation in public debates.
In this essay, we criticize the reaction of communication science to these developments and its role in the corresponding scientific and public discussions: Communication science too often imports problem diagnoses from the outside, limits itself to the post hoc description and measurement of these phenomena, and excludes relevant contexts of their origin. In addition, too little knowledge from our discipline makes its way into public debate, and only few communication scientists dare to make regulatory proposals, or are even perceived as relevant providers of such proposals.
This is problematic in two respects: Firstly, it hampers communication science’s standing in the concert of academic disciplines. Its current mode of analysis means that the discipline is often late in defining social problems, and consequently leaves agenda setting to other disciplines or actors. On the one hand, this opens the door to questions about the relevance and analytical value of communication science as a discipline. On the other hand, it leads to simplified views or misinterpretations of social phenomena which could be avoided if expertise from communication science had been included earlier, but is difficult to remedy after the fact.
Secondly, it is also problematic for the cognitive core and epistemological perspective of communication science. If we analyze sociotechnical innovation and its effects detached from its origins, the values and institutional logics inscribed into these innovations are “blackboxed”: they move into the blind spot of our discipline.
We argue that communication science should pay more attention to sociotechnical innovations that are (potentially) relevant to public communication. This demand could have been made for early innovations like the printing press or the telegraph already, but is more urgent for digital innovations, which proliferate more quickly, permeate almost all areas of life, and influence human interaction directly and deeply. To do so, it is necessary to incorporate sociotechnical innovations into the conceptual foundations of public communication that has, so far, mostly taken structural and cultural conditions into account. It is necessary to broaden this conceptualization, and to assess the socio-techno-cultural foundations of public communication. This includes the actor constellations around sociotechnical innovations, e.g. financiers, potential customers, programmers, researchers, but also regulators, and users. It also encompasses innovation practices, such as decisions on the development, testing and implementation of innovations, involving a variety of “systems of thought, finance, politics, legal codes and regulations, materialities and infrastructures, institutions [and] inter-personal relations” (Kitchin). And it includes technical artefacts, e.g. hardware and software affordances which enable and limit pathways of action.
The endeavor we propose can stand on the shoulders of several seasoned and recent approaches from within and outside communication science: Within communication science, it should make use of recent approaches in ethnographic journalism research which analyzes the organizational makeup and procedural workings of newsrooms. This strand of research produces “thick descriptions” of a social context that is decisive for public communication, using multi-methodical, primarily qualitative approaches and a quasi-ethnographic perspective. Similarly, the “Pioneer Communities” approach may be instructive. Its focus on “communities” that are relevant for public communication extends the view beyond journalism and facilitates a prospective, future-oriented perspective.
Beyond our discipline, social constructivist approaches from science and technology studies, namely “Social Construction of Technology” (SCOT) approaches and “reflective technology assessment” are promising. Both emphasize the social embedding and construction of technologies, with a historical and a forward-looking perspective, even though they do not focus strongly on public communication.
Finally, a re-orientation of communication science can benefit from interventionist innovation research. “Values in Design” approaches combine ideas from science and technology studies with influences from computer science and philosophy, arguing that technology and innovation design can already have moral consequences and trying, accordingly, to inscribe desirable values in technologies. “Critical Data Studies” examine the social processes underlying the generation, analysis and use of data. Like “Values in Design”, it aims to reconstruct how social contexts shape technology or data, and to improve the respective practices.
A re-oriented communication science can learn from all of these approaches. Overall, we plead for a contextualized, theory-generating and cooperative research process, which would strengthen the explanatory power and future viability of communication scholarship.
Literatur
Altmeppen, K. D. (2007). Das Organisationsdispositiv des Journalismus. In K. D. Altmeppen, T. Hanitzsch & C. Schlüter (Hrsg.), Journalismustheorie: Next Generation (S. 281–302). Wiesbaden: VS.
Altmeppen, K. D., Bieber, C., Filipović, A., Heesen, J., Neuberger, C., Röttger, U., Stieglitz, S., & Thomas, T. (2019). Öffentlichkeit, Verantwortung und Gemeinwohl im digitalen Zeitalter. Publizistik, 64, 59–77.
Altmeppen, K. D., Donges, P., & Engels, K. (2002). Technisierung und organisatorischer Wandel. In I. Neverla, E. Grittmann & M. Pater (Hrsg.), Grundlagentexte zur Journalistik (S. 350–355). Konstanz: UVK.
Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1995). The californian ideology. London: Mute.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. London: Yale University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 739–768.
Bijker, W. E. (2009). Social construction of technology. In J. K. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen & V. F. Hendricks (Hrsg.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (S. 88–94). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Hrsg.). (1989). The social construction of technological systems. Boston: MIT Press.
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble. Ethics and Information Technology, 17, 249–265.
Brennen, J. S., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). An industry-led debate: how UK media cover artificial intelligence. Oxford: Reuters Institute & Oxford Internet Institute.
Bruns, A. (2018). Facebook shuts the gate after the horse has bolted, and hurts real research in the process. Internet Policy Review. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/facebook-shuts-gate-after-horse-has-bolted-and-hurts-real-research-process/786. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2020.
DeVito, M. A. (2017). From editors to algorithms: a values-based approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news feed. Digital Journalism, 5, 753–773.
Dogruel, L. (2013). Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Konzeption von Medieninnovationen. Wiesbaden: VS.
Dose, D. (2019, 19. Februar). „Wissenschaftlich nicht haltbar“: Kommunikations-Experte Jörg Matthes kritisiert die Sprachanleitung für ARD-Mitarbeiter scharf. Südkurier.
Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Erdal, I. J. (2009). Cross-media (re) production cultures. Convergence, 15, 215–231.
Esser, F. (1998). Editorial structures and work principles in British and German newsrooms. European Journal of Communication, 13, 375–405.
Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating Affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding Affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 35–52.
Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (Hrsg.). (2017). The handbook of science and technology studies. Boston: MIT Press.
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Rucht, D., & Gerhards, J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fletcher, R., Schifferes, S., & Thurman, N. (2020). Building the ‘Truthmeter’: training algorithms to help journalists assess the credibility of social media sources. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 26, 19–34.
Flichy, P. (2008). Understanding technological innovation. A Socio-technical approach. New York: Edward Elgar.
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14, 330–347.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Borning, A. (2007). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Hrsg.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (S. 348–372). New York: Routledge.
Fürst, S., Vogler, D., Sörensen, I., Schäfer, M. S., & Eisenegger, M. (2020). Wirklich irrelevant? Sichtbarkeit und thematische Einordnung der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft in Schweizer Medien. Publizistik, 4 (erscheint demnächst).
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12, 347–364.
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gitelman, L. (Hrsg.). (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grunwald, A. (2004). Vision assessment as a new element of the technology futures analysis toolbox. Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: new technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, Seville.
Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: Karlsruher Studien Technik und Kultur.
Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: a human-machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22, 70–86.
Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Die Struktur des journalistischen Felds. In K. D. Altmeppen, T. Hanitzsch & C. Schlüter (Hrsg.), Journalismustheorie: Next Generation (S. 239–260). Wiesbaden: VS.
Hepp, A. (2016). Pioneer communities: collective actors in deep mediatisation. Media, Culture & Society, 38, 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716664484.
Hepp, A. (2020a). Artificial companions, social bots and work bots: communicative robots as research objects of media and communication studies. Media, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720916412.
Hepp, A. (2020b). The fragility of curating a pioneer community: deep mediatization and the spread of the quantified self and maker movements. International Journal of Cultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877920922867.
Hepp, A., & Loosen, W. (2019). Pioneer journalism: conceptualizing the role of pioneer journalists and pioneer communities in the organizational re-figuration of journalism. Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919829277.
Jarren, O. (2019). Fundamentale Institutionalisierung: social media als neue globale Kommunikationsinfrastruktur. Publizistik, 64, 163–179.
Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2018). Moving beyond self-castigation: let’s reinvigorate communication policy research now! Journal of Communication, 68, 327–336.
Katzenbach, C. (2018). Die Regeln digitaler Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 14–29.
Knobel, C., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 26–28.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: the work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35, 155–177.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2019). The “Arbiters of what our voters see”: Facebook and Google’s Struggle with Policy, Process, and Enforcement around Political Advertising. Political Communication, 36, 499–522.
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Dolezal, M., Helbling, M., Höglinger, D., Hutter, S., & Wüest, B. (2012). Political conflict in western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (2002). Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Lösch, A. (2013). Vision Assessment zu Human-Enhancement-Technologien. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 22(1), 9–16.
Lösch, A., Böhle, K., Coenen, C., Dobroc, P., Ferrari, A., Heil, R., Schulz-Schaeffer, I., et al. (2016). Technikfolgenabschätzung von soziotechnischen Zukünften. Diskussionspapiere 3/2016. Karlsruhe: KIT / Institut für Technikzukünfte.
Mager, A. (2012). Algorithmic ideology: how capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 769–787.
Meier, K. (2011). Journalismusforschung als interaktive Innovationsforschung. In O. Jandura (Hrsg.), Methoden der Journalismusforschung (S. 67–82). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Meier, K., Bracker, I., & Verhovnik, M. (2017). Technological innovation and convergent journalism. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación: Mediterranean Journal of Communication, 8, 33–44.
Neff, G., Tanweer, A., Fiore-Gartland, B., & Osburn, L. (2017). Critique and contribute: a practice-based framework for improving critical data studies and data science. Big Data, 5(2), 85–97.
Nielsen, R. K. (2018). No one cares what we know: three responses to the irrelevance of political communication research. Political Communication, 35, 145–149.
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2009). Cosmopolitan communications. Cultural diversity in a globalized world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11, 522–538.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. London: Penguin.
Peters, B. (2007). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Peters, B., & Wessler, H. (2006). Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten – analytische Dimensionen, normative Standards, sozialkulturelle Produktionsstrukturen. In K. Imhof (Hrsg.), Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft (S. 125–144). Wiesbaden: VS.
Peterson, R. A., & Anand, N. (2004). The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 311–334.
Pfetsch, B. (2003). Politische Kommunikationskultur. Politische Sprecher und Journalisten in der Bundesrepublik und den USA im Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M., & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung. Publizistik, 63, 477–495.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts. Social studies of science, 14, 399–441.
Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Welche Forschenden erscheinen in den Medien? www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/welche-forschenden-erscheinen-in-den-medien-befunde-aus-der-schweiz-21015. Zugegriffen: 27. Mai 2020.
Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389–410.
Ropohl, G. (1979). Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.
Scheu, A. M. (2012). Adornos Erben in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Köln: von Halem.
Schölzel, H. (2017). Die Komposition politischer Öffentlichkeiten. Konturen einer Kommunikations- und Mediensoziologie in den Arbeiten Bruno Latours und der Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Publizistik, 65, 313–329.
Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2017). The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv:1707.07592, 96, 104.
Simon, J. (2016). Values in Design. In J. Heesen (Hrsg.), Handbuch Medien- und Informationsethik (S. 357–364). Stuttgart: JB Metzler.
Simonis, G. (2001). Die TA-Landschaft in Deutschland – Potenziale reflexiver Techniksteuerung. In G. Simonis, R. Martinsen & T. Saretzki (Hrsg.), Politik und Technik (S. 425–456). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Srugies, A. (2016). Journalismus als Organisation. In M. Löffelholz & L. Rothenberger (Hrsg.), Handbuch Journalismustheorien (S. 507–522). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tanweer, A., Bolten, N., Drouhard, M., Hamilton, J., Caspi, A., Fiore-Gartland, B., & Tan, K. (2017). Mapping for accessibility: a case study of ethics in data science for social good. arXiv:1710.06882.
Wiedemann, T., & Meyen, M. (Hrsg.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu und die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Internationale Perspektiven. Köln: von Halem.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research policy, 25, 865–899.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Zeng, J., Chung-hong, C., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on wechat and people’s daily Online. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776372.
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
Danksagung
Dieser Artikel geht auf eine Vielzahl von Diskussionen und Gesprächen im Rahmen des von Otfried Jarren initiierten „Vitznauer Kreises“ zurück. Wir danken den TeilnehmerInnen dieser Gespräche für hilfreiche Anmerkungen.
Förderung
Eine finanzielle Förderung war für diesen Artikel nicht notwendig.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schäfer, M.S., Wessler, H. Öffentliche Kommunikation in Zeiten künstlicher Intelligenz. Publizistik 65, 307–331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00592-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00592-6