Advertisement

Researching Affordances

  • Aske KammerEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In an age of profound technological changes, the concept of affordances has assumed a prominent position in the vocabulary scholars use to describe and analyze current transformations. Affordances is a concept that is subject to continuous developments and renegotiations through the scholarly conversation, even if the conceptual core of it (that it relates to the possibilities for action that an environment or artifact offer a living being) remains stable. This chapter provides a conceptual overview and discussion of the concept of affordances, outlining the most important positions and developments in its history. Furthermore, the chapter proposes a methodological procedure for measuring quantitatively the use of affordances; this way, it suggests to broaden the scholarly focus on affordances beyond situated qualitative cases to also pay an interest to the use of affordances across larger samples of communicative, organizational, or institutional contexts.

Keywords

Affordances Methodology Technology 

References

  1. Bardoel J, Deuze M (2001) Network journalism: converging competences of media professionals and professionalism. Aust J Rev 23(2):91–103Google Scholar
  2. Baym NK (2010) Personal connections in the digital age. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson B (1954) Content analysis. In: Lindzey G (ed) Handbook of social psychology, volume I: theory and method. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brügger N (2002) Theoretical reflections on media and media history. In: Brügger N, Kolstrup S (eds) Media history. theories, methods, analysis. Aarhus University Press, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan M (2013) Mobile phones and the good life: examining the relationships among mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media Soc 17(1):96–113.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813516836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemero A (2003) An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol Psychol 15(2):181–195.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill D, Churchill N (2008) Educational affordances of PDAs: a study of a teacher’s exploration of this technology. Comput Educ 50(4):1439–1450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deuze M (2003) The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media Soc 5(2):203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deuze M (2004) What is multimedia journalism? Journal Stud 5(2):139–152Google Scholar
  10. Domingo D (2005) The difficult shift from utopia to realism in the Internet era. A decade of online journalism research: theories, methodologies, results and challenges. Presented at the first European communication conferenceGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubber A (2013) Radio in the digital age. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Engebretsen M (2006) Shallow and static or deep and dynamic? Nord Rev 27(1):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finnemann NO (2005) The cultural grammar of the internet. In: Jensen KB (ed) Interface://culture – the world wide web as political resource and aesthetic form. Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, pp 52–71Google Scholar
  14. Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Towards an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  15. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Graves L (2007) The affordances of blogging. J Commun Inq 31(4):331–346.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859907305446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall J (2001) Online journalism. A critical primer. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Halpern D, Gibbs J (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):1159–1168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartley JM (2012) Nyheder på internettet. Handelshøjskolens Forlag, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  20. Have I, Pedersen BS (2013) Sonic mediatization of the book: affordances of the audiobook. MedieKultur 54:123–140Google Scholar
  21. Helles R (2009) Personlige medier i hverdagslivet. University of Copenhagen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  22. Helles R (2013) Mobile communication and intermediality. Mobile Media & Commun 1(1):14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157912459496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchby I (2001a) Conversation and technology. From the telephone to the internet. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchby I (2001b) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen KB, Helles R (2005) “Who do you think we are?” A content analysis of websites as participatory resources for politics, business, and civil society. In: Jensen KB (ed) Interface://culture – the world wide web as political resource and aesthetic form. Samfundslitteratur, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  26. Kammer A (2013) News on the web: instantaneity, multimodality, interactivity, and hypertextuality on Danish news websites. University of Copenhagen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1999) Introductory essay: the social shaping of technology. In: MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) The social shaping of technology, 2nd edn. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagy P, Neff G (2015) Imagined affordance: reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media Soc 1(2):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newhagen JE, Rafaeli S (1996) Why communication researchers should study the internet: a dialogue. J Commun 46(1):4–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01458.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norman DA (1988) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Norman DA (1999) Affordance, conventions, & design. Interactions 6(3):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci 14(3):399–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rappert B (2003) Technologies, texts and possibilities: a reply to Hutchby. Sociology 37(3):565–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reid FJM, Reid DJ (2010) The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behav Inform Technol 29(1):3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290701497079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salaverría R (2005) An immature medium. Strengths and weaknesses of online newspapers on September 11. Gazette 67(1):69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simonsen TM (2011) Categorising YouTube. MedieKultur 51:72–93Google Scholar
  37. Steensen S (2011) Online journalism and the promises of new technology. A critical review and look ahead. J Stud 12(3):311–327Google Scholar
  38. Tomlinson J (2007) The culture of speed. The coming of immediacy. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  39. Zamith F (2008) A methodological proposal to analyze the news websites use of the potentialities of the Internet. Presented at the 9th international symposium on online journalism. Retrieved from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2008/papers/Zamith.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations