Search results

This chapter discusses the ways in which digitalization and datafication challenge public relations (PR), arguing that technological developments create a need to re-conceptualize PR so as to account for data as affordance and actor. In so doing the chapter is conceptual; it discusses existing communicative theories in relation to current changes in the media landscape and its technological underpinnings. Focusing on the areas of crisis communication and issues management, we argue that datafication provides new ways of dealing with issues and, in turn, presents new issues for PR professionals. Thus, the chapter presents a novel conceptualization of PR in which technological affordances and agencies go hand in hand with human efforts in the configuration of communicative assemblages. More specifically, we argue that viewing data solely as an affordance merely provides new tools for solving existing issues. When the independent agency of data is recognized and employed, more effective means of solving such issues appear, but data itself also becomes an issue. The dilemma is best illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the broader discussions about electoral manipulation and other covert uses of data it incurred. In this regard, balancing the dual demands of efficacy and ethics is as pressing a concern for PR as ever. The conceptualization of PR in terms of communicative assemblages, we suggest, may not only explain processes of issues formation better, but also provide a starting point for handling such processes ethically and effectively.

This chapter considers the challenges and potentials of using so called big data in communication research. It asks what lessons big data research can learn from digital ethnography, another method of gathering digital data.

The chapter first takes on the task of clearly defining big data in the context of communication and media studies. It then moves on to analyse and critique processes associated with the dealings of big data: datafication and dataism. The challenges of data-driven research are juxtaposed with qualitative perspectives on research regarding data gathering and context. These thoughts are further elaborated in the second part of the chapter where the lessons learned in digital ethnography are linked to challenges of big data research.

It is proposed that by including the materialities of contexts and transitions between material and mediated realms, we can ask more relevant research questions and gain more insights compared to a purely data-driven approach.

This chapter encourages researchers to reflect upon their relations to the object of study and the context in which data was produced through human/human–technical interaction.

This chapter contributes to debates about qualitative and quantitative research methods in communication and media studies. Moreover, it proposes that methods which are in the widest sense used in the never-ending digital field benefit from the mutual consideration of both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

This chapter presents the research questions, approaches, and arguments of the book, asking how our everyday lives with media have changed after the smartphone. I introduce the topic of media use in everyday life as an empirical, methodological, and theoretical research interest, and argue for its continued centrality to our digital society today, accentuated by datafication. I discuss how the analytical concepts of media repertories and public connection can inform research into media use in everyday life, and what it means that our societies and user practices are becoming more digital. The main argument of the book is that digital media transform our navigation across the domains of everyday life by blurring boundaries, intensifying dilemmas, and affecting our sense of connection to communities and people around us. The chapter concludes by presenting the structure of the rest of the book, where these arguments will be substantiated in analysis of media use an ordinary day, media use in life phase transitions, and media use when ordinary life is disrupted.

The chapter explores the developments in work on the history of quantification and sport, explaining how quantification in sport is generally understood, and then establishing what a sociological approach offers to scholars interested in exploring new expressions of these developments in biometrics and Big Data. It then outlines some potential directions scholars might pursue to further develop knowledge of these developments in the context of sport.

The chapter synthesizes existing literature from the sociology of quantification, sport sociology and quantification, and Big Data to provide historical, contemporary, and future oriented assessments of sport and datafication.

By situating a discussion of Big Data and biometrics in the context of sport, this chapter argues for the value of a sociological approach to these areas. The chapter engages prior work as a way to move scholars to challenge the assumed epistemological and political power of numbers for the way we engage sport.

The chapter argues for a number of future areas of study that may push the boundaries of existing research in the area.

The chapter provides a survey of the literature on sport, analytics, and Big Data as an impetus for future research into the importance of a sociological approach to these areas in the context of sport.

The current datafication of cities raises questions about what Lefebvre and many after him have called “the right to the city.” In this contribution, I investigate how the use of data for civic purposes may strengthen the “right to the datafied city,” that is, the degree to which different people engage and participate in shaping urban life and culture, and experience a sense of ownership. The notion of the commons acts as the prism to see how data may serve to foster this participatory “smart citizenship” around collective issues. This contribution critically engages with recent attempts to theorize the city as a commons. Instead of seeing the city as a whole as a commons, it proposes a more fine-grained perspective of the “commons-as-interface.” The “commons-as-interface,” it is argued, productively connects urban data to the human-level political agency implied by “the right to the city” through processes of translation and collectivization. The term is applied to three short case studies, to analyze how these processes engender a “right to the datafied city.” The contribution ends by considering the connections between two seemingly opposed discourses about the role of data in the smart city – the cybernetic view versus a humanist view. It is suggested that the commons-as-interface allows for more detailed investigations of mediation processes between data, human actors, and urban issues.

The advent of data-driven journalism has transformed the field of journalism globally, offering new ways to collect, analyse and communicate stories and information. In contexts such as Africa, where socio-political and economic contexts differ significantly from those in the Global North, the need for critical data literacy in journalism education is particularly pronounced. This chapter proposes and argues for developing critical data literacy skills among journalism students. It suggests that fostering a critical approach to data is essential for producing impactful, contextually relevant, and unbiased data-driven journalism. The chapter addresses the unique challenges faced by journalism education and presents strategies (an agenda) for integrating critical data literacy into journalism curricula.

This chapter explores connections of the assessment of learning at the programmatic level and the humanitarian mission of higher education. To highlight typical aspects of assessment routines, we examine the experiences and processes of a small department in the college in the United States focusing on two themes: concerns about assessment culture and concerns about assessment data. Assessment of student learning falls under the umbrella of regular faculty work. However, these activities become contradictory if we reflect on assessment as cultural labor discussed through layers of alienation and distribution of labor among part-time, full-time faculty and students. Further, discussing data practices, we question the philosophy of datafication, or tendency to measure any aspect of learning with presumed objectivity, as well other data routines. To address the limitations of assessment from the humanistic point of view we call to develop a dialogue in order to provide opportunities for justice to students, faculty, and data. Such opportunities can emerge from honest discussions of faculty labor in the assessment engagement and reframing assessment as a research process.

This chapter develops a conceptual taxonomy of five emerging digital citizenship regimes: (1) the globalised and generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four intertwined, non-mutually exclusive and non-generalisable new technopoliticalised and city-regionalised digital citizenship regimes in certain European nation-states’ urban areas; (2) algorithmic citizenship, which is driven by blockchain and has allowed the implementation of an e-Residency programme in Tallinn; (3) liquid citizenship, driven by dataism – the deterministic ideology of big data – and contested through claims for digital rights in Barcelona and Amsterdam; (4) metropolitan citizenship, as revindicated in reaction to Brexit and reshuffled through data co-operatives in Cardiff; and (5) stateless citizenship, driven by devolution and reinvigorated through data sovereignty in Barcelona, Glasgow and Bilbao. This chapter challenges the existing interpretation of how these emerging digital citizenship regimes together are ubiquitously rescaling the associated spaces/practices of European nation-states.

This chapter examines the shifting significance of data ownership and athlete rights as they pertain to the growth and expansion of the global sports gambling industry. It provides a nuanced overview of the ‘datafication’ of society, tracing how the omnipresent embrace of digital technologies has expediated new forms of organisational, political and corporate surveillance from which concerns over privacy, rights to ownership and the misuse of personal data arise. The chapter moves on to discuss how the extraction and trade of data has revolutionised how elite sport is performed, manufactured, broadcast and consumed, shedding critical light on the role of the gambling industry in the exchange of human data as a market commodity. These insights inform a series of socio-legal and ethical questions about the relationships between athlete data and the sports gambling industry for the purpose of signposting emerging issues and opportunities for critical sociological research and intervention.