Advertisement

Digitization and Media Policy Research

  • Karen Donders
  • Leo Van Audenhove
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses emerging methodological trends in media policy research. Setting out from several weaknesses of research to date, it identifies the use of digital methods and participatory approaches as two areas of ongoing renewal. Digital methods concern both digitized existing methods such as document analysis and digitally native methods such as scraping. The chapter highlights the value of new techniques to tackle issues such as fake news, data protection, further ownership concentration, etc.

References

  1. Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information, Technology & People, 14(1), 28–45.Google Scholar
  2. Back, L., & Puwar, N. (2012). A manifesto for live methods: Provocations and capacities. The Sociological Review, 60, 6–17.Google Scholar
  3. Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 854–857.Google Scholar
  4. Bechmann, A. (2013). Internet profiling: The economy of data intraoperability on Facebook and Google. Mediekultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 29(55), 72–91.Google Scholar
  5. Beer, D. (2014). Punk sociology. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Beraldo, D., & Galan-Paez, J. (2013). The #OCCUPY network on Twitter and the challenges to social movements theory and research. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(4).  https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeg.2013.060646.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, G., & Peerson, A. (2009). Giving young Emirati women a voice: Participatory action research on physical activity. Health & Place, 15, 117–124.Google Scholar
  8. Bilic, P., & Svob-Dokic, N. (2016). The pendulum model of Croatian media policy: Digitalisation between public interests and market competition. European Journal of Communication, 31(5), 503–518.Google Scholar
  9. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 43–80). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.Google Scholar
  11. Buts, C., Langenus, M., & Donders, K. (2017). Is there a role for economic analysis when deciding on state aid to public broadcasters? European State Aid Law Quarterly, 4, 537–558.Google Scholar
  12. Couldry, N., Fotopoulou, A., & Dickens, L. (2016). Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 118–137.Google Scholar
  13. Donders, K. (2012). Public service media and policy in Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Donders, K. (2015). State aid to public service media: European Commission decisional practice before and after the 2009 broadcasting communication. European State Aid Law Quarterly, 15(1), 68–87.Google Scholar
  15. Donders, K., & Raats, T. (2012). Analyzing national practices after European state aid control: Are multi-stakeholder negotiations beneficial for public service broadcasting? Media, Culture and Society, 34(2), 162–180.Google Scholar
  16. Donders, K., & Van den Bulck, H. (2016). Decline and fall of public service media values in the international content acquisition market: An analysis of small public broadcasters acquiring BBC Worldwide content. European Journal of Communication, 31(3), 299–316.Google Scholar
  17. Donovan, D. (2016). How children represent sustainable consumption through participatory action research and co-design of visual narratives. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40, 562–574.Google Scholar
  18. Dorussen, H., Lenz, H., & Blavoukos, S. (2005). Assessing the realibility and validity of expert interviews. European Union Politics, 6, 315–337.Google Scholar
  19. Doyle, G. (2007). Undermining media diversity: Inaction on media concentrations and pluralism in the EU. European Studies: A Journal of European Culture, History and Politics, 24(1), 135–156.Google Scholar
  20. Evens, T., & Donders, K. (2018). Platform power and policy in transforming television markets. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Felt, M. (2016). Social media and the social sciences: How researchers employ big data analytics. Big Data & Society, 3(1). http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053951716645828.Google Scholar
  22. Freedman, D. (2010). Media policy silences: The hidden face of communications decision making. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(3), 344–361.Google Scholar
  23. Freedman, D. (2014). The contradictions of media power. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, R., & Maybin, J. (2011). Documents, practices and policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
  25. Garde, A. (2011). Advertising regulation and the protection of children’s consumers in the European Union: In the best interests of … commercial operators. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 19, 523–545.Google Scholar
  26. Giardullo, P. (2016). Does ‘bigger’ mean ‘better’? Pitfalls and shortcuts associated with big data for social research. Quality & Quantity, 50(2), 529–547.Google Scholar
  27. Giles, M., Kennedy, H., Stylianos, M., & Birchall, C. (2015). Knowing your publics: The use of social media analytics in local government. Information Polity, 20(4), 287–298.Google Scholar
  28. Ginosar, A., & Levi-Faur, D. (2010). Regulating product placement in the European Union and Canada: Explaining regime change and diversity. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 12(5), 467–490.Google Scholar
  29. Hand, M., & Hillyard, S. (2014). Big data? Qualitative approaches to digital research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Herzog, C., & Karppinen, K. (2014). Policy streams and public service media funding reforms in Germany and Finland. European Journal of Communication, 29(4), 416–432.Google Scholar
  31. Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015). Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
  32. Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2012). Communication policy research: Looking back, moving forward. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 9–29). Bristol, UK: Intellect.Google Scholar
  33. Karpinnen, K., & Moe, H. (2011). What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 159–173). Bristol, UK: Intellect.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, H., Moss, G., Birchall, C., & Moshonas, S. (2015). Balancing the potential and problems of digital methods through action research: Methodological reflections. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 172–186.Google Scholar
  35. Knapp, D. (2016). The social construction of computational surveillance: Reclaiming agency in a computed world. Thesis for the degree of doctor in sociology, London School of Economics, London, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviewing: Learning the craft of qualitative interviewing. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lowe, G. F., & Martin, F. (2014). The value in public service media (edited collection). Göteborg, Norway: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  38. Mariën, I., Baelden, D., Bens, J., Schurmans, D., Van Audenhove, L., Smukste, K., … Goubin, E. (2013). Van digitale naar maatschappelijke participatie: Opportuniteiten en uitdagingen. In M. Callens, J. Noppe, & L. Vanderleyden (Eds.), De sociale staat van Vlaanderen. Brussels, Belgium: Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering.Google Scholar
  39. Michalis, M. (2007). Governing European communications: From unification to coordination. Lanham, UK: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  40. Moore, M., & Tambini, D. (2018). Digital dominance: The power of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (edited collection). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Nieminen, H. (2016). A radical democratic reform of media regulation in response to three levels of crisis. Javnost—The Public, 23(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  42. Ots, M., Krumsvik, A. H., Ala-Fossi, M., & Rendahl, P. (2016). The shifting role of value-added tax (VAT) as a media policy tool: A three-country comparison of political justifications. Javnost—The Public, 23(2), 170–187.Google Scholar
  43. Pauwels, C., & Donders, K. (2011). Let’s get digital. From television without frontiers to the digital big bang: The EU’s continuous efforts to create a future proof internal media market. In R. Mansell & M. Raboy (Eds.), Media and communications policies in a globalised context (pp. 525–542). New York: Maxwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Puppis, M. (2010). Media governance: A new concept for the analysis of media policy and regulation. Communication Culture & Critique, 3(2), 134–149.Google Scholar
  45. Puppis, M., Simpson, S., & Van den Bulck, H. (2016). Contextualizing European media policy in the twenty-first century. In S. Simpson, M. Puppis, & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), European media policy for the twenty-first century (pp. 1–22). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Raats, T., Evens, T., Vanhaeght, A.-S., Ruelens, S., & Loisen, J. (2015). Stakeholderbevraging ter voorbereiding van de nieuwe beheersovereenkomst van de VRT met de Vlaamse Regering. Brussels, Belgium: imec-SMIT.Google Scholar
  47. Rathbun, B. C. (2008). Interviewing and qualitative field methods: Pragmatism and practicalities. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 685–701). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rieder, B., Abdulla, R., Poell, T., Woltering, R., & Zack, L. (2015). Data critique and analytical opportunities for very large Facebook pages: Lessons learned from exploring “We are all Khaled said”. Big Data & Society, 2(2). http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053951715614980.
  49. Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual: Digital methods.  https://doi.org/10.5517/7989056295936.
  50. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sajuria, J., & Fabrega, J. (2016). Do we need polls? Why Twitter will not replace opinion surveys but can complement them. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social sciences (pp. 87–104). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Simpson, S., Puppis, M., & Van den Bulck, H. (2016). European media policy for the twenty-first century (edited collection). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Snee, H., Hine, C., Morey, Y., Roberts, S., & Watson, H. (2016). Digital methods as mainstream methodology: An introduction. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social sciences (pp. 1–11). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Soo Chon, B., Choi, J. H., Barnett, G. A., Danowski, J. A., & Joo, S.-H. (2003). A structural analysis of media convergence: Cross-industry mergers and acquisitions in the information industries. Journal of Media Economics, 16(3), 141–157.Google Scholar
  55. van Cuilenburg, J., & McQuail, D. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communications policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 181–207.Google Scholar
  56. Van den Bulck, H., & Donders, K. (2014). Of discourses, stakeholders and advocacy coalitions in media policy: Tracing negotiations towards the new management contract of Flemish public broadcaster VRT. European Journal of Communication, 29(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
  57. Vanhaeght, A.-S., & Donders, K. (2015). Moving beyond the borders of top-down broadcasting: An analysis of younger users’ participation in public service media. Television and New Media, 17(4), 291–307.Google Scholar
  58. Vis, F. (2013). A critical reflection on big data: Considering APIs, researchers and tools as data makers. First Monday, 18(10). http://ojs-prod-lib.cc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4878.
  59. Vlassis, A. (2016). European Commission, trade agreements and diversity of cultural expressions: Between autonomy and influence. European Journal of Communication, 31(4), 446–461.Google Scholar
  60. Wallin, I., Carlsson, J., & Hansen, H. P. (2016). Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden—Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 25–40.Google Scholar
  61. Walter, M. (2009). Participatory action research. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Social research methods (pp. 151–158). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  62. Woods, L. (2008). The consumer and advertising regulation in the television without frontiers and audiovisual media services directives. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31(1), 63–77.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Felt, M. (2016). Social media and the social sciences: How researchers employ big data analytics. Big Data & Society, 3(1). http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053951716645828.Google Scholar
  2. Hand, M., & Hillyard, S. (2014). Big data? Qualitative approaches to digital research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Hearn, G. N., Tacchi, J. A., Foth, M., & Lennie, J. (2008). Action research and new media: Concepts, methods and cases. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kennedy, H., Moss, G., Birchall, C., & Moshonas, S. (2015). Balancing the potential and problems of digital methods through action research: Methodological reflections. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 172–186.Google Scholar
  5. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Donders
    • 1
  • Leo Van Audenhove
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.iMEC-SMIT, Department of Communication StudiesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.CoLABUniversity of the Western CapeCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations