A New Crossroads for Audiences and Audience Research: Frameworks for a Foresight Exercise

  • Ranjana Das
  • Brita Ytre-Arne


What futures can be envisioned for audiences and users of emerging media technologies, and how can audience analysis respond to the challenges of the future, in exploration of uncertainties yet to unfold? This chapter introduces CEDAR—Consortium on Emerging Directions in Audience Research—a team of audience researchers from 14 countries across Europe, funded (2015–2018) by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK, which came together to conduct a foresight analysis exercise on developing current trends and future scenarios for audiences and audience research in the year 2030. The chapter positions this work in the context of longer and shorter histories of interest in audiences and locates the network’s critical, agenda, trans-media framework in the context of the rise of datafication and technological intrusions in the context of emerging technologies and the internet of things.


  1. Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  2. Ang, I. (1987). Wanted: Audiences: On the politics of empirical audience research. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.-M. Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television audiences and cultural power (pp. 96–115). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ark, W. S., & Selker, T. (1999). A look at human interaction with pervasive computers. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 504–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton, K. (2009). That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFiD Journal, 22(7).Google Scholar
  5. Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation and journalism. Big Data & Society, 2(2).Google Scholar
  6. Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The internet in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Barassi, V., & Treré, E. (2012). Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0? Deconstructing theoretical assumptions through practice. New Media & Society, 14(8), 1269–1285.Google Scholar
  8. Barker, M. (2014). Whose side are we on? The return of a conundrum. Keynote presented at COST IS0906 Closing Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 2014.Google Scholar
  9. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bird, S. E. (2011). Are we all produsers now? Convergence and media audience practices. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. A. (1996). Remediation. Configurations, 4(3), 311–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolter, J. D., Grusin, R., & Grusin, R. A. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdon, J. (2014). Detextualizing: How to write a history of audiences. European Journal of Communication, 30(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruns, A. (2008). The future is user-led: The path towards widespread produsage. Fibreculture Journal, 11.Google Scholar
  16. Bruns, A., & Schmidt, J. (2011). Produsage: A closer look at continuing developments. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bunz, M., & Meikle, G. (2018). The internet of things. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Butsch, R. (2008). The citizen audience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Carpentier, N., Schrøder, K., & Hallett, L. (Eds.). (2013). Audience transformations. Shifting audience positions in late modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Condit, C. M. (1989). The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 6(2), 103–122.Google Scholar
  22. Couldry, N. (2015). Researching social analytics: Cultural sociology in the face of algorithmic power. In L. Hanquinet & M. Savage (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of the sociology of art and culture (pp. 383–395). Routledge International Handbooks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Dahlgren, P. (1998). Critique: Elusive audiences. In R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath, & O. Linne (Eds.), Approaches to audiences: A reader (pp. 298–310). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  24. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Das, R. (2017). Audiences: A decade of transformations—Reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), 1257–1267.Google Scholar
  26. Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2016). After the excitement: An introduction to the work of CEDAR. Participations, 13(1), 280–288.Google Scholar
  27. Dean, J. (2005). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. Cultural Politics, 1(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Ridder, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Romic, B. (2016). Challenges when researching digital audiences: Mapping audience research of software designs, interfaces and platforms. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 13(1), 374–391.Google Scholar
  29. Deuze, M. (2009). Media industries, work and life. European Journal of Communication, 24(4), 467–480. Google Scholar
  30. Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers, 36(2), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Garrett, R. (2017). On retiring concepts. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Georgiou, M. (2001). Crossing the boundaries of the ethnic home: Media consumption and ethnic identity construction in the public space: The case of the Cypriot Community Centre in North London. International Communication Gazette, 63(4), 311–329.Google Scholar
  34. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Gillespie, M. (1995). Television, ethnicity, and cultural change. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. Retrieved from
  38. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 117–127). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  39. Hansen, H. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 203–220.Google Scholar
  40. Harrison, T. M., & Barthel, B. (2009). Wielding new media in Web 2.0: Exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations, 9(2), 757–779.Google Scholar
  42. Hern, A. (2017, November 7). YouTube accused of ‘violence’ against young children over kids’ content. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  43. Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. Lazarsfeld & F. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research. New York: Essential Books.Google Scholar
  44. Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 234–241), March 1997. ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Katz, E. (1987). Communications research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kennedy, H. (2017). Feeling numbers: Why understanding the emotional dimensions of engaging with data matters for democracy and in media work. Keynote lecture presented at Digital Democracy: Critical Perspectives in the Age of Big Data Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, November 2017.Google Scholar
  49. Kennedy, H., & Moss, G. (2015). Known or knowing publics? Social media data mining and the question of public agency. Big Data & Society, 2(2).Google Scholar
  50. Kennedy, H., Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Introduction: Special issue on Data and agency. Data & Society.Google Scholar
  51. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Livingstone, S. (2004). The challenge of changing audiences or, what is the audience researcher to do in the age of the internet? European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Livingstone, S. (2008). Engaging with media—A matter of literacy? Communication, Culture and Critique, 1(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Livingstone, S. (2013). The participatory paradigm in audience research. The Communication Review, 16(1–2), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Livingstone, S., & Das, R. (2013). The end of audiences? In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 104–122). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lomborg, S., & Mortensen, M. (2017). Users across media: An introduction. Convergence, 23(4), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lotz, D. A. (2000). Assessing qualitative television audience research: Incorporating feminist and anthropological theoretical innovation. Communication Theory, 10(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2014). Mediatization of communication, Handbook of communication science (Vol. 21). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  61. Lunt, P., Kaun, A., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., Stark, B., & van Zoonen, L. (2013). The mediation of civic participation: Diverse forms of political agency in a multimedia age. In N. Carpentier, K. C. Schrøder, & L. Hallett (Eds.), Audience transformations. Shifting audience positions in late modernity (pp. 142–157). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2012). Media regulation: Governance and the interests of citizens and consumers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.Google Scholar
  64. Madianou, M. (2013). Humanitarian campaigns in social media: Network architectures and polymedia events. Journalism Studies, 14(2), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mansell, R. (2012). Imagining the internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mathieu, D., Brites, M. J., Chimirri, N., & Saariketo, M. (2016). In dialogue with related fields of inquiry: The interdisciplinarity, normativity and contextuality of audience research. Participations, 13(1), 462–475.Google Scholar
  67. Mathieu, D., Finger, F., Dias, P., Chronaki, D., & Scarcelli, M. (2017). Acknowledging the dilemmas of intrusive media. In R. Das & B. Ytre-Arne (Eds.), Audiences, towards 2030: Priorities for audience analysis. Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  68. McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mollen, A., Saariekoto, M., & Kleut, J. (2016). Intersecting audience activities: An audience studies perspective on the materiality of design, platforms and interfaces. Participations, 13(1), 360–373.Google Scholar
  70. Monaghan, A., & Lycett, M. (2013). Big data and humanitarian supply networks: Can big data give voice to the voiceless? Presented at Global Humanitarian Technology Conference.Google Scholar
  71. Morley, D. (1980). The nationwide audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  72. Murru, M. F., & Stehling, M. with contributions from Amaral, I., & Scarcelli, M. (2016). The civic value of being an audience: The intersection between media and citizenship in audience research. Participations, 13(1), 402–421.Google Scholar
  73. Nakajima, S. (2012). Prosumption in art. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 550–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Napoli, P. M. (1998). The internet and the forces of ‘massification’. Electronic Journal of Communication, 8(2). Retrieved from
  75. 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
  76. Porcaro, G. (2016). Democracy in the age of the Internet of Things. Retrieved from
  77. Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  78. Recuber, T. (2012). The prosumption of commemoration: Disasters, digital memory banks, and online collective memory. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schiller, D. (1999). Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Schrock, A. (2017). What communication can contribute to data studies: Three lenses on communication and data. International Journal of Communication, 11(9), 701–709.Google Scholar
  81. Schrøder, K. C. (2011). Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge. Communication Management Quarterly, 5(6), 5–27.Google Scholar
  82. Schroeder, R. (2014). Big data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Society, 1(2). Google Scholar
  83. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Silverstone, R. (2005). The sociology of mediation and communication. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stalder, F. (2006). Manuel Castells: The theory of the network society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  86. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you: Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture and Society, 31(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197.Google Scholar
  88. van Zoonen, L., et al. (2017). ‘Seeing more than you think’: A ‘data walk’ in the Smart City. In S. Hussey (Ed.), Public engagement with the smart city. Carleton, Australia: Bang the Table.Google Scholar
  89. Veltri, G. (2017). Big data is not only about data. Big Data & Society, 4(1).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations