Audiences, Towards 2030: Drivers, Scenarios and Horizons of the Future

  • Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
  • Gilda Seddighi
  • Ranjana Das
  • David Mathieu


The year 2030 seems to be beckoning a fair amount of prospection and critical speculation, with regard to the roles of ICTs in governance, public policy in a variety of sectors, and its interfaces with digital futures, with the arrival of Big Data. In the context of a book located theoretically within the long tradition of audience studies, we report in this chapter, from the unique third step of our foresight analysis—a horizon scanning exercise on the future of audiences in the year 2030, anticipating the ubiquity of connected technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT), amidst interfaces governed by algorithms, and the rise of datafication and its myriad consequences. Tracing a set of future scenarios along the dimensions of diverging responses to the IoT on the one hand, and the changing nature of institution-individual relationships on the other, we follow a set of 16 drivers of societal change, as audiences, users, and those who analyze them move towards 2030. We conclude, by drawing attention to media and data literacies as fundamentally crucial for audience agency in the futures we envisage.


  1. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AIOTI. (2017). About AIOTI. Retrieved at
  3. Andersen, J. G. (2012). Welfare states and welfare state theory. Aalborg: Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies (CCWS), Department of Political Science, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  4. Andrejevic, M. (2009). Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of user-generated labor. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 406–423). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.Google Scholar
  5. Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment & Urbanization, 13(2), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton, K. (1999). That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFID Journal, June 22.Google Scholar
  7. Askanius, T., & Uldam, J. (2011). Online social media for radical politics: Climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(1–2), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Athique, A. (2016). Transnational audiences: Media reception on a global scale. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bachen, C., Raphael, C., Lynn, K. M., McKee, K., & Philippi, J. (2008). Civic engagement, pedagogy, and information technology on web sites for youth. Political Communication, 25(3), 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bakardjieva, M., & Gehl, R. (2017). Critical approaches to communication technology—The past five years. Annals of International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  12. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holoquist, Eds., and V. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  13. Baldersheim, H., & Keating, M. (2015). Small states in the modern world: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barassi, V., & Trere, E. (2012). Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0. Deconstructing theoretical assumptions through practice. New Media and Society, 14(8), 1269–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bechmann, A. (2010). Around me: Relevance and exploitation in the age of cloud services and location positioning. Paper presentation at Internet research 11.0 (AOIR), Gothenburg, Sweden, 22 October.Google Scholar
  16. Bechmann, A., & Lomborg, S. (2012). Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society, 15(5), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(November), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Benessia, A., & Guimarães Pereira, A. (2015). The dream of the internet of things: Do we really want, can and need to be smart? In A. Guimarães Pereira & S. Funtowicz (Eds.), Science, philosophy and sustainability: The end of the Cartesian dream (pp. 78–99). Routledge Explorations in Sustainability and Governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action. Information, Communication and Society, 14(6), 770–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective actions: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Journal of Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 736–768.Google Scholar
  21. Bird, E. (2011). Are we all produsers now?: Convergence and media audience practices. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Boucher, P., Nascimento, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2014). Ethics dialogues (JRC Science and Policy Reports). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Braun, D., & Giraud, O. (2004). Models of citizenship and social democratic policies. In D. Braun & O. Giraud (Eds.), Social democratic party policies in contemporary Europe (pp. 43–65). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Burkart, P., & Christensen, M. (2013). Geopolitics and the popular. Popular Communication, 11(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Calhoun, C. (2010). The public sphere in the field of power. Social Science History, 34(2), 301–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Calhoun, C. (2011). Civil society and the public sphere. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford handbooks in politics & international relations (pp. 311–323). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195398571.Google Scholar
  31. Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volume 1: The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Cavoukian, A. & Weiss, J. (2012). Privacy by design and user interfaces: Emerging design criteria—Keep it user centric. Retrieved from
  33. Chen, Y., Conroy, N.J., & Rubin, V.L. (2015, November). Misleading online content: Recognizing clickbait as false news. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection (pp. 15–19). ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Collins, R. (2002). Media and identity in contemporary Europe: Consequences of global convergence. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  35. Curvelo, P., Guimarães Pereira, A., Boucher, P., Breitteger, M., Ghezzi, A., Rizza, C., et al. (2014). The constitution of the hybrid world (JRC Science and Policy Reports). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  36. Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dahlgren, P. (2001). The public sphere and the net: Structure, space, and communication. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated Politics, Communications in the Future of Democracy (pp. 33–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Dahlgren, P. (2013). Online journalism and civic cosmopolitanism. Journalism Studies, 14(2), 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Das, R. (2017). Audiences: A decade of transformations—Reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture & Society.Google Scholar
  41. Das, R. & Ytre-Arne, B. (2017a). Critical, agentic and trans-media: Frameworks and findings from a foresight analysis exercise on audiences. European Journal of Communication.Google Scholar
  42. Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2017b). Audiences, towards 2030: Priorities for audience analysis. Guildford: CEDAR.Google Scholar
  43. Dolber, B. (2016). Blindspots and blurred lines: Dallas Smythe, the audience commodity, and the transformation of labor in the digital age. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 747–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Duarte, M. A. (2002). Dialogue, difference and multicultural public sphere. In A. Bailey & P. J. Smithka (Eds.), Community, diversity and difference: Implications for peace (pp. 33–44). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  45. Dutton, W. H. (2014). Putting things to work: social and policy challenges for the internet of things. info, 16(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
  46. Emmison, M., & Frow, J. (1998). Information technology as cultural capital. Australian Universities’ Review, 41(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
  47. Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. European Commission (2015). Time to unleash the potential of internet of things in Europe. Retrieved at
  49. European Commission (2016a). One year of Alliance for internet of things Innovation (AIOTI): What has been achieved and what’s next? Retrieved at
  50. European Commission (2016b). Staff working document: Advancing the internet of things in Europe. Retrieved at
  51. European Commission (2017a). The internet of things. Retrieved from
  52. European Commission (2017b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Building a European data economy. Retrieved at
  53. Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Feigenbaum, A., Frenzel, F., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Protest camps. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  55. Fletcher, D. (2015). Internet of things. In M. Blowers (Ed.), Evolution of Cyber Technologies and Operations to 2035 (pp. 19–32). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Fuchs, C. (2012). Dallas Smythe today—The Audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. Prolegomena to a digital labour theory of value. tripleC, 10(2), 692–740.Google Scholar
  58. Gajjala, R. (2011). Snapshots from sari trails: Cyborgs old and new. Social Identities, 17(3), 393–408. Scholar
  59. Garnham, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the economics of information. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Georgiou, M. (2006). Diaspora, identity and the media: Diasporic transnationalism and mediated spatialities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  61. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gleibs, I.H. (2016). Are all ‘research fields’ equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places. Behavior Research Methods, 1–10.Google Scholar
  63. Goodier, H. (2012). BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The participation choice. Retrieved from
  64. Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable, and what we can do about it. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  65. Habermas, J. (1991 [1962]). The structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hamelink, C. (2001). The ethics of cyberspace. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  69. Hodkinson, P. (2002). Goth. Identity, style and subculture. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Howard, P. (2015). Pax Technica. How the internet of things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Giddens, A. (2000). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  72. Guimãraes Pereira, A., Benessia, A., & Curvelo, P. (2013). Agency in the internet of things (JRC Scientific and Policy Reports). European Commission. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  73. ICA (International Communication Association) (2013, June 16). Global communications and national policies: The return of the state? Preconference. London: University of Westminster.Google Scholar
  74. ITU (International Telecommunication Unit). (2012). Measuring the Information Society. Geneva: International Telecommunication Unit.Google Scholar
  75. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of coproduction. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The Co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Jin, J., Gubbi, J. & Marusic, S. (2013). An Information framework of creating a smart city through internet of things. IEEE, 2013. Retrieved from
  79. Kaiser, K. (1972). Transnational relations as a threat to the democratic process. In R. Keohane & J. Nye (Eds.), Transnational relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Keating, M. (2015). The political economy of small states in Europe. In H. Baldesheim & M. Keating (Eds.), Small states in the modern world: Vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 3–22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kiwan, D. (2010). Active citizenship: multiculturalism and mutual understanding. In B. Crick & A. Lockyer (Eds.), Active citizenship (pp. 100–111). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., & Vedel, T. (2016). Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media and Society, 18(9), 1807–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Landes, J. B. (1998). Feminism, the public and the private. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Lazonick, W. (2009). Globalization of the ICT labour force. In C. Avgerou, R. Mansell, D. Quah, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies (pp. 75–99). Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
  85. Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: From the mass audience to the interactive media user. In A. Valdivia (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to media research (pp. 337–359). Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  86. Livingstone, S. M., & Haddon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  87. Livingstone, S. M., & Lunt, P. K. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Livingstone, S. M., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lomborg, S., & Mortensen, M. (2017). Users across media: An introduction. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 343–351.Google Scholar
  90. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. M. (2013). Media studies’ fascination with the concept of the public sphere: Critical reflections and emerging debates. Media, Culture and Society, 35(1), 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lupton, D. (2014). Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion, 30(1), 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In M. K. Gold (Ed.) Debates in the digital humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from
  95. Micheletti, M. (2002). Consumer choice as political participation. Statsvetenskapling Tidskrift, 105(3), 218–234.Google Scholar
  96. Monaghan, A. & Lycett, M. (2013, October). Big data and humanitarian supply networks: Can Big Data give voice to the voiceless? Presented at Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2013 IEEE (pp. 432–437).Google Scholar
  97. Moraru, A. (2016). New Media Dimensions: Personalization of Politics. Revista de Administratie Publica si Politici Sociale, 16(1), 140.Google Scholar
  98. Morrison, A. (2014). Facebook and coaxed affordances. In A. Poletti & J. RakIdentity (Eds.), Technologies: Constructing the self online (pp. 112–131). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  99. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Google Scholar
  100. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010). Development theory (2nd ed.). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
  101. Nielsen, R. & Graves, L. (2017). ‘News you don’t believe’: Audience perspectives on fake news. Reuters Institute for Journalism Factsheet.Google Scholar
  102. OECD. (2012). Machine-to-machine communications: Connecting billions of devices. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 192. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  103. OECD. (2016). The Internet of Things: Seizing the benefits and addressing the challenges. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 252. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  104. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media Society, 4(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pavlíčková, T., & Kleut, J. (2016). Produsage as experience and interpretation. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 349–359.Google Scholar
  106. Ponzanesi, S., & Leurs, K. (2014). On digital crossings in Europe. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  107. Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ross, A. (2016). The European Union and its member states. In A. Peterson, I. Davies, E. Chong, T. Epstein, C. Peck, A. Ross, et al. (Eds.), Education, globalization and the nation (pp. 145–169). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  109. Rudman, R., & Bruwer, R. (2016). Defining Web 3.0: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Library, 34(1), 132–154. Scholar
  110. Santucci, G. (2014). Keynote speech. In Internet of things: Philosophy Conference, 3–5 July 2014, York, UK.Google Scholar
  111. Saritas, O., & Smith, J. E. (2011). The big picture—Trends, drivers, wild cards, discontinuities and weak signals. Futures, 43(3), 292–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Schrøder, K. C. (2011). Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge. Communication Management Quarterly, 18(6), 5–27.Google Scholar
  113. Schroeder, R. (2014). Big data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Society, 1(2).Google Scholar
  114. Skjølsvold, T. M. (2014). Back to the futures: Retrospecting the prospects of smart grid technology. Futures, 63, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Smythe, D. (1981). On the audience commodity and its work. Dependency road: Communications, capitalism, consciousness, and Canada (pp. 22–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  116. Sovacool, B., & Ramana, M. (2015). Back to the future: Small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(1), 96–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Steen, A. (2015). Small states and national elites in a neoliberal era. In Harald Baldersheim & Michael Keating (Eds.), Small States in the modern world. Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Chetlenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  118. Stehling, M., Finger, J., & Jorge, A. (2016). Comparative audience research: A review of cross-national and cross-media audience studies. Participations: Journal of Audiences and Reception Studies, 13(1), 321–333.Google Scholar
  119. Steinmetz, R., & Wivel, A. (2010). Introduction. In R. Steinmetz & A. Wivel (Eds.), Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 3–15). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  120. Stolpe, M. (2016). The internet of things: Opportunities and challenges for distributed data analysis. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter archive, 18(1), 15–34, June 2016. Retrieved at
  121. Strengers, Y. (2013). Smart energy technologies in everyday life: Smart utopia?. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sunstein, C. (2001). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Sutton, P. (2011). The concept of small states in the international political economy. The Round Table, 100(413), 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Syvertsen, T., Mjøs, O., Moe, H., & Enli, G. S. (2014). The media welfare state: Nordic media in the digital era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  125. Thussu, D. (1998). Localizing the global: Zee TV in India. In D. Thussu (Ed.), Electronic Empires—Global Media and Local Resistance (pp. 273–294). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  126. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  127. Tsatsou, P. (2016). Internet studies: Past, present and future directions. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  128. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379.Google Scholar
  129. van der Heijden, H. A. (2014). Handbook of political citizenship and social movements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  130. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197.Google Scholar
  131. van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario development: A typology of approaches. Think scenario, rethink education (pp. 69–84). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Veltri, G. (2017). Big data is not only about data. Big Data and Society, 4(1), Online First. Google Scholar
  134. Vesnić-Alujević, L., Guimãraes Pereira, A., & Breitteger, M. (2015). What smart grids tell about innovation in the EU: Hopes, visions and regulation. Energy Research and Social Science, 16–26.Google Scholar
  135. Vesnić-Alujević, L., Guimãraes Pereira, A., & Breitegger, M. (2016). ‘Do‐it‐yourself’ medicine? Imaginaries of health and healthcare through wearable sensors. Science and Engineering Ethics.Google Scholar
  136. Wilhelm, A. G. (1999). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? In B. N. Hague & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 154–177). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  137. Wollebæk, D., Selle, P., & Lorentzen, H. (2001). Frivillig innsats. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  138. Wooley, S., & Howard, P. (2016). Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents. Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4882–4890.Google Scholar
  139. Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (2002a). Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Woolgar, S. (2002b). After word? On some dynamics of duality interrogation. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5–6), 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Yen, N. Y., Zhang, C., Waluyo, A. B., & Park, J. J. (2015). Social media Services and Technologies. Introduction. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(14), 5007–5013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Youmans, W. L., & York, J. (2012). Social media and the activist toolkit: User agreements, corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zhao, L., & Nagurney, A. (2008). A network equilibrium framework for Internet advertising: Models, qualitative analysis, and algorithms. European Journal of Operations Research, 187, 456–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
    • 1
  • Gilda Seddighi
    • 2
  • Ranjana Das
    • 3
  • David Mathieu
    • 4
  1. 1.Zagreb UniversityZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Western Norway Research Institute (Vestlandsforsking)SogndalNorway
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  4. 4.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations