Advertisement

Everyday Lives of Audiences in a Future Europe: Tracing Emerging Issues from Scenarios to Experiences in 2030

  • Brita Ytre-Arne
  • Inês Amaral
  • Niklas Alexander Chimirri
  • Miguel Vicente-Mariño
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter considers the scenarios from the previous chapter, and asks what futures they envision for audiences, across generations, and in the context of a changing Europe, towards 2030. Our discussion emphasizes the challenges of conceptualizing agentic capabilities of audience experiences that are yet to unfold in the trans-media environment of the future. As these phenomena are yet unavailable for empirical research, we apply the foresight methodology technique of story building to advance our discussion. This enables us to reflect upon dilemmas in everyday lives of audiences across generations in 2030, utilizing the scenarios to pinpoint diverging challenges and opportunities.

References

  1. Adams, P. C., & Jansson, A. (2012). Communication geography: A bridge between disciplines. Communication Theory, 22(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 11–22). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  3. Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, M., & Petley, J. (1998). Ill effects: The media/violence debate. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, A., & Marsh, J. (Eds.). (2013). Children’s virtual play worlds: Culture, learning and participation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Carpentier, N. (2011). The concept of participation: If they have access and interact, do they really participate? Communication Management Quarterly, 21, 13–36.Google Scholar
  9. Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chermack, T. J., van der Merwe, L., & Lynham, S. A. (2007). Exploring the relationship between scenario planning and perceptions of strategic conversation quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(3), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chimirri, N. A. (2014). Investigating media artifacts with children: Conceptualizing a collaborative exploration of the sociomaterial conduct of everyday life. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costall, A., & Dreier, O. (Eds.). (2006). Doing things with things: The design and use of everyday objects. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Couldry, N. (2013). A necessary disenchantment. Myth, agency and justice in a digital world. Inaugural lecture. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  15. Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2010). Media consumption and public engagement. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahlgren, P., & Álvares, C. (2013). Political participation in an age of mediatisation: Towards a new research agenda. Javnost, 20(2), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2016). After the excitement: An introduction to the work of CEDAR. Participations, 13(1), 280–288.Google Scholar
  18. Dreier, O. (2011). Personality and the conduct of everyday life. Nordic Psychology, 63(2), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellingsæter, A. L., & Leira, A. (Eds.). (2006). Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, T., & Loogma, K. (2009). Constructing futures: A social constructionist perspective on foresight methodology. Futures, 41(2), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Funk, S., Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2016). Critical media literacy as transformative pedagogy. In M. N. Yildiz & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 1–30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, A. (2003). Research practice for cultural studies. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for contemporary cultural studies (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  25. Hasse, C. (2013). Artefacts that talk: Mediating technologies as multistable signs and tools. Subjectivity, 6(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holzkamp, K. (2013). Basic concepts of critical psychology. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject. Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 19–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Huber, L., Watson, C., Roberto, K. A., & Walkder, B. A. (2017). Aging in intra- and intergenerational contexts: The family technologist. In S. Kwon (Ed.), Gerontechnology: Research, practice, and principles in the field of technology and aging (pp. 57–90). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Ichiguchi, T., & Yokoo, Y. (2009). Regional foresight scenarios in Germany-IT and the media in Baden-Württemberg in 2020. NISTEP Science & Technology Foresight Center.Google Scholar
  29. Islam, S. R., Kwak, D., Kabir, M. H., Hossain, M., & Kwak, K. S. (2015). The internet of things for health care: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 3, 678–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jansson, A. (2013). Mediatization and social space: Reconstructing mediatization for the transmedia age. Communication Theory, 23(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Karlsen, F., & Syvertsen, T. (2017). You can’t smell roses online. Intruding media and reverse domestication. Nordicom Review, 37, 25–39.Google Scholar
  33. Kaun, A., Møller Hartley, J., & Juzefovičs, J. (2016). In search of the invisible (audiences). Participations, 13(1), 334–348.Google Scholar
  34. Kildal, N., & Kuhnle, S. (Eds.). (2005). Normative foundations of the welfare state: The Nordic experience. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Lenhart, A. (2017). In the midst of a coming elder care shortage, the case for robot caregivers. Retrieved from www.slate.com/blogs/better_life_lab/2017/11/21/robot_caregivers_why_more_americans_think_robots_could_do_as_well_as_people.html.
  36. Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
  37. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 1(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Livingstone, S. M. (2013). The participation paradigm in audience research. The Communication Review, 16(1–2), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Greene, J. (2016). The class. Living and learning in the digital age. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lüders, M., & Brandtzæg, P. B. (2017). ‘My children tell me it’s so simple’: A mixed-methods approach to understand older non-users’ perceptions of social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19(2), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lupton, D. (Ed.). (2017). Self-tracking, health and medicine: Sociological perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The Internet of Toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY.Google Scholar
  45. Murero, M. (2013). The internet and health care: Theory, research, and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2014). Children’s use of online technologies in Europe: A review of the European evidence base (Rev. ed.). London: EU Kids Online.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, R. (2008). Foresight methodology. In The handbook of technology foresight. Concepts and practice (pp. 44–88). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Rettberg, J. (2016). Seeing ourselves through technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Saariketo, M. (2014). Imagining alternative agency in techno-society: Outlining the basis of critical technology education. In L. Kramp, N. Carpentier, A. Hepp, I. Tomanić Trivundža, H. Nieminen, R. Kunelius, et al. (Eds.), Media practice and everyday agency in Europe (pp. 129–138). Bremen: Edition Lumière.Google Scholar
  50. Sandvik, K., Thorhauge, A. M., & Valtysson, B. (Eds.). (2016). The media and the mundane: Communication across media in everyday life (pp. 59–75). Gothenburg: Nordicom. Google Scholar
  51. Saritas, O. (2013). Systemic foresight methodology. Science, technology and innovation policy for the future (pp. 83–117). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Schrøder, K., Drotner, K., Kline, S., & Murray, C. (2003). Researching audiences. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  54. Scolari, C. A. (2009). Transmedia storytelling: Implicit consumers, narrative worlds, and branding in contemporary media production. International Journal of Communication, 3, 586–606.Google Scholar
  55. Silva, B. M., Rodrigues, J. J., Canelo, F., Lopes, I. C., & Zhou, L. (2013). A data encryption solution for mobile health apps in cooperation environments. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4).Google Scholar
  56. Silverstone, R. (1992). Consuming technologies. Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  59. Vittadini, N. (2014). Generations and media: The social construction of generational identity and differences. In N. Carpentier, K. Schrøder, & L. Hallett (Eds.), Audience transformations. Shifting audience positions in late modernity (pp. 65–81). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Winner, L. (2007). Is there a right to shape technology? Argumentos de Razón Técnica, 10, 199–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brita Ytre-Arne
    • 1
  • Inês Amaral
    • 2
  • Niklas Alexander Chimirri
    • 3
  • Miguel Vicente-Mariño
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.Department of People and TechnologyRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Jurídicas y de la ComunicaciónUniversidad de ValladolidSegoviaSpain

Personalised recommendations