Must Read #2

Kozinets, R (2010): Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online

The importance of this book is, IMHO, comparable to the must read #1 by Hindman (2009): Perhaps not incredibly innovative but filling in a crucial gap regarding online research.

Kozinets seems to be the pioneer in discussing ethnography done online, and his brand new book is a clear, simple, step-by-step manual that systematises the core characteristics and particularities of researching internet use/consumer behaviour (K comes from marketing research). Thank you!

In one way, the book is a basic, general manual for empirical research:

What is ethnography -- a strand of anthropology, mix of methodologies to understand a culture or a social setting?

How to choose your method online -- whether a survey, journal, interview, social network analysis?

What are the steps of an netnography project -- Definitions of questions and social setting/topic to be researched; Community identification and selection; Community participant-observation, gathering of data; Analysis & interpretation; Writing up results, theoretical and/or policy implications?

What are the particularities of netnography vis-a-vis ethnography -- alteration of communication by the particular media used; anonymity; access & participatory ethos of online communities; 'autmatic' archiving of communication?

What are the ethical considerations and procedures -- are online communities public or private spaces; how to get consent for research (inform about the reseach, ; how to avoid harm for participants and how to portray data (degrees of concealment)?

What are the quality parameters of netnography -- degrees of coherence, rigour, literacy, groundedness, innovation, resonance, verisimilitude, reflexivity, praxis, intermix?

By being so basic, systematic and practical, the book demystifies online ethnography. Its wonderful core message is, really, that a lot of social science/ethnography data is mediated. Thus, online is just one -- albeit a very important, if not currently the most important -- domain, among others, with its particularities. But those special characteristics can and should be researched in a manner similar to any ethnographic project -- with ethical, reflective and contextual considerations.

Citizen 2.0: cross Arabian Sea

I'm preparing for a lecture/data gathering trip in India.
One stop will be in Bangalore, in this wonderful institute that combines research and advocacy re: the Internet: CIS.

In search for some possible research partners for the future, I compiled this short abstract that was meant to outline my interest in the question of participation:

The early and mid 1990s witnessed a surge of academic thinking and public debates around the democratizing power of the Internet. The most hopeful utopias of deliberative online communication and formation of active ‘subaltern counter-publics’ (Fraser 1992/1997) were countered with fears ranging from trivialization, fragmentation, even disappearance of widely and commonly shared issues, to viral distribution of non-democratic, ‘harmful’ content. Now the same debates are re-emerging once again in era that is witnessing the explosion of ‘social production’ in a multitude of digital platforms.The recent examples of the elections in two very different societies, the United States and Iran, provide just two cases where information production by non-professional individuals and loose associations, distributed via informal networks including social networking sites and microblogging, has played a major role in democratic processes.

A question remains: do social networks facilitate platforms for democratic debate and participation in our ‘post-broadcast’ democracies characterized by ‘a networked information economy’? And further, is or can there exist such a phenomenon as a ‘Citizen 2.0’ who actively participates in democratic processes (issue driven and/or local, regional, national, transnational) via digital media? So far academic scholarship has focused on theorization rather than empirical analyses, has tended to emphasise activities of social justice movements that are by default networked and proactive, and thus have ‘romanticised’ the participatory and democratizing nature of the Internet, web 2.0 and mobile communications (while most quantitative indicators tend to point towards concentrated and elite communication, and while digital divide still clearly exists). Needless to say, much of the hopeful theorization is European / Anglo-American, and there seems to be relatively little cultural sensitivity in grand visions of global public spheres.

My talk will not claim to provide answers to these paramount questions. Instead, I wish to raise more questions about (1) what should be researched about mediated democracy and citizenry in our time; what should we know? (2) How could we frame that research theoretically and conceptually? And (3) what kinds of methodological solutions might be useful in this context. Rather than presenting a comprehensive research agenda, I will suggest some ideas that would broadly connect to macro, meso and micro-level view of media, power and citizenship (c.f. Clegg 1989), and I will illustrate  those ideas with some empirical examples of my current pilot work for a planned multi-country study on the theme. I hope to provoke a lively discussion, or, rather, a brainstorming session amongst us who care about the possibility of Citizen 2.0.

Ouch. I should have been more specific, articulate, all that. Some magazine from Bangalore contacted me with a blunt question: You'll lecture here but are you seriously advocating the concept of  "Citizen 2.0" in a country where 3.7% of the population uses the Internet?

So I restate my research aim and interest here: I dislike utopias and big slogans (some described above). I'm interested in re-introducing the concept of citizenship in these debates, and the idea that it embeds the notion of participation. I'm interested in the totally different structural, socio-economic as well as policy  contexts of the US, India and Finland that have to do with people, emdia and participation vis-a-vis people's experiences of participation. 
Crazy or what, but I want policy studies to meet media ethnography, in a comparative context. 
I love policy studies but we know many of the (quantitative) constraints. At the same time, as convincingly argued in this online essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education, pol economy scholars look down on cult studies, often for a reason (every CS analysis seems to conclude that everything is a consequence of neo-liberal regime, as the sarcastic comment by, author of the essay Michael Bérubé, reads.) And we surely need to descriptively document practices of both "people" and different kinds of media organisations, to see the choices, and to reflect what might work and in which contexts.

I believe we need a multi-method, multi-theory approach if we want to theorise as well as impact the way we all see ourselves, and are seen, as citizens. When I've presented my research manifesto @CIS, in a few hours, I'll share the actual lecture & reactions.

Fortress Europe and Global Research

Recently, I've seen a couple of very attractive teaching and research job opportunities in something called "Global Media" or "Global Communication".  Also, my dear Alma Mater the University of Helsinki has just begun a new MA program on Media and Global Communication. 

Excellent. I'm sure no one can deny any longer that there's at least some transnational characteristics regarding most media -- not only in terms of production, content and consumption/participation, but in terms of ownership or even policy challenges and regulatory frameworks as well. Another curious phenomenon is that as I'm getting ready to teach a course on media and national identity there's really nothing very contemporary about written about it. The related books are dominated with titles that start with the G-word.

So it's great that scholars and universities are focusing on this. But.

I wonder how to put this diplomatically... A couple of years back, I was part of a team doing an overview study for the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation about communication research in the US. Having been used to the little clique that meets within the protective walls of the Fortress Europe I was amazed what a different research landscape emerged from our mapping of the situation the US.  No need for details here (well, the studies on media effects, you know... check out the report) but I also noted how US-centric the research is.

Wearing my European hat, easy for me say. Access to data (e.g., state-funded statistical bureaus, the European Audiovisual Observatory), to researchers/universities in other countries, cultural proximity, EU/European as a common topic... all make things easier on that side of the Atlantic. At the same time, the relative Anglo-American dominance in communication and media studies, at least for Northern Europe, had given me some glimpses of the US-based research. And thanks to America 'cultural imperialism' I felt I could analyse American talkshows and reality programmes fluidly, no problems.

But then today, here in Brooklyn, I realised what the European me had been missing... 

I just finished a part of a book review I'm coauthoring for a US-based academic journal. My task was to read a book by Danish scholars -- oh well: New Publics with/out Democracy.  A solid edited volume, interesting cases. But having become somewhat cross-Atlantic reading it I was suddenly transformed back to Finland, could even see in my mind's eye the seminar room where these texts and others would be presented and discussed. The point: I encountered something that I claim is the Nordic way of doing research and writing, and something in me recognised it immediately.  Can't deconstruct that in detail (yet), but will think about it more.

And I realised how culturally, well, narrow, my research competence is. It also dawned to me that we Europeans really lack analyses by North and South Americans colleagues, African, Asian and Oceanian researchers, about our contemporary media culture, structures, policy-making... The cultural competence is important, but oh how refreshing would it be to read analyses that looked at our fortress (and the national mini-fortresses within the big one) with a little bit of distance... We might learn tons! (Apologies to those scholars who are already working on this, but you are not many). 

So let's mix and match and get truly global -- Europeans (Westerners) have excelled in researching other cultures; it would be so important to learn more about ours through non-native ones, so much more possibilities for innovation. 

Second Lives. Rethinking Research on Public Service Media

Some time ago I attended an inspiring conference dealing with 'public service media (PSM), participation, partnership and media development'. It brought together scholars and some practitioners, too, mostly from Europe, to brainstorm about the future of PSM.

Sneaking into a working group well on its way, I entered just in time to hear the presenter say: "I need to begin by repeating what my distinguished colleagues have already said: I love PSB (public service broadcasting)!" He then went on dissecting dissecting the notion of the public sphere and suggesting several theoretical modifications.

United We Stand

As a European media scholar I recognize the discourse and the sense of camaraderie from numerous occasions. Such a sentiment of alliance between scholars and the institution of PSB has even said to have contributed to the academic popularity of hard core normative theoretical paradigm in Europe, as first laid out by Juergen Habermas (1962) in "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere". The idea of a necessity of a democratic public sphere was relevant in defending the public broadcasting ethos in the commercializing media markets in the late 1980s and 1990s.

I salute the principle above (demorcacy enhanced by a -- mediated -- public sphere). I honor any sense of true engagement in scholarship, as it's to rare indeed. I also understand that a scholarly commitment to the public service ideal is still going strong, prompted by the fierce competition for audiences, within a media market and across markets, both geographically speaking and in terms of different media.

As the former CEO of the Danish public broacaster (DR), Christian Nissen, has summed it up: mass markets do no longer exist; the socio-cultural climate is fragmented and individualised; and globalisation in the media landscape is a fact. (He talks about Europe but this surely applies to other parts of the world, too).

And, as for instance the Norwegian media scholar Trine Syvertsen has noted, audiences are no longer only citizens and consumers, but customers and players -- and content producers. The current economic situation has shown the fragility of commercial media, but hasn't freed more public money for public media. In this brave new word, PSB must radically rethink its mission when transforming itself into PSM.

In many (Western) European countries the PSB organisations have been in the forefront of digital development. While they led that bandwagon by developing infrastructure, that was all they got; there was little money left for proper, innovative content development. Also, the rights for old PSB institutions to be present in 'new' media platforms has been restricted in several countries, or at least fiercely debated in many others. (Such debate, initiated by commercial media, is going strong in Finland as we speak, coupled with the age old critique of the licence fee as the financing model, see a short example....)

At the same time, Karol Jakubowicz (one of the most prominent European public service scholar-practitioners) and other scholars and PSB practitioners have strongly argued that in order to survive, public service media need to mean public service broadcasting plus all the relevant platforms plus web2.0 (social media).

In the current stormy weather for PSM, a survival strategy, or two, is thus very much needed (whether in terms of policy support, popular support, content mission, other special remits...), and scholars can surely help in suggesting scenarios and providing empirical evidence (or counter-evidence) of related and affecting trends. But given the complexity of the challenges, I'm not sure that 'loving public service broadcasting' is the most fruitful starting point.

Love Needs Not to Be Blind

Loving public service is like loving democracy: the theories are plentiful, mostly beautiful (and necessary) but the reality is always more messy and contradictory. And it's those latter, concrete, empirical aspects (such as policy or financing questions; or institutional practices) that receive relatively little attention from European scholars, compared to the re-theorisation of the core idea.

(Although just learned about a conference addressing mainly the financing part, in CAMRI, University of Westminster, this Oct).

It might be useful for policy-oriented scholars or organisational analysts to expand the interesting research done so far about European regulatory models and approaches to PSB and new media, to map concrete explorations, experiences and innovative solutions outside the Fortress Europe.

But even more poignantly, the meager academic contribution is evident regarding the very re-definition of what we mean by public media. There are only very few truly alternative visions to the existing traditional, nation-bound, centralised, all-around, full-service institution. In other words, I have never heard one European scholar date to suggest that perhaps nation-bound, conventional PS model could at least partly be substituted with something else.

I had to move from Finland to the US to see this. I had always thought that the public media in the States (PBS, NPR) was a caricature of the European model; maybe alternative to commercial networks but exclusive and elitist. Ignorant me.

Despite the the immense commercialisation and concentration of the markets there are many, many interesting and vibrant examples of community and local old and new media. Some NYC-based journalists, working for one of the big weekly newsmagazines, recently told me they get their real news from their neighbourghood weekly newspaper. And as for the bigger institutions, especially NPR has been able to hang on and provide alternatives, also online.

It has be also understood that some media are no longer nation-bound but either local, or, issue-driven, or, transnational, borderless. BBC World or the regional Finnish YLE radio news are great endeavours but do not exactly cater represent diverse voices or new approaches for diverse audiences.

I have begun to think that maybe European big and stiff PSMs could learn something from the grassroots. And, to my surprise, I seem not to be the only one, as the European Parliament has begun to see the potential, wanting to revive community media to support European civil society (see also the summary of their study on the state of the art of community media in Europe). Now we need scholars for independent analyses and innovative suggestions (or at least, taking part in them).

Second Lives of Public Media Scholars

In sum: The idea endorsed by most by public media scholars and practitioners (and some policy makers) in Europe seem to be that public service organisations should become like the virtual world Second Life: a state-of-the-art, open source, (greatly) user-generated forum that entertains but educates and informs (and serves educational organisations, governments, non-profits), even may do some business.

But at the same time, the dominant discourses seem to indicate, this kind of PSM would still be a kind of an avatar to the existing PSB system, remit, policies, institutional structures, and so on.

Now it's the high time that public media scholars create new avatars, descend their ivory towers, leave the Habermasian bourgeois cafes and BBC fan clubs, and start to take roles of public intellectuals. Not only as lovers of PSB, but lovers of diverse 'counter-commercial' media. The adoration for public service cannot entail institutions but their mandates -- can those mandates be spread out, shared, networked and 'crowd-sourced' somehow? Or how to ensure true sustainability of the PS values of access to, and diversity of, mediated contents, and their unifying, engaging aspects?

The task will not be easy: As a prominent British PS scholar Georgina Born has demonstrated in her recent essay, there exists a certain declassement of academics vis-a-vis think tanks and consultancy businesses. In my mind, the only way to gain legitimacy is to provide fresh, new ideas and true (researched) alternatives. Some may even be wild scenarios. The important thing is, as my heroes the sociologists Pierre Bourdieu & Zygmunt Bauman have noted about the role of social sciences: it is already a great deed to show that alternatives exist to things that seem inevitable. In this case, both to the fully commercial media, and to the PSB as we knew it in Europe last century.

post 0.0

Welcome to challenge and rethink 'old' and 'new', public and private, global and local, production and reception, the past and the future, and.... of the media.

Lay opinions and fancy academic theories about the media are plentiful. Funnily enough, they often take quite a uniform, and black-and-white, form when presented in public discussions. We know all these stories or slogans: infotainment contents mean dumbing down of citizens, the internet means a new virtual public sphere, but blogging means the demise of traditional journalism... More nuanced and empirically tested ideas -- whether ethnographies on migrant populations' media use, or small town community journalism projects -- are more complex and perhaps thus not sexy enough to catch people's attention.

And still: the media matter in our lives in so many ways. They are big global business and central local sources of information. They (re)create certain discourses and thus potentially influence our ideas and knowledge base. They are circular and viral. They are everywhere. They connect and disconnect us; they foster understanding and compassion as well as fear and hatred. Thus, it is important to learn from different people, facts and figures, projects, experiments, regions, voices all kinds of different things the media can be and mean to us. Only then we see alternatives and can go beyond the slogans -- to envision opportunities for more connection, diversity, and understanding via the media.

My goal as a media researcher and teacher is to collect new, fresh, surprising, engaging voices, ideas, research results, experimental projects on contents, industry innovations and regulatory approaches, and so on. I want to take conventional ideas, ranging from public media to participation, the press, entertainment, community, web2.0 -- and even, yes, the media and democracy! -- and collect and compile additions by wise sources to the mainstream discussions.

This approach seems to be an obsession of mine: In my (published) doctoral dissertation for the University of Helsinki, I addressed the close history of Finnish television landscape and challenged 3 (albeit international) slogans circulating around: convergence of programming (between channels), tabloidization of (television) journalism, and emotionalization/entertainization of factual content. My conclusion: there is some truth in every fiction, but changes are not overly drastic or one-directional. And especially: certain shifts in media culture do not necessarily result in immediate socio-cultural or political catastrophies. Rigid moralistic claims and positions in public debates just might be more harmful than some trends in the media, if the goal is to work towards better media systems, contents and societies. If that is the case, then we need to understand what we need to know more of, and how to use some tendencies constructively, rather than condem them. More about my PhD research in 2 short posts, one in Finnish and one in English.

Recently, I've been very, very fortunate to continue my work as a scholar in two continents, at the McGannon Communication Center, Fordham University, New York, and University of Helsinki, the Swedish School of Social Science. I'm also collaborating with the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance at the Jamilia Millia Islamia university in New Delhi. It seems I'll be teaching in 2 if not all 3 of these places in the near future. And, as we all know, teaching means learning.

In addition, for the past 1+ years I worked for a project called the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere, at the Social Science Research Council (New York). Thanks to the SSRC, I got to know a little about collaborative reseach in the fields of media reform and media justice; I'll continue to work on that through a book project; and I hope to be able to assist in future efforts around a project on 'public media'.

But very concretely, thanks to the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation, I'm now able to dive into the world of slogans about and around the media, and:

• Develop this blog as a cumulative and collaborative resource site of posts, notes, ideas and comments;
• Based on this blog, develop research & teaching ideas / sites;
• Based on the blog, and simultaneously, develop a commentary book in Finnish to address some current national debates (also, to give them international perspectives); and, eventually and hopefully,
• Develop another publication in English.

Right now, this blog is what matters the most. May it be a forum of unlikely combinations of ideas, and a source of information and inspiration for others than the blogger herself, too. My goal is to create one proper post a week (and updates inbetween). Next week, it's all about researching public service media, globally. Stay tuned.

PS: Many thanks for this idea (a simultaneous blog&book project) to a wonderful documentary maker/theorist/anthropologist Amelia Bryne. See her blog/book project on rethinking documentaries.