Research on New Media Economics That Makes Sense (and Hopefully Makes a Difference)

When proposing a research topic, start with

1) a real-world phenomenon:

 Start with what’s new (by that I mean “what’s unusual and thus worth looking at,” not “here comes another technology so let’s apply the same old theory.”) -- check industry news for inspiration;

Identify a "problem" (and imply you can solve it through research).

2) an economic concept that you find interesting and relevant (e.g., inferior vs. normal goods; market structure; media concentration; engagement): Go through our readings and PPT slides.

Then ask yourself:

Is this important? (Important to whom?)

Is your RQ answerable? (If you like hypotheses, test only counter-intuitive ones.)

What kind of data do you need? (Demand-side vs. supply-side data)

Where are they? (Try find them.)

Unit of analysis: Users, products, or news organizations

It's just that simple!

By next Tuesday (noon), post two plausible research topics or questions on the blog.

More on web 2.0, based on cutting-edge technology

Technology changes so fast in this time, and one of the main foci of the communication research focuses is the effect of technology developments towards individual communication patterns, like political or civic engagements or real participation. Honestly, what I believe about academic trend is ‘technology deterministic’ perspective. Even though I lamented the fact that I was moved easily by technology, not human, I cannot explain anything without the involvement of technology.

The involvement technology in our life means that technology itself forms the fundamental platform of life. As a researcher, I should realize that academic interests and academic papers should be concrete; it should not be vague or ambiguous. When I firstly dipped my feet into academic field, I was asked a lot about my research interest. I replied that “my research interest is new media.’ How I was naïve! As time went by, I asked myself “so what about new media?”, “why should I study this?” Luckily, my research interests became concrete and I became little bit clear (even though I need more improvement), about my research interests: “the effect of communication technology on political communication patterns, especially how new opinion leaders stimulate their neighbors to be engaged in political polarization.’

My research interests just followed what Gauntlett mentioned about new media studies at the early 2000. Of course, things have been changed significantly and research agenda suggested by Gauntlett became old fashioned and little bit abstract. What we have to do for the future of communication research is that we should find more on this basic agenda, of course based on the cutting-edge technology.

Look at our own navel

We are asking mass media to react quickly to technological innovations. We are asking traditional media to change the way things had been done and to include their former audience as a key component of the editorial process. We follow with passion the news industry’s innovations and failures, looking for particular cases of study that could shed light on the new digital environment.

However, in the middle of this turmoil, we are probably not taking the time to reflect upon our own craft as scholars. I agree with Gauntlett when he claims media researchers are in need to find innovative tools and theories in order to better explain the media reality brought upon us by the Web.

Journalism Schools in particular must carefully evaluate their role in two main areas: Curriculum and research. Are J-Schools contributing to create new professionals who can take advantage of the new media landscape and work in the digital world? Are they preserving fundamental elements of journalism when implementing changes? Are they teaching students how to use users’ input? Most importantly, are they implementing new technologies to do advanced research and to reach/engage students outside their campus physical space?

Technological trends such as MOCCs are creating universities in the virtual space that soon might start to erode old institutions.


P.D. I am reading the most recent book of Robert W. Gehl, “Reverse Engineering Social Media,” and I found these interesting quotes that I would like to share with you:

"Social media are the corporate response to the mass creativity, collaboration, and desires of networked peoples. It is a tacit admission by large media companies: when given a choice, people prefer content produced and recommended by themselves and their friends to that recommended by editorial authorities. They are leery of mass culture and globalized corporations, so they seek to create their own culture. They express political opinions and offer frank assessments of commodities, corporations, and states, and they openly share these opinions with their friends and colleagues…"

"Social media outlets are new media capitalism’s attempt to absorb and capture this explosion of user-generated content as objectified surplus value.. Social media also have to be understood as software engineered to privilege and enhance certain users while closing off others…"

"However, it is myopic to only talk about exploitation while ignoring the power of the new social movement," Robert W. Gehl (p.5-6).

Week 6 Reflections

David Gauntlett offers a thorough yet streamlined history of the web/internet, which in its creators eye was a space for collaboration and democracy, but was quickly usurped by capitalists with dollar signs in their eyes. He nicely explains that subsequent to the internet bubble popping, we began to see a read/write web, the adoption of blogs, hyperlinks, and creativity. I think he brings up several interesting points within his exposition.

I agree with Gauntlett that there needs to be nuanced, qualitative approaches to understanding the web as we see in the work of James Paul Gee, Henry Jenkins and Clay Shirky. As Jane Jacobs describes cities being living, breathing things in the Death and Life of Great American Cities, new communities, civilizations, ways of communicating are constantly being created and tested on the web.

It is difficult to fully understand the web through research that views its users and communities as specimen rather than equal. Gauntlett calls for, "the fetishisation of 'expert' readings of media texts is replaced with a focus on the everyday meanings produced by the diverse array of audience members, accompanied by an interest in new qualitative research techniques." I really like the idea of more research with not only "audiences" (who are producers too) but also the video, photo, graphics, text they create. 

 

What’s new about new media?

            New media is evolving. There is always a new media, and new media today might be old media tomorrow. What’s new? They are similar in some senses.

            

            Internet empowers people. Viewers become content providers because of easy access. Attention economy caught people’s attention to look at this new media—web, as if there is never such media to provide oceans of information, and it makes attention a scarce resource. If we look back at cable, DBS, and MSOs, which provided viewers multichannel, attention economy seems applied. Multichannel provided more information than broadcast. Each TV station competed for viewer’s attention. A remote is crucial. If the channel was not appealing, it lost viewers’ attention. Rating is a measure of attention, and rating determines advertising revenue. Isn’t it similar to the Internet? Websites compete for attention because attention represents advertising revenue. Click is the measure of attention, just like rating. In this sense, new media is not that new.

            Is new media research new or not? As Guantlett (2007) pointed out, traditional media is replaced with “long tail” of alternative media. Internet fundamentally changed the way in which we engage with media, that is, new media change media consumption behavior. In spite of new changes, Guantlett stated that the old part of new media research is to rework critical perspective, like power, hegemony, or polysemy, to fit new media context. In my opinion, critical perspective never grows old. Where there is media, there is power. The questions for critical researchers ask are how to empower people and how to resist hegemony. The new for the new media research is like how firm make more money in the changing media environment? What is the business model? Or how new technology reshapes the landscape of media? How new technology redefines the concept of market? How traditional theories apply to new media? 

            

“What the F*** is a Blog?”

There is much I agree with in Gauntlett’s two articles, particularly its emphases on the failure of much of media studies to adapt to a new reality brought about by the diffusion of the Internet and the web into daily social life. However, as a media studies student (a term that should not be used without specificity), specifically of information policy, I think there is also much to say about power dynamics that have been replicated on the web. So, whenever I think of Web 2.0, I find it useful to return to the fascinating paper by Arsenault and Castells (2008) that maps current macro-level dynamics on the web. There are two central conclusions here. The first is that “leading multi-national media conglomerates and diversified Internet/digital companies (i.e., Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Apple) have developed strategies to ensure that the Web 2.0 Internet environment reinforces rather than undermines existing power configurations” (710). The second, and the more nuanced of the two, is that these companies do not wield absolute power:

“User generated content and autonomous social action are now fundamental components of the global network of communication. As they recognize their market potential, global business networks are bringing these new networks of communication under their corporate control. Nonetheless, to be able to tap into this reservoir of active customers, they must respect the specific cultures of this new media. They should not excessively curtail free speech in social spaces. They must limit intrusions into user privacy. They ought to be tolerant of remix culture; and they must adapt their business models to the practice of multitasking and wirelessly distributed networks of communication” (744).

Admittedly, as I mentioned earlier, their approach is macro-level (more-or-less top-down), namely precisely what makes Gauntlett scoff with disapproval, as he articulates his measured, but ultimately optimistic view of the web’s potentials by focusing on users. Yes, his account doesn’t address things like net neutrality and its potential impact on innovation, data collection practices and surveillance which impact online self-expression, or the increasing commoditization of user-generated content by a handful of powerful companies, but he’s right that focus on media producers and consumers is important. He's also right that much of the old new media research is the same as old old media research. At the same time, I think new media research needs to take into account the power dynamics that shape the web as well as the points of resistance within it.

What’s new about new media? In his discussion of the presence of criminals and racists on the web, Gauntlett decries the blame on the Internet by comparing it to TV – it is just a medium and the people that are on it have little to do with it. This mistake answers the question: new media is a participatory site of human interaction to a much bigger extent than traditional media. Unsurprisingly, social media platforms are increasingly faced with questions regarding the negotiation of free speech and hate speech, questions that exist offline as well. In a sense, what’s new about new media is how blurred the boundaries between online and offline have become on it.

Finally, in Gauntlett’s spirit, I’d like to throw out a 2010 Wired article, about the death of Web 2.0 and the increasing dominance of applications on the Internet. Does this require us to rethink it all over again?