Weizenbaum Library (Weizenbaum Institute)
Not a member yet
864 research outputs found
Sort by
Wie normativ ist die Kommunikationswissenschaft? Ein inhaltsanalytischer Vergleich deutscher und US-amerikanischer Fachzeitschriftenaufsätze
Get PDFResearch in communication studies is shaped by the structural conditions under which it is conducted—for example, the science system, societal expectations of science, and the media system of the respective country. The USA are often seen as a reference frame for the development of the German Communication Studies, but differ structurally from Germany in terms of its science, society, and media system. Therefore, the study at hand compares Germany with the USA and examines the extent to which such structures affect the normative ideas that authors from these countries express in their journal articles. The normativity of the articles is measured by the normative claims and concrete calls for action articulated in them towards different groups of addressees. Normative claims exist in two variants: they can evaluate a current condition or articulate a desirable condition for the future. To answer our research question “Does the normativity of communication studies, articulated in journal articles, differ between Germany and the USA?”, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of communication studies articles published between 1970 and 2014 in scientific journals of our subject. The period under study thus encompasses a period of older and more recent intensive upheavals in society, science, and media systems (e.g., changing values, dualization of European broadcasting systems, digitalization), which challenge the working conditions and research subjects of communication scholars and are therefore likely to evoke normative claims. Given our interest in the normative statements of German and US-American communication scholars, we selected articles with at least one author with German affiliation from three German journals (German sample) and articles with at least one author with US affiliation from the 20 international journals (US sample). This results in a sample of 326 articles (n German = 61, n US = 265), in which 3233 normative claims (n German = 691, n US = 2542) were identified. For each normative claim, the content, the addressed subject and object as well as calls of action, the type of normative claim and the mentioned research field were coded by 12 communication researchers. The results confirm the strong normative influence of both German and US-American communication studies: almost nine out of ten articles contain normative claims. Regarding further formal indicators the two countries hardly differ: In both German and US-American articles desirable conditions for the future outweigh evaluations of current conditions. The majority of the authors themselves take a normative position instead of citing statements by other authors. Only about every third normative claim in the articles of both countries names a subject that is supposed to create the desirable state, every fifth claim addresses an object that is supposed to profit from this state, and every third claim is connected with a recommendation for These findings do not point to a different degree of normativity, but clearly indicate different foci of normativity: The normative claims and calls for action in the German articles focus strongly on media and journalism as main research subjects of the discipline. The US-American articles, on the other hand, focus strongly on successful social coexistence, thus pointing more beyond the discipline’s main subject, and appeal more often to the responsibility of individual actors. The results indicate that structural differences—also conveyed through the subjects of research—decisively shape the normative ideas that guide communication scholars and are expressed by them. The study thus raises awareness of the normative character of communication studies and contributes to a better self-understanding of the The present study extends preliminary work on the normativity of communication studies in several respects: Firstly, the proposed instrument of normative claims and call for action provides an opportunity to make normativity visible independently from the concrete use of the terms “norms” and “values”—in scientific publications and beyond. Secondly, the methodological design developed for the present study enables not only systematic comparisons across individual scientific sub-areas or research subjects, but also between different academic cultures. Thirdly, the concept of manifestations of normativity makes an important contribution, which can serve the self-reflection of communication studies and its normativity: The comparison elucidates how strongly one’s scientific work is shaped by the surrounding structures. Which research topics are perceived as relevant and which normative positions are represented strongly depends on the national and cultural context in which communication scholars are scientifically socialized and work
The power of code. Women and the making of the digital world
Get PDFMost research on gender and digital communication centers on how women use digital media, how they participate online, or how they are treated in online forums and social media. This article, in contrast, approaches gender from a behind the screen perspective. How algorithms and platforms are created, designed, and maintained, the affordances they provide for users and how they govern the ways users communicate with each other, has a major impact on digital communication. However, it is mostly men who create these technologies. Our study approaches technologies as socio-cultural, departing from the concept of network media logic. Empirically, it is based on (1) the review of a diverse body of literature from the history of programming, professional sociology, and computer science and documents such as the diversity reports from tech giants, as well as on (2) 64 semi-structured expert interviews conducted with male and female programmers in seven countries over a time-period of four years. Results show that the gender gap continues to run deep. We report results in four dimensions: professional culture, pervasive stereotypes, lack of role models and typical career paths
Twitter Explorer: A Framework for Observing Twitter through Interactive Networks
Get PDFWe present an open-source interface for scientists to explore Twitter data through interactive network visualizations. Combining data collection, transformation and visualization in one easily accessible framework, the twitter explorer connects distant and close reading of Twitter data through the interactive exploration of interaction networks and semantic networks. By lowering the technological barriers of data-driven research, it aims to attract researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds and facilitates new perspectives in the thriving field of computational social science.This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 732942
Digital Public Activism and the Redefinition of Citizenship: The movement against the citizenship (amendment) act of India
Get PDFThis work has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no.: 16DII111, 16DII112, 16DII113, 16DII114, 16DII115, 16DII116, 16DII117 – „Deutsches Internet-Institut“
Intermediaries vs. States or Intermediaries and States: Democracy in the post-intermediation age
Get PDFThis work has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no.: 16DII111, 16DII112, 16DII113, 16DII114, 16DII115, 16DII116, 16DII117 – „Deutsches Internet-Institut“
Eine digitale Stadt für alle gestalten
Get PDFStädte und Landkreise haben eine Schlüsselrolle in der digitalen Transformation. Doch was heißt kommunale Selbstverwaltung im digitalen Zeitalter? Am Beispiel des Bündnisses Digitale Stadt in Berlin zeigt der Beitrag, wie unsere Städte nicht nur smart, sondern auch inklusiv und demokratisch werden können
Liability for AI. Public policy considerations
Get PDFLiability for AI is the subject of a lively debate. Whether new liability rules should be introduced or not and how these rules should be designed hinges on the function of liability rules. Mainly, they create incentives for risk control, varying with their requirements – especially negligence versus strict liability. In order to do so, they have to take into account who is actually able to exercise control. In scenarios where a clear allocation of risk control is no longer possible, social insurance might step in. This article discusses public policy considerations concerning liability for artificial intelligence (AI). It first outlines the major risks associated with current developments in information technology (IT) (1.). Second, the implications for liability law are discussed. Liability rules are seen conceptualized as an instrument for risk control (2.). Negligence liability and strict liability serve different purposes making strict liability the rule of choice for novel risks (3.). The key question is, however, who should be held liable (4.). Liability should follow risk control. In future scenarios where individual risk attribution is no longer feasible social insurance might be an alternative (5). Finally, the innovation function of liability rules is stressed, affirming that appropriate liability rules serve as a stimulus for innovation, not as an impediment (6.)
Data Governance Act Proposal
Get PDFThis Position Paper contains statements drafted by several Research Groups at the Weizenbaum Institute concerning the Data Governance Act (DGA) Proposal. Each statement is followed by a short explanation. The purpose of this Paper is to highlight a number of important aspects of the DGA Proposal and stimulate the debate around it with a special emphasis on the part that concerns regulation of data sharing services (Chapter III, DGA Proposal). The Paper touches upon a number of selected matters without the ambition to cover all the important issues the DGA legislation raises. The statements address the potential risks in creating a centralized architecture for data intermediaries, the problem of imposing a duty on data sharing services to offer data on a non-discriminatory basis, the role and expertise supervision authorities will need to assume and exercise and questions regarding the interface between the anticipated DGA and existing data protection law in the EU. The Paper includes a number of specific recommendations regarding the formulation of several DGA provisions, specifically in connection with its intersection points with the GDPR.This work has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no.: 16DII111, 16DII112, 16DII113, 16DII114, 16DII115, 16DII116, 16DII117 – „Deutsches Internet-Institut“
Understanding digitally networked action. A case study of #HomeToVote and the Irish abortion referendum 2018
Get PDFDigitally networked action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012) has become a prominent political reality. This article explores the evolution of digitally networked action, considering the Twitter hashtag #HomeToVote in 2018 as a relevant case. The case study features the return of Irish expatriates to their home country to vote in the referendum on abortion rights, since no postal votes were available to Irish citizens abroad. We investigated how actors participated in digitally networked action on Twitter, viewed from three perspectives: composition, diffusion, and dynamics. Through an @-mention network with 7,373 edges and 5,198 nodes, built on all original tweets (N = 33,927) about #HomeToVote, we interpreted the digitally networked action based on social interaction and information distribution between and beyond categorized subgroups of actors during four phases. The early phases of #HomeToVote are related to engagement and mobilization, while the latter phases are associated with experience sharing and solidarity declaration. Throughout the development of #HomeToVote, individuals and organizational actors show collective endeavors to promote digitally networked action, while media actors use Twitter to consistently depict moments of #HomeToVote. The findings suggest that #HomeToVote, as an organizationally enabled advocacy network, has a large political capacity to share communication linkages, facilitate flexible affiliations, and employ personalized engagement mechanisms
Toward a stronger theoretical grounding of computational communication science. How macro frameworks shape our research agendas
Get PDFComputational communication science (CCS) is embraced by many as a fruitful methodological approach to studying communication in the digital era. However, theoretical advances have not been considered equally important in CCS. Specifically, we observe an emphasis on mid-range and micro theories that misses a larger discussion on how macro-theoretical frameworks can serve CCS scholarship. With this article, we aim to stimulate such a discussion. Although macro frameworks might not point directly to specific questions and hypotheses, they shape our research through influencing which kinds of questions we ask, which kinds of hypotheses we formulate, and which methods we find adequate and useful. We showcase how three selected theoretical frameworks might advance CCS scholarship in this way: (1) complexity theory, (2) theories of the public sphere, and (3) mediatization theory. Using online protest as an example, we discuss how the focus (and the blind spots) of our research designs shifts with each framework.This work originated in the scope of the working group ‘Computational Social Science’, funded by the Center of Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) in Bochum, Germany. Work on this publication was also partly funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG,German Research Foundation) – project number 290045248 – SFB126