Editorial

Four of the five empirical articles in this general issue of Communication Research and Practice address digital platforms in some way; an observation that reflects the ubiquitous nature of computer mediated communication (CMC) and how this encourages many communication scholars to locate themes related to CMC centre stage in their research programmes. Such is CMC’s appeal that at times it can seem like communication studies could be in danger of turning its back on face-to-face and other non-digital forms of communication. However, it can be argued that scholars’ preoccupation with user behaviour and the consequences of using digital communication technology simply reflects the fact that we live in a digital age.

Digital devices are taking an ever-increasing number of forms that allow them to be integrated into life in a plethora of ways, many of which were not anticipated when the description ‘computer mediated communication’ was first used. In fact, the simple computer has spawned a wide range of devices to the point where scholars like Carr (2020) now conclude that the conception of a computer is problematic, arguing that ‘the concept of computer has become too mercurial and ubiquitous, so that channel itself no longer distinguishes a CMC phenomenon’ (p. 11). This view gives us cause to ask whether the distinction between computer mediated and non-mediated communication is now too simplistic or vague to capture the experience of communicating in contemporary societies where most social activities are either mediated by digital technology or could be (See Yao & Ling, 2020). It may be time to not only retire the term ‘computer’ and re-theorise CMC (Carr, 2020) but also to reconsider the way we define and present communication in introductory communication courses to ensure that the discipline’s foundational teaching captures the way digital technologies and non-mediated behaviour are entanged in communication acts and events at a processual level (Flanagin, 2020). One reason why a reconsideration of communication concepts and theories may be of value is that contemporary communication incorporates a wide range of formats that did not exist last century when many of the discipline’s defining concepts and theories emerged. Their core assumptions, by pre-dating the digital age, may make them less applicable today. How, for example, do 20^th Century network theories accommodate the omnipresent social media in society today and the degree to which social media enable us to be ever-present in other people’s lives?

As Merchant (2016) concludes:

This may be the brave new world that we have created, but it remains under theorised and only partially researched. We do not yet have a full enough picture of contemporary social networks, partly because they’re inherently promiscuous but also because they’re based on new or emerging practices. I suggest that these practices are best seen as part of an assemblage, an ongoing flow of lived experience, attitude, and belief, marked only by the trace of textual threads that meander across multiple spaces and sites both on and off line (Merchant, 2016, p. 10).

This brave new world includes practices like online gaming, live streaming, virtual gifting and multiple online social networking opportunities; all topics addressed in this issue.

The first article (Thomson, Thomas, & Irvine, 2021) presents the findings of an analysis of the unit outlines of entry-level communication courses in Australian universities and a national survey of those teaching these units to see how they are supported. The findings provide a strong foundation for reflecting on how well these courses are able to support the link between communication and employability. The findings also provide a basis for discussing whether introductory communication and media studies need to be integrated in order for communication education to prepare students for today’s digitally supported workplace communication processes and practices. While not primarily focusing on mediated communication, Thomson et al. (2021) propose that digital contexts demand appropriate communication literacies to ensure people can work productively. Given that digital contexts are demanding increasingly sophisticated understandings so users can critically assess the content they provide, this proposal will be widely endorsed by both communications scholars and employers.

By finding that logocentric forces are largely shaping what is taught in the introductory communication courses (units) and at the same time underlining the importance of digital literacy, Thomson et al. (2021) provides a useful platform to question how well these courses prepare students for digitally enhanced communication contexts.

The second article by Adam Ruch (2021) is rather intriguingly titled ‘Signifying nothing: the hyperreal politics of “apolitical games”’. Using critical discourse analysis techniques, Ruch examines several theses put forward by video game developers’ to support their claim that, despite their subject matter regularly including military action, law enforcement, and geopolitical conflicts, their games do not make political statements. The findings are used to highlight how reducing the scope of the term ‘political’ allows them to reframe videogames as a creative medium and obscure, and ultimately deny, the contribution of political ideology in their design.

The third article by Jackson and Thaker (2021) provides a provocative example of how social media can bring private action into public view and invite social commentary and shaming. Jackson and Thaker examine the communication surrounding the social media exposure of a personal encounter between consenting adults from the standpoint of crisis communication. Because a public sporting figure was involved in the controversial encounter, the analysis was able to be conducted from the unique angle of the crisis communication undertaken by sports fans. In doing so, the article extends Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007), which was originally developed to show how crisis communication can be used to protect an organisation’s reputation, into the area of athlete reputational crises (ARCs) and draws attention to fans as key agents in a crisis response. In this case, Jackson and Thaker show that fans not only took advantage of the range of social media to participate in the discussion but employed less well-practiced communicative strategies like expressions of disappointment and humour to soften the reputational impact. What was particularly interesting was that the application of these strategies across the various social media platforms showed relatively few differences but there were differences within the sub-rhetorical spaces.

The fourth article, ‘Virtual gift donation on live streaming apps: The moderating effect of social presence’, by Luc Chia-Shin Lin, employs the concepts of parasocial and social presence theory to explore the unique ecosystem that exists on a Chinese streaming platform that allows people to purchase gifts that are donated to live streamers. It does this by examining key relationships: those between viewers and those between viewers and streamers. The findings suggest that enjoyment, loyalty, and trust positively influence the virtual gift donation intention while confirming that social presence has an important mediating effect.

The fifth article by Sheau Wen Ong (2021) presents the findings from a content analysis that compared how six major Malaysian newspapers framed an issue related to no-smoking policy. Even though the analysis reveals the issue was generally treated positively, it uncovered differences between mainstream and alternative newspapers in terms of neutrality and balance and showed how a health issue can be (re)framed in ways that deflect attention away from the primary concern for personal wellness. In doing so, the article confronts policymakers with the need to consider carefully the danger of a partisan press when communicating about public health policy.

A book review by Kuehn (2021) completes this general issue. Kuehn examines ‘Instagram: Visual social media cultures’ by Leaver, Highfield and Abidin (2020) and concludes that this wide-ranging and readable text will appeal to audiences studying or just generally interested in digital cultures.

This issue provides a window on some of the diverse themes currently interesting Communication Research and Practice’s community of authors. There will be one further general issue in the current volume of Communication, Research and Practice (7–03), which will provide more evidence of the diversity of communication studies research. The final issue of this volume (7–04) is a special issue on health communication, ‘Chronic inequities, critical moments, and culturally-safe practices: Health communication for transformation. This timely issue is edited by Mary Simpson (University of Waikato), Kirstie McAllum and Stephanie Fox (Université de Montréal). Proposals for sepcial issues for volume 9 (2023) are now invited. Please contact the Editor if you would like more information about special issues in Communication Research and Practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)