1,351
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

From media technologies to mediated events: a different settlement between media studies and science and technology studies

ORCID Icon
Pages 1165-1180 | Received 06 Apr 2017, Accepted 21 Nov 2017, Published online: 22 Dec 2017

References

  • Allan, S. (2007). Citizen journalism and the rise of ‘mass self-communication’: Reporting the London bombings. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, 1(1), 1–20.
  • Ang, I. (1992). Living-room wars: New technologies, audience measurement and the tactics of television consumption. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 74–81). Hove: Psychology Press.
  • Badouard, R., Mabi, C., Mattozzi, A., Schubert, C., Sire, G., & Sørensen, E. (2016). STS and media studies: Alternative paths in different countries. TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 7(1), 109–128.
  • Bartlett, J., Reffin, J., Rumball, N., & Williamson, S. (2014). Anti-social media (pp. 1–51). Demos. Retrieved from http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/record/docs/2014/03/19/DEMOS_Anti-social_Media.pdf
  • Bauer, M. W., & Bucchi, M. (2007). Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. London: Routledge.
  • Bausinger, H. (1984). Media, technology and daily life. Media, Culture & Society, 6(4), 343–351.
  • Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Birkbak, A. (2013). From networked publics to issue publics: Reconsidering the public/private distinction in web science. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 24–32). New York, NY: ACM.
  • Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Boczkowski, P. J., & Siles, I. (2014). Step toward cosmopolitanism in the study of media technologies: Integrating scholarship on production, consumption, materiality and content. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 53–76). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Burnap, P., Williams, M. L., Sloan, L., Rana, O., Housley, W., Edwards, A., & Voss, A. (2014). Tweeting the terror: Modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1–14.
  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Corner, J., Richardson, K., & Fenton, N. (1990). Nuclear reactions: Form and response in ‘public issue’ television. New Barnet: John Libbey.
  • Couldry, N. (2003). Media rituals: A critical approach. London: Psychology Press.
  • Couldry, N. (2008). Actor network theory and media: Do they connect and on what terms? In A. Hepp, F. Krotz, S. Moores, & C. Winter (Eds.), Connectivity, networks and flows: Conceptualizing contemporary communications (pp. 93–110). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Dayan, D., & Katz, E. (1994). Media events. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Denver, CO: Alan Swallow.
  • Entwistle, J., & Slater, D. (2014). Reassembling the cultural. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(2), 161–177.
  • Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.
  • Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Gunaratnam, Y. (2003). Researching ‘race’ and ethnicity: Methods, knowledge and power. London: Sage.
  • Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.
  • Hemmingway, E. (2008). Into the newsroom: Exploring the digital production of regional television news. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Jiménez-Martínez, C. (2014). Disasters as media events: The rescue of the Chilean miners in national and global television. International Journal of Communication, 8, 24.
  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Law, J. (1986). The heterogeneity of texts. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 67–83). London: Springer.
  • Lewenstein, B. V. (1995a). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403–436.
  • Lewenstein, B. V. (1995b). Science and the media. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 343–360). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Lievrouw, L. A. (2014). Materiality and media in communication technology studies: An unfinished project. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 21–52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Livingstone, S. (2007). On the material and the symbolic: Silverstone’s double articulation of research traditions in new media studies. New Media & Society, 9(1), 16–24.
  • Livingstone, S., & Lievrouw, L. A. (2009). New media. London: Sage.
  • Markus, S., & Beate, O. (2016). Applying the actor–network theory in media studies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Marres, N. (2005). Issues spark a public into being. A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 208–217). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Marres, N., & Moats, D. (2015). Mapping controversies with social media: The case for symmetry. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 1–17.
  • Marres, N., & Rogers, R. (2008). Subsuming the ground: How local realities of the Fergana Valley, the Narmada dams and the BTC pipeline are put to use on the web. Economy and Society, 37(2), 251–281.
  • Marres, N., & Weltevrede, E. (2013). Scraping the social? Issues in real-time social research. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 313–335.
  • McEnery, T., McGlashan, M., & Love, R. (2015). Press and social media reaction to ideologically inspired murder: The case of Lee Rigby. Discourse & Communication, 9(2), 237–259.
  • Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 101–112.
  • Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Nelkin, D. (1974). The role of experts in a nuclear siting controversy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30(9), 29–36.
  • Nowotny, H., & Hirsch, H. (1980). The consequences of dissent: Sociological reflections on the controversy of the low dose effects. Research Policy, 9(3), 278–294.
  • Oswell, D. (2002). Television, childhood and the home: A history of the making of the child television audience in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Procter, R., Vis, F., Voss, A., & Guardian Interactive team. (2011, December 7). How riot rumours spread on Twitter. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2011/dec/07/london-riots-twitter
  • Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Said, E. W. (1997). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world (2nd ed.). London: Vintage Books.
  • Savransky, M. (2016). The adventure of relevance: An ethics of social inquiry. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. Hove: Psychology Press.
  • Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. Hove: Psychology Press.
  • Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 13–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Sørensen, E., & Schubert, C. (2016). Roads less travelled. Exploring new connections between media research and STS. Retrieved from http://dev.easst.net/article/roads-less-travelled-exploring-new-connections-between-media-research-and-sts/
  • Stengers, I. (2000). The invention of modern science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Suchman, L. (2014). Mediations and their others. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 129–137). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Thielmann, T., & Gendolla, P. (2013). Akteur-medien-theorie. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.
  • Turner, F. (2010). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart brand, the whole earth network, and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
  • van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Van Loon, J. (2007). Media technology: Critical perspectives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Wajcman, J., & Jones, P. K. (2012). Border communication: Media sociology and STS. Media, Culture & Society, 34(6), 673–690.
  • Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.