The power of the individual voice: interrogating continuity at a time when the open communication of research is disrupted by unruly speakers and publics

ReferencesReferences

• Abidin, C. (2018). Internet celebrity: Understanding fame online. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2014). Experts, activists, and democratic politics: Are electorates self-educating? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Albarran, A. B. (2016). The media economy. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Applewhite, A., Evans, T., & Frothingham, A. (2003). And I quote: The definitive collection of quotes, sayings, and jokes for the contemporary speechmaker, revised edition. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). (2019). Digital platforms inquiry: Final report. Canberra: ACT.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. E. (2018). Deliberative democracy: An introduction. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2016). Online news, civic awareness, and engagement in civic and political life. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1840–1856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S., Chen, K., & Kahane, D. (2020). Mobilizing mini-publics: The causal impact of deliberation on civic engagement using panel data. Politics,40(4), 460–476.
   Google Scholar
• Brewster, C., Croucher, R., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. (2007). Collective and individual voice: Convergence in Europe? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1246–1262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brint, S. (2020). In an age of experts: The changing roles of professionals in politics and public life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The aNNalS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2012). Deliberation and mass democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 52–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S., & Gastil, J. (2020). Deliberation, democracy, and the digital landscape. Political Studies, 69(1), 3–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, K. (2020). How deliberative designs empower citizens’ voices: A case study on Ghana’s deliberative poll on agriculture and the environment. Public Understanding of Science, 0963662520966742. doi:10.1177/0963662520966742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, B., & Forshaw, J. (2009). Why does E=mc2? (And why should we care?). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
   Google Scholar
• da Conceição-heldt, E., & Meunier, S. (2014). Speaking with a single voice: Internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 961–979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2002). In search of the talkative public: Media, deliberative democracy and civic culture. Javnost-The Public, 9(3), 5–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2012). Public intellectuals, online media, and public spheres: Current realignments. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25(4), 95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2013). The political web: Media, participation and alternative democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis, J. (2018). Beyond slacktivism: Political participation on social media. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Devaney, L., Brereton, P., Torney, D., Coleman, M., Boussalis, C., & Coan, T. G. (2020). Environmental literacy and deliberative democracy: A content analysis of written submissions to the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on climate change. Climatic Change, 162(4), 1965–1984..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiFranzo, D., & Gloria-Garcia, K. (2017). Filter bubbles and fake news. XRDS: Crossroads, the ACM Magazine for Students, 23(3), 32–35.
   Google Scholar
• Drezner, D. W. (2017). The ideas industry. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, L. (2001). Mediapolitik: How the mass media have transformed world politics. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eldridge, J. (2000). The contribution of the Glasgow Media Group to the study of television and print journalism. Journalism Studies, 1(1), 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Elshtain, J. B. (2014). Why public intellectuals. The Wilson Quarterly, 38(1), 76–88.
   Google Scholar
• Farkas, J., & Schou, J. (2019). Post-truth, fake news and democracy: Mapping the politics of falsehood. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Flew, T., & Wilding, D. (2020). The turn to regulation in digital communication: The ACCC’s digital platforms inquiry and Australian media policy. Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), 48–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C. (2013). Social media and capitalism. In T. Olsson (Ed.), Producing the internet: Critical perspectives of social media (pp. 25–44). Göteborg: Nordicom.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Spreadable Media: How audiences create value and meaning in a networked economy. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 109–127). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Green, L. (2020). Confident, capable and world changing: Teenagers and digital citizenship. Communication Research & Practice, 6(1), 6–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms, trans.William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halavais, A. (2017). Search engine society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, C. (2018, January 30). The cult of Mary Beard: How a late-blossoming classics don became Britain’s most beloved intellectual. Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/30/mary-beard-the-cult-of
   Google Scholar
• Holton, A. E., Coddington, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013). Whose news? Whose values? Citizen journalism and journalistic values through the lens of content creators and consumers. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 720–737.
   Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals. New York: The Noonday Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ju, A., Jeong, S. H., & Chyi, H. I. (2014). Will social media save newspapers? Examining the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter as news platforms. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühne, R. W. (2019, September 2). Climate change: The science behind Greta thunberg and fridays for future. viXra.doi:10.31219/osf.io/2n6kj.
   Google Scholar
• Küng, L. (2015). Innovators in digital news. London: I.B. Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton. (2018, November 21). An audacious new plan will make all science free. Can it work? New Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032050-300-an-audacious-new-plan-will-make-all-science-free-can-it-work/
   Google Scholar
• Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., … Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le, V. T. (2018). Two stories: The emergence of the Vietnamese social media. Media International Australia, 168(1), 93–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, V. M., Sorenson, D., Henchion, M., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Social capital and knowledge sharing performance of learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 570–579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsk, D., Kerkmann, F., Rümmele, S., & Sünkler, S. (2018). An empirical investigation on search engine ad disclosure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3), 420–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on Television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. (2018). How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 2053951718786314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandiberg, M. (Ed.). (2012). The social media reader. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McChesney, R. W. (2016). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: New Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. (2018). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (2016). The agenda-setting function of mass media. In D. Protess & M. E. McCombs (Eds.), Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking(pp. 17–26). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, S., & Tenove, C. (2020). Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly. Advance online publication.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920938143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meraz, S. (2009). Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 14(3), 682–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milman, O., & Smith, D. (2019, September 19). Listen to the scientists’: Greta Thunberg urges Congress to take action. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/18/greta-thunberg-testimony-congress-climate-change-action
   Google Scholar
• Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2013). Urban poverty in the global south: Scale and nature. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munson, S. A., & Resnick, P. (2010, April). Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1457–1466). Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, N. (2011). Mainstream media and the distribution of news in the age of social media (RISJ Reports). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas, D., Dobrowolski, T., Withey, R., Russell, C., Huntington, P., & Williams, P. (2003). Digital information consumers, players and purchasers: Information seeking behaviour in the new digital interactive environment.Aslib Proceedings, 55(1/2), 23–31.
   Google Scholar
• Nunziato, D. C. (2009). Virtual freedom: Net neutrality and free speech in the Internet age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2007). Audiences as media producers: Content analysis of 260 blogs. In M. Tremayne (Ed.), Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media (pp. 21–38). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Philo, G. (2014). The Glasgow media group reader, vol. II: Industry, economy, war and politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rigg, J. (2007). An everyday geography of the global south. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt-Beck, R., & Grill, C. (2020). From the living room to the meeting hall? Citizens’ political talk in the deliberative system. Political Communication, 37(6), 832–851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnell, K. C. F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18(2), 183–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwalbe, C. B., Silcock, B. W., & Candello, E. (2015). Gatecheckers at the visual news stream: A new model for classic gatekeeping theory. Journalism Practice, 9(4), 465–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smythe, D. W. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western Marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Somin, I. (2016). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, G. R. (2008). Free speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten lessons from the Twentieth Century. Pepperdine Law Review, 36, 273.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, J. L. (2019). Media audiences: Effects, users, institutions, and power. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thorson, K. (2014). Facing an uncertain reception: Young citizens and political interaction on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 203–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thunberg, G. (2019). No one is too small to make a difference: Illustrated edition. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Tsagkias, M., De Rijke, M., & Weerkamp, W. (2011, February). Linking online news and social media. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 565–574). Hong Kong: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vise, D. A., & Malseed, M. (2005). The Google story. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Warburton, N. (2009). Free speech: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, J. (1999). Elite opinion and media diffusion: Exploring environmental attitudes. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 4(3), 62–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar