Using a social constructionist and structurational approach to technologies, the article looks at how designers (TV engineers) and users (TV content makers) interacted with each other in developing the “network production and broadcasting system” adopted by the Chinese broadcaster in covering the Beijing Olympics. Perceiving new technologies as resources fostered close cooperation between the two groups during the development stage and helped unleash the creative potential of the technology. In doing so, media agents elevated a technically elegant exercise to one that enhanced creativity in television making. Conversely, under a competing technology frame that prioritized safe broadcasting (during the live broadcasting of the Games), media makers exhibited caution and failed to tap into the full affordance of the technology. The article extends the discussion of “double articulation of technology” from a media reception context to a media production context. It shows how technology development and use within a broadcaster is a negotiation amongst relevant groups and between competing goals, namely, technological efficiency, creativity in TV making and safe broadcasting.
BarrettMWalshamG (1999) Electronic trading and work transformation in the London insurance market. Information Systems Research10(1): 1–22.
2.
BoczkowskiP (2005) Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BoudreauMRobeyD (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science16(1): 3–18.
4.
CareyJPavlikJ (1993) Videotex: The sword in the stone. In: PavlikJDennisE (ed.) Demystifying Media Technology: Readings from Freedom Forum Center. Mountainview, CA: Mayfield Publishing, pp.163–168.
5.
CottleSAshtonM (1999) From BBC newsroom to BBC newscentre: On changing technology and journalist practices. Convergence5(3): 22–43.
6.
DeSanctisGPooleMS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structurational theory. Organization Science5(1): 121–147.
7.
DiMaggioP (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology23(1): 263–287.
8.
EmirbayerMMischeA (1998) What is agency?American Journal of Sociology103(4): 962–1023.
9.
EntmanR (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
10.
GiddensA (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11.
GilbertC (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal48(5): 741–763.
12.
JiangH (2008) “‘Wu yu lun bi” he “you yu lun bi”: Lun Beijing aoyunhui de dianshi baodao” [The “truly exceptional” and the “comparable”: TV coverage of the Beijing Olympic Games]. Dianshi Yanjiu [TV Research] 11: 11–14.
13.
KaplanS (2008) Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science19(5): 729–752.
14.
KleinHKKleinmanDL (2002) The social constrution of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values27(1): 28–52.
15.
LeonardiP (2007) Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science18(5): 813–831.
16.
LeonardiP (2009) Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory19(3): 278–310.
17.
LievrouwLLivingstoneS (eds) (2006) The Handbook of New Media (Updated Student Edition). London: Sage.
18.
LivingstoneS (2007) On the material and the symbolic: Silverstone’s double articulation of research traditions in new media studies. New Media & Society9(1): 16–24.
19.
MarjoribanksT (2000) News Corporation, Technology and the Workplace: Global Strategies, Local Challenge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
MartinR (1997) New technology in Fleet Street: 1975–1980. In: BauerM (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.189–206.
21.
MartinSHansenK (1998) Newspapers of Record in a Digital Age: From Hot Type to Hot Link. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
22.
OrlikowskiW (1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organizational Science3(3): 398–427.
23.
OrlikowskiW (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science11(4): 404–428.
24.
PichaultF (1995) The management of politics in technically related organizational change. Organization Studies16(3): 449–476.
25.
PinchTJBijkerWE (1984) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science14(3): 399–441.
26.
RobeyDBoudreauM (1999) Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research10(2): 167–185.
27.
RobeyDSahayS (1996) Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in country government. Information Systems Research7(1): 93–110.
28.
SewellW (1992) A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology98(1): 1–29.
29.
SilverstoneR (1994) Television and Everyday Life. London & New York: Routledge.
30.
SingerJ (2006) Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the co-production of content in campaign 2004. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly83(2): 265–280.
31.
SmithA (1980) Newspapers and Democracy: International Essays on a Changing Medium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
SylvieGWitherspoonP (2002) Time, Change and the American Newspaper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
TuchmanG (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York Free Press.
34.
WilliamsR (1974 [2003]) Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London & New York: Routledge.
35.
ZackMMcKenneyJ (1995) Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science6(4): 394–422.
