Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Based on participant-driven media use tracking and self-reflexive media use Vlogs, this article explores how young adult media users make sense of their user agency vis-à-vis algorithms in digital media and how they try actualizing it through reflexive and mundane enactments of algorithmic systems. The article proposes to adapt the concept of ‘small acts of engagement’ to grasp the productive and agentic potentials of how users enact algorithms purposively in daily media use. By engaging research participants actively in reflections to better understand, and possibly respond to the influence of algorithmic power in daily media use, the study unfolds common boundaries of users’ reflexive capabilities, showing how exercising user agency in a datafied age is increasingly complex and prospective, yet not merely limited by algorithmic power. As a result, the article discusses the methodological implications and potentials of engaging media users in reflections and actions to shape their communicative agency, which might be a possible step towards mobilizing algorithmic literacy.

Keywords

algorithms everyday media use small acts of engagement user agency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bruns

(2019) Are Filter Bubbles Real? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bucher

(2017) The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 30–44.

Cotter

(2019) Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society 21(4): 895–913.

Couldry

Fotopoulou

Dickens

(2016) Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world. The British Journal of Sociology 67(1): 118–137.

Couldry

Hepp

(2017) The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Crawford

(2021) The Atlas of AI. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eslami

Rickman

Vaccaro

, et al. (2015) I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul Republic of Korea 153–162. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556.

Eubanks

(2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.

Gillespie

(2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: T

Gillespie

Boczkowski

Foot

(eds) Media Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 167–194. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0009.

10.

Gran

A-B

Booth

Bucher

(2020) To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society 24: 1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124.

11.

Hutchinson

(2021) Digital intermediation: Unseen infrastructures for cultural production. New Media & Society: 146144482110402. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211040247.

12.

Kennedy

(2018) Living with data: Aligning data studies and data activism through a focus on everyday experiences of datafication. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy 1, ISSN 0168-275X.18–30.

13.

Livingstone

(2019) Audiences in an Age of datafication: Critical questions for Media research. Television & New Media 20(2): 170–183.

14.

Lomborg

Kapsch

(2020) Decoding algorithms. Media. Culture & Society 42(5): 745–761.

15.

Markham

Stavrova

Schlüter

(2019) Netflix, imagined affordances, and the illusion of control. In: T

Plothe

Buck

(eds) Netflix at the Nexus. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 29–46.

16.

Markham

(2019) Critical pedagogy as a response to datafication. Qualitative Inquiry 25(8): 754–760.

17.

Noble

(2018) Algorithms of Oppression. New York, NY: New York University Press.

18.

Pasquale

(2015) The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

19.

Picone

Kleut

Pavlíčková

, et al. (2019) Small acts of engagement: Reconnecting productive audience practices with everyday agency. New Media & Society 21(9): 2010–2028.

20.

Seaver

(2019) Knowing algorithms. In digitalSTS: A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691190600-028

21.

Siles

Segura-Castillo

Solís

, et al. (2020) Folk theories of algorithmic recommendations on Spotify: Enacting data assemblages in the global south. Big Data & Society 7(1): 205395172092337.

22.

Swart

(2021) Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social Media + Society 7(2): 205630512110088.

23.

Tiidenberg

Markham

Pereira

, et al. (2017) “I’m an addict” and other sensemaking devices. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society - #SMSociety17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097307

24.

van Dijck

Poell

de Waal

(2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World New York, NY: Oxford University Press .

25.

Velkova

Kaun

(2019) Algorithmic resistance: Media practices and the politics of repair. Information, Communication & Society 24(4): 523–540.

26.

Ytre-Arne

Das

(2020) Audiences’ communicative agency in a datafied Age: Interpretative, relational and increasingly prospective. Communication Theory 0(C): 1–19.

27.

Ytre-Arne

Moe

(2021). Folk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society, 43(5), 807–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720972314

Exploring user agency and small acts of algorithm engagement in everyday media use

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References