In this article, we propose a shift towards AI-driven methodologies in media production studies, encompassing data collection, processing, and visualisation. We highlight how online sources offer a valuable opportunity to understand contemporary trends and discourse around popular media. By focussing on serial dramas, we demonstrate that computational methods allow for the analysis of larger datasets, which enhances the validity of the results. However, we also uncover new challenges and complications arising from these methodological transformations. As a case study, we examine a dataset comprised of interviews with the Danish film and TV director and screenwriter Jonas Risvig and available material from his YouTube channel as data sources. From this example, we suggest that media production studies may incorporate even larger datasets from diverse online sources. We conclude that digital desktop production studies not only confirm existing knowledge but also provide novel insights into contemporary media production.
AggerholmNHansenKTWilleJI (2020) Production Design: Fra Process Til Udtryk. Samfundslitteratur.
2.
BarassiV (2024) Toward a theory of AI errors: making sense of hallucinations, catastrophic failures, and the fallacy of generative AI. Harvard Data Science Review■■■: ■■■. Special Issue 5. Available at: DOI: 10.1162/99608f92.ad8ebbd4 (accessed May 21 2025).
3.
BashirNDontiPCuffJ, et al. (2024) The climate and sustainability implications of generative AI. An MIT Exploration of Generative AI. DOI: 10.21428/e4baedd9.9070dfe7(accessed 29 March 2025).
4.
BerkowitzDALiuZ (2016) Studying news production: from process to meanings. In: PatersonCLeeDSahaA, et al. (eds) Advancing Media Production Research. Global Transformations in Media and Communication Research. Palgrave Macmillan, 68–78.
5.
BruunHFrandsenK (2022) Time and timing: a methodological perspective on production analysis. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies17(1): 84–97.
6.
CaldwellJT (2008) Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television. Duke University Press.
ChowP-S (2020) Ghost in the (Hollywood) machine: emergent applications of artificial intelligence in the film industry. NECSUS9(1): 193–214.
9.
DanesiM (2024) AI-Generated Popular Culture: A Semiotic Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-54752-2.
10.
de-Lima-SantosM-FCeronW (2022) Artificial intelligence in news media: current perceptions and future outlook. Journalism and Media3(1): 13–26.
11.
DoyleWRodaCR (2019) Introduction. In: RodaCRDoyleW (eds) Communication in the Era of Attention Scarcity. Palgrave Macmillan, 1–6. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20918-6.
12.
FaberG (2021) A framework to estimate emissions from virtual conferences. International Journal of Environmental Studies78(4): 608–623.
13.
FordJJainVWadhwaniK, et al. (2023) AI advertising: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research166: 114124.
14.
FrankfurtHG (2005) On Bullshit. Princeton University Press.
15.
GefenASaint-RaymondLVenturiniT (2021) AI for digital humanities and computational social sciences. In BraunschweigBGhallabM (eds) Reflections on Artificial Intelligence for Humanity. Springer, 191–202.
16.
GrootendorstM (2022) BERTopic: neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv: 2203.05794v1. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794.
HansenHB (2024) Instruktør Jonas Risvig: nye veje for serieproduktion or seriel narration. In: PhilipsenHHKHansenHB (eds). Populær Serialitet i en Dansk Arena: Fra Platforme til Medskabelse. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 161–178.
19.
HansenKT (2024a) No adjectives added to characters. Interview With Danish Director and Screenwriter Jonas Risvig. Link Campus University. IT, August. Available at. https://gemini.unilink.it/blog-entry-22/(accessed 22 Jan).
HansenKT (2025) Addressing Danish Young Adults Through YouTube: Knowledge Mining of Risvig’s Masterclass Through Microsoft Copilot. Link Campus University. IT, January. Available at. https://gemini.unilink.it/blog-entry-31/(accessed 30 June).
22.
HansenKTChristensenJR (2018) Local noir and local identity: Norskov and the spatial implications of branded content. In: HansenKTTurnbullSPeacockS (eds) European Television Crime Drama and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, 213–231.
23.
HansenKTReV (2024) Peripheral Locations in European TV Crime Series. Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
HicksMTHumphriesJSlaterJ (2024) ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology26(38): 38, (accessed 21 May).
25.
HonnibalMMontaniIvan LandeghemS, et al. (2020) Explosion/spaCy: v3.7.2: Fixes for APIs and Requirements (v3.7.2). Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1212303.
26.
JensenTE (2024) The Slalom method: how to zig-zag between digital methods and traditional methods in ethnography. Qualitative Research24(2): 229–248.
27.
JohnsonJMMimnoDTiltonL (eds) (2024) Computational Humanities. University of Minnesota Press.
KorzynskiPMazurekGKrzypkowskaP, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review11(3): 25–37.
31.
KruchtenNSeierAParmerC (2024) An interactive, open-source, and browser-based graphing library for Python (Version 5.24.1) [Computer software]. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14503524.
32.
ManovichL (2020) Cultural Analytics. The MIT Press.
33.
MayerV (2011) Below the Line: Producers and Production Studies in the New Television Economy. Duke University Press.
34.
MoatsD (2026) Quant & qual. In: MadsenAKMunkAK (eds). Handbook of Digital and Computational SSH. Edward Elgar. forthcoming.
35.
MunkAK (2019) Four styles of quali-quantitative analysis: making sense of the new Nordic food movement on the web. Nordicom Review40(1): 159–176.
36.
NgDTKLeeMTanRJY, et al. (2023) A review of AI teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies28: 8445–8501.
37.
NgDTKLeungJKLChuSKW, et al. (2021) Conceptualizing AI literacy: an exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence2: 1–11.
38.
O’SullivanJ (2022) Introduction: reconsidering the present and future for the digital humanities. In: O’SullivanJ (ed) The Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities. Bloomsbury, 1–6.
39.
RathkopfC (2025) Hallucination, reliability, and the role of generative AI in science. arXiv: 2504.08526. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08526.
40.
RedvallEN (2013) Writing and Producing Television Drama in Denmark: From the Kingdom to the Killing. Palgrave Macmillan.
RilligMCAgerstrandMBiM, et al. (2023) Risks and benefits of large language models for the environment. Environmental Science & Technology57(9): 3464–3466.
43.
RobertsonJFerreiraCBothaE, et al. (2024) Game changers: a generative AI prompt protocol to enhance human-AI knowledge co-construction. Business Horizons67(5): 499–510.
44.
VerdegemP (2025) Understanding Data Culture and Society. Sage.
45.
WangLYangNHuangX, et al. (2024) Multilingual E5 text embeddings: a technical report. arXiv: 2402.05672v1. DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2402.05672.
