Audience research interprets a lived reality that has already been interpreted by the recipients of media, and which may be reinterpreted through the intervention of research. This article explores the interplay between changing media environments and changing conceptions of audiences. In the digital media environment, audiences are active users of media, and media actively use the bit trail that users leave behind. To account for the reconfigured roles of media and audiences, I propose a renewed emphasis on the diverse flows of communication on digital platforms, specifically the metacommunication that yields metadata. Metacommunication is key to reinterpreting what audiences do with digital media and what digital media, in turn, do to audiences.
BatesonGregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. London: Granada.
2.
Jay G.BlumlerKatzElihu, eds. 1974. The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage.
3.
BrunsAxel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
4.
CornerJohn. 1991. “Meaning, Genre, and Context: The Problematics of ‘Public Knowledge’ in the New Audience Studies.” In Mass Media and Society, edited by CurranJamesGurevitchMichael, 267–84. London: Edward Arnold.
5.
CraigRobert T.1989. “Communication as a Practical Discipline.” In Rethinking Communication, edited by DervinBrendaGrossbergLawrenceO’KeefeBarbara J.WartellaEllen, 97–122. Newbury Park: Sage.
JohnHartleyPearsonRoberta, eds. 2000. American Cultural Studies: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
HellesRasmusØrmenJacobRadilCasperJensenKlaus Bruhn. 2015. “The Media Landscapes of European Audiences.” International Journal of Communication9:299–320.
19.
HeppAndreasBreiterAndreasFriemelThomas N.2018. “Digital Traces in Context: An Introduction.” International Journal of Communication12:439–49.
20.
JenkinsHenry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
21.
JensenKlaus Bruhn. 1991. “When Is Meaning? Communication Theory, Pragmatism, and Mass Media Reception.” In Communication Yearbook, edited by AndersonJames, 3–32. Newbury Park: Sage.
22.
JensenKlaus Bruhn. 2009. “Three-Step Flow.” Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism10 (3): 335–37.
23.
JensenKlaus Bruhn. 2012. “Media Reception: Qualitative Traditions.” In A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies, edited by JensenKlaus Bruhn, 171–85. London: Routledge.
JensenKlaus Bruhn. 2018. “The Double Hermeneutics of Communication Research.” Javnost—The Public25 (1–2): 1–8.
26.
JensenKlaus BruhnHellesRasmus. 2011. “The Internet as a Cultural Forum: Implications for Research.” New Media & Society13 (4): 517–33.
27.
JensenKlaus BruhnHellesRasmus. 2017. “Speaking into the System: Social Media and Many-to-One Communication.” European Journal of Communication32 (1): 16–25.
28.
JensenKlaus BruhnRosengrenKarl Erik. 1990. “Five Traditions in Search of the Audience.” European Journal of Communication5 (2): 207–38.
29.
KatzElihu. 1959. “Mass Communication Research and the Study of Popular Culture: An Editorial Note on a Possible Future for this Journal.” Studies in Public Communication2:1–6.
30.
KatzElihuLazarsfeldPaul F.1955. Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
31.
KayAlanGoldbergAdele. 1999. “Personal Dynamic Media.” In Computer Media and Communication: A Reader, edited by MayerPaul A., 111–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
KitchinRob. 2017. “Thinking Critically about and Researching Algorithms.” Information, Communication & Society20 (1): 14–29.
33.
LazarsfeldPaul F.1941. “Remarks on Administrative and Critical Communications Research.” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science9 (1): 2–16.
34.
LazarsfeldPaul F.BerelsonBernardGaudetHazel. 1944. The People’s Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
35.
LeeMicky. 2011. “Google Ads and the Blindspot Debate.” Media, Culture & Society33 (3): 433–47.
36.
LievrouwLeah A.LivingstoneSonia. 2006. “Introduction to the First Edition (2002). The Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs.” In The Handbook of New Media, edited by LievrouwLeah A.LivingstoneSonia, 15–32. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
37.
LobkowiczNicholas. 1967. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
38.
LullJames. 1980. “The Social Uses of Television.” Human Communication Research6:197–209.
39.
Mayer-SchönbergerViktorCukierKenneth. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
40.
MorleyDavid. 1980. The “Nationwide” Audience. London: British Film Institute.
41.
MurdockGrahamGoldingPeter. 1977. “Capitalism, Communication, and Class Relations.” In Mass Communication and Society, edited by CurranJamesGurevitchMichaelWoollacottJanet, 12–43. London: Edward Arnold.
42.
NewcombHoraceHirschPaul. 1983. “Television as a Cultural Forum: Implications for Research.” Quarterly Review of Film Studies8 (3): 45–55.
SlaterDon. 2002. “Social Relationships and Identity Online and Offline.” In Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs, edited by LievrouwLeah A.LivingstoneSonia, 533–46. London: Sage.
54.
SmytheDallas W.1977. “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory1 (3): 1–27.
55.
TofflerAlvin. 1980. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam.
56.
TurkleSherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
57.
van DijckJosé. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
WatzlawickPaulBeavinJanet H.JacksonDon D.1967. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton.
