New TWG Health Communication: Interview with the Management team

What are the main interests of this new TWG? What questions do you wish to pursue?

We felt that the exchange at national and international conferences about the specific area of health communication was very fruitful for our work. We wanted to provide a similar academic home for health communication researchers in Europe. The TWG Health Communication wants to be a forum to discuss issues and present current research dedicated to analysing the challenges of health communication.

We also think that in bringing together health communication scholars from different parts of Europe, we can better understand how different historical trajectories, national differences in cultural dimensions, health systems, and policies shape health communication. Additionally, we want to provide network opportunities for future international collaborations and grant proposals.

Further details about our section objectives can be also found on the ECREA website.

How is this subject of research significant for the current media and communication research? And why is it of importance to the ECREA community?

Health communication emerged in the 1970s in the U.S. and is a comparatively young academic discipline in the field of communication and media studies. However, due to significant advances in medicine and media technologies as well as the growing relevance of health in society, health communication has gained considerable popularity. Four factors are likely to be contributing to the further establishment of the field as an academic discipline in Europe.

First, it can be expected that, due to increasing health costs, the relevance of prevention and respective communication campaigns will increase. Researchers of the proposed TWG will help to identify determinants and content of effective interventions for health promotion and behaviour change.

Second, an increasing interest in the study of  health-related use of social media and the use of high-tech communication tools (e.g. eHealth and mHealth) in health care can be observed. Researchers of the TWG will contribute theoretically and empirically to this topic that will be driven otherwise by medical practitioners and insurance companies.

Third, it can be expected that the field of medical communication will gain considerable importance in the future due to the increasing availability of a large amount of medical information. Access to and effective use of relevant, accurate, and timely health information is of critical importance for health-related decisions across the continuum of care from prevention, treatment, disease management and end-of-life. Besides the potential benefits of analyzing large data sets, our TWG will also address critical aspects like data protection and ethical issues of using these data.

And fourth, with increasing technology and information available, patient outcomes such as satisfaction, information recall and adherence to therapy are more and more contingent on the communication skills of both patients and the medical professionals. The TWG will contribute to this topic by addressing issues of health-related media literacy, inequality between societal groups, and respective actions to lessen negative outcomes and improve health communication.

To which scholars should this new TWG be of most interest – whom do you wish to address and invite to join?

Health communication is a subfield of communication research that is very transdisciplinary and includes various methodological approaches. As such it addresses scholars from various subdisciplines of communications research (and the respective ECREA Sections and TWGs). Nevertheless, the topic of health and the broad spectrum of health issues present unique communication challenges. We are convinced that our TWG will enable both cooperation across the existing sections, and the inclusion of an internationally well established and distinct academic discipline within ECREA.

Topics covered include media effects on information processing, knowledge and health related behaviour, the representation of health-related topics in the media, the role of new communication technologies in health-related contexts, campaign strategies, doctor-patient interactions, health-related communication in social networks, and other related aspects of health communication.

The Health Communication Working Group promotes innovative theoretical approaches alongside sound empirical research. The Working Groups pursue an open and inclusive policy that encompasses a broad range of theoretical perspectives from cultural to institutional approaches, qualitative as well as quantitative research, micro and macro-level investigations, single-case studies, interventions, and large-scale comparative research.

Can you please present the management team?

The three chairs are well established and very experienced in the field of health communication. They published many journal articles and textbooks about aspects of health communication, founded (or co-founded) research centres of health communication, organized corresponding conferences, are integrated in both national and international networks of health communication scholars, and have led several internationally acknowledged research projects related to the field of health communication.

The management team consists of chair Dr. Doreen Reifegerste, Hanover University of Music, Drama and Media, Germany, and the two vice-chairs: Prof. Dr. Thomas N. Friemel, University of Zuerich, Switzerland, and Prof. Dr. Julia C.M. van Weert, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Doreen Reifegerste , Thomas N. Friemel,  Julia C.M. van Weert

What are your next plans (short and long term)?

At our session at the ECC conference in Lugano this year we want to present the different “European perspectives on Health Communication”. The invited speakers will represent regional research groups in health communication or sections of national communication research associations. This enables us to learn about the different approaches and organizational structures in Europe that are relevant for health communication.

We plan to have a Health Communication Conference in 2019 in Germany with an open call for diverse panels, where European health communication scientists have the opportunity to present their research and discuss their different perspectives.

To keep updated on the news of the TWG, please write an email to the chair Doreen Reifegerste or subscribe to the TWG’s forum at the new ECREA Website.

Tereza Pavlickova

Sexism in media industries: from bytes to backlash

In October 2017, a hashtag sparked a debate that shook the media industry to its core. Under #MeToo, millions of women shared their experiences of sexual harassment and assault. The first domino got knocked over by several actresses who made allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, and soon others followed in the movie industry, the music business, journalism and beyond. The hashtag quickly turned into a global movement that exposed the magnitude of this problem. Its aftermath did not stay limited to digits of zeros and ones in online spaces but even reached the highest levels of the media industry as high-placed men had to quit their positions. Does this mean the game is up for sexism in media work environments?

Feminism 2.0

The MeToo hashtag provided an excellent tool for speaking the unspeakable about sexual misconduct. It allowed women to break the silence and raise their voices on issues that are generally surrounded by an aura of taboo. Those voices are not only often ignored but also misrepresented in the mainstream media. The Global Media Monitoring Project, the largest longitudinal study on the representation of women and men, indicates how gender inequalities are sustained in and through the news media. Globally speaking, in 2015, women made up only 24% of the persons heard, read about or seen in newspaper, television and radio news, which was the same as they did in 2010. Women are mostly present in soft news that is associated with the private sphere, whereas men are dominant in hard news that is linked to the public sphere.

Specifically, sexual violence is often represented in the media as an individualized, ‘women’s issue’ that belongs to the private sphere and is not high on the news agenda. In relation to sexual harassment and assault, media reporting is characterized by mechanisms of gender bias that blame victims, excuse perpetrators and promote stereotypes of women. By doing so, media representations contribute to myths and misconceptions about experiences of sexual harassment.

In this sense, social media were an important ally to a movement that was aimed at bringing light to these issues, by providing alternative spaces where these topics could be debated, and where the personal could be made political in a few clicks. It offered women the opportunity to tell the stories that are usually untold in the mainstream media. Even more so, they could tell them in their own words and deliver alternative narratives about misogyny, power, and inequalities. Some of those stories made headlines and triggered critical reflections on who is represented by the #MeToo movement and who is not, on disparities in the reactions to different cases, and on possible changes in society.

#Backlash

However, although social media platforms provide spaces where women can share their most intimate stories of sexual harassment, it is important to note that they do not provide ‘safe’ spaces to do so. Women expressing their opinions in digital spaces are disproportionally confronted with misogynist comments, verbal and physical threats and sexual abuse online. Especially topics related to gender issues and feminism appear to be a red rag for trolls, cyberstalkers, and online harassers. Online misogyny often intersects with racism, homophobia, and ageism, which makes stories about sexual violence and discrimination vulnerable to counterattacks.

This kind of online abuse functions to decrease the opportunities and participation of women in professional environments and silences their voices. Female journalists, for example, are often forced to delete their social media platforms, or even leave journalism altogether, because they are repeatedly insulted or threatened online. In this sense, the dynamics of online harassment are quite similar to the ones of offline harassment. But whereas the emphasis of #MeToo was on making visible what happens behind closed doors, those kinds of discourses are widely available on the internet.

Few measures have been taken to ensure that experiences of sexism and harassment can be shared freely online, which creates an open field for online harassers. While social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter emphasize the potential of their platforms for awareness-raising and empowerment, the tools they have developed to combat online harassment miss their goal. In addition, media companies have not developed a solution to this problem. For example, when newsrooms decided to delete the comment section on their websites, the abuse shifted to their social media pages and the root causes were not addressed.

Moving forward

What does this tell us about sexism in media industries? Although there has been some progress towards gender equality, these developments have proven to be nonlinear and rather slow. The increase in the number of women in the media industry is recently showing signs of stagnation. Besides, numerical progress is not necessarily translated into increased visibility, equal opportunities, and a bias-free work environment. For example, a new study released by the Women’s Media Center reports that the representation of women in Hollywood increased in some categories but decreased in others, and is still fluctuating somewhere around 23%.

Keeping this in mind, it is necessary to be attentive to new obstacles that push women out of the media industry. Online harassment resembles the dynamics of backlash, a counterattack that occurs when women have made progress in order to obtain equal rights. As women have increased their presence in digital spaces, online harassment constantly reminds them that they are transgressing gender boundaries and do not belong in the public sphere. These forms of harassment have a number of negative consequences and limit the opportunities for women to build careers in the media industry.

Furthermore, it is important to take into account that sexual harassment – both online and offline – is a symptom of a broader systemic problem. It is a manifestation of gendered power imbalances in the global media industry. Traditional gender barriers such as the work-family conflict and the glass ceiling stubbornly persist. Think about Carrie Gracie, who decided to quit her position as China editor at the British Broadcasting Corporation because of a lack of parity in salary with male counterparts and is still fighting pay discrimination. In order to combat sexism in the media industry, it is not sufficient to single out the symptoms, but it is necessary to tackle the structures surrounding gender inequality. Only then it will be possible to go from punishment to prevention of sexual harassment and from window dressing to long-term cultural changes towards gender equal work environments.

Dear members,

if one was to select one word to designate the 2017, it could certainly be “communication”. The term featured prominently on public and political agenda throughout the year, revolving for the most part around disenchantment with communication technology and fears about strong, negative effects of communication.

What stood out against this backdrop which twittered between conspiracy, moralising and disillusionment, was the social value of critical, theoretically founded and historically grounded communication research that ECREA aims to promote. What also stood out was the necessity to continue with its promotion – both within our community and to the general public.

From ECREA’s perspective, 2017 has been successful in this regard – our response to disenchantment with communication is somewhat expectedly – enhanced communication. It was not only a year in which our Sections, Networks and Temporary Working Groups organised over different 30 events, but also a year in which we redeveloped our communication infrastructure, strategies and activities, which included the complete rebuilding of our website, membership management platform and intranet, introduction of the association’s new visual identity and much more.

In the light of this, I would like to complement our new year's greetings with an invitation to browse through our latest communication endeavour – our revived ECREA newsletter, which is intended to give “voice” and “face” to the association.

ECREA is an association entirely managed by volunteer labour and engagement. We are dependent on the enthusiasm and dedication of our elected representatives to nurture existing and develop new fields within Sections and TWGs, to support precarious groups through Networks, and to ensure general management and day-to-day functioning of the association. To celebrate this volunteer work and intellectual engagement, the newsletter will go beyond featuring reports on activities of S/N/TWGs. It will give voice to members and their representatives through rubrics featuring proprietary content, such as Opinions (commentaries and interviews), ECREAns engaged (presenting a member or institution’s engagement in protecting ECREA’s core values and ideals of an academic community), and Publications (ECREA book series).  

At the same time, we would also like to give “face” to those who signed up for larger chunks of the volunteer labour – mainly S/N/TWG management teams and members of the Executive Board. However, we chose to do it in a different way, by exposing their serious and exciting, but lesser known, non-academic engagements. ECREA is not only a community of communication scholars, but also a community of serious marathon runners, craft beer makers, DJs, jazz band musicians, football coaches and foosball wizards – and as you will see in the first edition of these semi-volunteered exposes – of beekeepers and furniture makers.

Contrary to the constant flickering of social media messages, the ECREA newsletter will attempt to bring a slower-paced, quarterly overview of past and upcoming activities. In 2018 it will also carry additional and background information on the ECC conference in Lugano. I hope the newsletter will not only provide you the insight into the work of association, but also serve as an inspiration to participate in our activities, and possibily, to share your stories with us.

On behalf of ECREA Executive Board, I wish you a happy and communicative New Year.

Ilija Tomanic Trivundza
ECREA President

 

The (ir)relevance of "fake news"

  Raul Ferrer Conill
  Karlstad University, Sweden
  ECREA Newsletter editor

ECREA’s commitment to communication research and education is the leading focus of the association. Often, the attempt to contribute to the academic discussion overshadows the necessity of also hearing the personal opinion of scholars and researchers. We wanted to momentarily shift that focus and provide a space where academics can voice their opinion about contemporary topics at the forefront of the public debate.

For the first newsletter, we asked the management team of the Communication and Democracy section – Maria Kyriakidou, Anne Kaun and Julie Uldam – and the chair of the Journalism Studies section, Arjen van Dalen, to share their views and opinion about the sudden relevance of “fake news” and the apparent emergence of a so-called “post-truth” era.

The issue of information pollution is not new, but its rise to prominence is predominantly due to scale and instrumentality. On the one hand, the current digital media environment facilitates massive campaigns of misinformation, both manually and algorithmically. On the other hand, the instrumental use of “fake news” seems to aim to strategically affect political narratives and public opinion. Indeed, the UK Brexit referendum and the results of the US election propelled “fake news” to the centre of communication and media debate.

Our concerns lie beyond the notion of “fake news” per se. The novelty about the current emergence of “fake news” lies in its indiscriminate use of the term as a way to delegitimize the media. The Trump administration has been particularly effective in questioning facts that do not align with their narrative. Relentlessly, White House officials, commentators, and pundits have claimed that mainstream media are fabricating the news. The offensive has been so successful that today, suggesting “alternative facts” as the real narrative seems to matter next to nothing. Working the “fake news” moniker neutralizes traditional forms of accountability and cements the notion that gut feeling is truer than facts.

Such a development has potential implications for the democratic functions of western democracies. Kyriakidou, Kaun, and Uldam recognise “fake news” as a problem intensified by similar processes such as the increasing dominance of quantification and the commodification of user behaviour. Algorithmic thinking, they claim, is seeping into academic culture, leading to a mindset that rewards sensationalism and exaggeration over more thoughtful research. When institutions – politics, media, and academia – use tactics of less-than-reputable actors in the public arena, they relinquish the legitimacy they had and open the space for “fake news” to emerge and be consumed. In their thought-provoking text, they call for a reconsideration of the socio-cultural environment that promotes the metricated mindset instead of media literacy and public engagement.

In a similarly critical text, van Dalen discusses one of the media’s attempts to tackle “fake-news”. Fact-checking has emerged with the intent of debunking “fake news”, setting the record straight, and moving on. What van Dalen convincingly argues, is that the problem of “fake news” is so deep and complex, that with the use of fact-checking, news organizations might be shooting themselves in the foot while reinforcing the message that ´fake news’ brings. The irony here would be delightful, were the outcome not utterly worrying. Thankfully, van Dalen concludes his piece with a set of recommendations for news media and fact-checkers that may help avoid paving the way for information polluters.

Whether we call it “fake news”, information pollution or misinformation, it appears that such a development might be a symptom, rather than an outcome. The public and the media might be stuck on the term, but its appearance in the spotlight might overshadow much more complex underlying issues. Much will be required of media and communication scholars if we are to make sense of an environment where the meaning of truth is unattainable and for some, irrelevant.

Fake it until you make it? The consequences of misinformation for democracy

  Maria Kyriakidou
  Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  Communication and Democracy Section Vice-Chair

  Anne Kaun
  Södertörn University, Sweden
  Communication and Democracy Section Vice-Chair

  Julie Uldam
  Roskilde University, Denmark
  Communication and Democracy Section Chair

The concept of “fake news” has gained traction, in particular over the last year and because of the US Presidential elections. The latest revelations connected to the win of Donald Trump highlight the crucial implications of the deliberate spreading of misleading information for democratic conduct and the decision-making process. Of course, “fake news” is not a new phenomenon: tabloids have long reproduced exaggerations and lies with dire consequences both for individuals and public life. In the UK, the Leave campaign largely benefited from such fake news about the dangers posed by immigrants and refugees as well as the horrors imposed by the EU. At the same time, however, “fake news” seems to have become an umbrella term encompassing what has hitherto been discussed as mass manipulation, propaganda, but also satire. It has also become a buzzword for everyone doubting the validity of media and journalism. Trump himself notoriously uses the label to attack the media that criticise him.

Its seemingly all-encompassing nature aside, the concept of “fake news” has permeated both public and academic discourse and has posed significant questions. Optimistic narratives about the democratic nature of digital media and the potentialities of citizen journalism have been substituted by anxieties about the difficulties faced by citizens in spotting fake news on online media platforms, as well as more critical discussions about the systemic conditions that create incentives for the production and circulation of “fake news”.

It is here that the dominance of simplified and quantified metrics in the evaluation of sources and actors and their online visibility needs to be questioned. Algorithms turn users’ clicks into the means to increased visibility on Google searches, social media news feed and the online space overall. This means succumbing to sensationalism and exaggeration. Due to embedded assumptions about authority and validity, there is a widespread belief that such visibility is also a guarantee of truthfulness and legitimacy of a cause. Politicians and their supporters, on whom the focus has been since the US elections, are not the only ones prone to the lures of algorithmic visibility. Social movements and NGOs alike have to use users’ online clicks to reinforce their presence on online platforms, with the risk of contributing to moral binaries and sensationalism.

The mentality of exaggeration, “fake news” and clickbait have also infiltrated academia. In the neoliberal university that focuses on measurable outcomes such as publication metrics, gaining visibility and attention, and consequently citations, is crucial. One strategy here is the overemphasis of controversy and conflict over scientific knowledge production. The latest debate around an article defending colonialism and suggesting the re-colonialisation of certain areas of the world published in the Third World Quarterly, which led to the partial resignation of the journal's editorial board, is just one example of academics adopting the clickbait practices that dominate other publication areas. When success is defined by metrics, academic rigour becomes irrelevant.

In the age of digital media, information is abundant. In this context our attention emerges as a scarce commodity and a resource for power and visibility. “Fake news” and clickbait are a strategy for navigating the attention economy successfully. For political discourse, this means the predominance of exaggerations, sensationalism and polarised politics over sober analysis, constructive criticism and any attempt at truthfulness. Such developments further undermine public trust in the media and political institutions, and ultimately democratic conduct. In this vicious circle of misinformation creating the conditions for more “fake news”, citizens are left with no knowledge and information resources and are at the mercy of the cacophony of a news environment where truthful information appears interchangeably with fake news. Such a political environment also opens up space for clickbait, for provocative personalities to take over the political stage.    

For academics concerned with the media and its democratic role, the question of “fake news” demands a reconsideration of previously observed techno-optimism and an inquiry into the social and cultural conditions under which “fake news” emerge and are consumed. It also poses the issue of how academic criticism can be disseminated in a way that serves the public and helps media users in their evaluation of news sources and online information. In this context, involvement in programmes of media literacy and public engagement appear to be a much better course of action than the reproduction of a metric-obsessed publication system.  

 

 

In fighting “fake news”, might fact-checking defeat its own purpose?

 

  Arjen van Dalen
  University of Southern Denmark;
  Chair of Journalism studies section

Across Europe, journalists and media organizations have been alarmed by the potential dangers of intentionally spread misinformation. These concerns are undoubtedly related to the role of deliberately circulated false information (“fake news”) during the 2016 US Presidential election. Beyond this particular incident, the concerns reflect broader societal changes, where facts and authority seem to matter less in public debate than before. While these developments are stronger in certain parts of Europe than others, journalists across Europe are united in their concern about these changes. Not only does the spread of misinformation go against the democratic function of journalism to inform the citizens, but the circulation of “fake news” may also make people generally suspicious about the information that they see or read. Thus, the negative reputation of “fake news” might spill over to mainstream news outlets and decrease general levels of trust in the press among the public.

Faced with these threats, the media do not sit still. One of the most visible ways in which legacy news organizations respond to the spread of false news is by advancing fact-checking. According to a report by Graves and Cherubini (2016) for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, recent years have seen a steady rise in the number of fact-checking outlets across Europe. Mainstream media organizations as well as independent foundations all over Europe have invested in resources to check claims by politicians, public institutions and other media outlets for their accuracy. This trend became for example visible during the latest French Presidential elections, when numerous local, national and international news organizations joined forces to publicly debunk false claims. Similarly, established media in countries like The Netherlands and Denmark have dedicated sections where they correct misinformation which exists in the public domain. Also fact-checking outlets which are not attached to established news organizations regularly receive media attention, allowing them to reach a broader audience.

This growth in media attention for fact-checking, raises the question of how successful this remedy is in combating “fake news” and countering the spread of misinformation. Holding politicians and other public actors accountable for false claims might make them hesitant to spread misinformation, in particular in political cultures where this is generally condemned. But the real proof of the pudding is in the question of whether fact-checking alters the beliefs held by the general public and counters the spread of misinformation.

In a recent meta-study of research about debunking misinformation, Sally Chan and colleagues (2017) show that fact-checking can indeed help correct falsely held beliefs triggered by misinformation. Take the example of someone who has read a story including the unsupported statement that a vaccination against measles leads to autism. She will be less likely to remember this false claim if she reads that fact-checkers contest this claim, than when the claim is not debunked. Thus, fact-checking indeed helps to correct falsely held beliefs instated by “fake news”. However, the meta-study also shows that people who read a false claim and have this information corrected are still more likely to repeat the false information after the correction than people who had not heard or read the claim to begin with. When it comes to misinformation, ignorance is bliss: even if misinformation is debunked in a sophisticated way, being exposed to it in the first place makes it likely that the misinformation has a persistent effect.

This is important to realize for news organizations who dedicate editorial space to debunking false claims. When correcting a false claim, they will most of the time also repeat the claim. Sometimes this is done in headlines, like “Fact or fiction: Does measles vaccine increase the chance of autism?” or “FACT-CHECKED: measles vaccine does not increase the chance of autism”. In other cases, the false claim is mentioned within the story. When the mainstream media give attention to a false claim, the claim potentially also reaches a new audience which had not heard it in the first place. Even when this misinformation is debunked, it might set itself in the memory of some members of the audience.

By familiarizing the audience with false claims, fact-checking may have a second unintended consequence. A recent study by Pennycook and colleagues (2017) shows that people are more likely to believe fabricated statements to be accurate, when they have heard the statement before. This effect already takes place after hearing the statement only once, and was even observed when the original statement was accompanied by the message that fact-checkers have disputed the claim. This suggests that after reading a fact-checking story debunking the link between vaccination and autism, people are more likely to accept a similar story when they see it in the future.

Combined, these two recent studies raise a note of caution for news organizations who report the results of fact-checking. If the goal of a fact-checking story is to stop the spread of misinformation, it may defeat its own purpose. A fact-checking section might introduce a false claim to people who had not heard or seen the claim before. Some audience members will internalize the information in their memory, even though they are told the information is false. This makes them more likely to accept the claim as accurate if confronted with it again in the future.

In the light of these findings, fact-checkers might consider three things to better counter the spread of misinformation and false news. First, fact-checking in mainstream news outlets should be limited to correcting claims which are already widespread. Second, when possible, misinformation should be debunked directly at the source. Facebook provides a good example here, flagging false information as “disputed by 3rd party fact-checkers”. Third, news organizations might consider when the fact-checking resources are best spent. Instead of post hoc correcting false information which has made it into the public domain, in certain cases it might be preferred to have a stronger ex ante fact-checking which stops misinformation before it is published. When it comes to fact-checking, as for measles, prevention is better than cure.

 

Sources

Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., and Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28 (11): 1531–1546, doi: 10.1177/0956797617714579

Graves, L. and Cherubini, F. (2016). The rise of fact-checking sites in Europe. Oxford: The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T.D., and Rand, D.G. (2017). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2958246

The 7^th European Communication Conference of ECREA will be held in Lugano, Switzerland, between 31^st October and 3^rd November 2018. The conference will be hosted by USI – Università della Svizzera italiana together with the City of Lugano. The main theme of the conference is Centres and Peripheries: Communication, Research, Translation.

Local organisers invite participants to challenge and deconstruct these relevant keywords in media and communication research from several perspectives. Lugano is in fact the perfect place to think about a topic of this kind. It is in the south of Switzerland (the Gottardo separating Svizzera italiana from other Swiss regions) and its official language is Italian – whereas the majority languages in the country are German and French. At the same time, the Italian border is 20 kilometres away: so Italy is very close culturally but at the same time far away politically and economically. In sum, Lugano (and the entire Italian speaking part of Switzerland) can be considered either peripheral or central. Thus, discussing communication, research and translation in this venue seems to be more than appropriate.

At the same time, the conference theme is so broad that potentially most scholars in media and communication research can be inspired to contribute from their angle of research. In this regard, the local organisers would love to receive papers that aim to “stretch” media and communication research as much as possible, obviously without losing its identity or – better – identities. So the theme”s keywords should be understood as a stimulus to look into different directions, potentially beyond borders.

The first two keywords of the theme are centres and peripheries. From a disciplinary point of view, organisers invite applications stemming from the central fields of research as well as – and in particular – from its “peripheries” that deal with understudied niches and subcultures, practices, resistance and dialogues, or failed and alternative pasts and presents. But of course, centre and periphery also have a geographical connotation. And there is no doubt that nowadays some geographical places and areas are communicative hubs while others remain peripheral or even excluded from the main flows of communication. As this geographical relevance can change rapidly, the fragility of these two concepts merits close attention.

Then, communication is a rather taken-for-granted keyword in our discipline. However, when paired with centres and peripheries, it might invite scholars to deal with issues of power, peripheral and central practices, and the exclusions and divides that are increasing worldwide. As flows of communication are related to flows of information and flows of people, the 7^th ECC could (and should) also address issues related to migration and voluntary and involuntary mobility.

Research and translation are the last two keywords of the conference theme. They highlight that scholars from other disciplines than media and communication research are also invited to participate. The 7^th ECC conference aims, in fact, to be considered a place where research in different fields is translated, appropriated and incorporated within communication and, reversely, where scholars using communications as case studies can feel welcome. It might be time to “stretch” media and communication research a bit in order to broaden its social impact. Thereby, “translation” addresses the variety of European theoretical traditions and languages – and again Lugano as a melting pot of different languages seems to be the ideal venue. Contributions might thus consider the borders (geographical, cultural, theoretical or paradigmatic ones) of media and communication research, rediscovering the European traditions but also trying to learn, for example, from Asian, South American, and African research. Participants are also invited to discuss and to challenge the scientific power of the English language, an aspect that needs to be questioned in a plurilingual setting such as the Swiss context.

Lugano, historically a place at the centre and (at the same time) at the periphery from a political, economic, geographic, and cultural view will welcome all participants willing to discuss and to advance media and communication studies under these perspectives.

The full Call for Proposals can be found here (submission deadline 28 February 2018).

Please follow the news from the 7^th ECC on the conference website http://www.ecrea2018lugano.eu/ or Twitter account @ECREA2018Lugano, and #ECREA2018. The local organisers can be reached at info@ecrea2018lugano.eu

 

A presto, à bientôt, bis bald, see you in Lugano!

Gabriele Balbi, Katharina Lobinger and Lorenzo Cantoni, The Local Organising Committee of ECC Lugano 2018, Università della Svizzera italiana

Interview with Divina Frau-Meigs, Irma Velez, and Julieta Flores Michel, editors of Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe.

Can you please present the book?

Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe explores the current tensions in European countries as they tackle the transition to the digital era, linking research to policy and practice. It provides an extensive appraisal of media, information, computer and digital literacies as they disrupt the public debate over 21^st century skills. It originates in the coming together of many renowned European researchers, working with the French ANR TRANSLIT project and the European COST research network “Transforming Audiences/Transforming Societies”. In a very generous move, more than 60 researchers from 28 countries joined this collective adventure and contributed to the eight chapters so as to provide a comprehensive, comparative and cross-cultural analysis of the state of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in Europe.

 

What is the original contribution of this project and book? 

There are several original contributions in the book, two of which are the most outstanding. In terms of methodology, it is the first time that MIL has approached using a quali-quanti method, with a double set of data collection instruments: a template for expert reports and a scoreboard for indicators. This made it possible to avoid an exclusively quantitative approach in public policy research, especially when dealing with education. This approach emphasises policy-making as a complex cartography, offering probable future scenarios, bridging expert and lay knowledge, using visualisations and incorporating the emergence of new networks of actors in a very shifting field.

In terms of content, it is the first large-scale appreciation of governance in MIL. MIL increasingly happens in governance configurations that are not conforming to old formats. Its evolution points to multi-level rungs of governance, that push the various stakeholders to navigate all the dimensions of policy-making, from policy frameworks to capacity-building, to funding and evaluation. The authors provide a 3D model for MIL governance in the EU: a Disengaging stance (limited framework, non-public actors left to their own initiatives); a Delegating stance (partly developed policy framework that fosters action by other actors); and a Developing stance (full policy framework with the state as driver of the implementation of actions and coordination of non-public actors). These stances indicate a low, medium or high level of performance of governance in any given state and can be a diagnostic tool.  

Besides this key contribution, the results also emphasize the core contents of such governance efforts. They aim at harnessing mediatisation, around a discourse on citizenship and competences. Digitization turns out to be highly media-driven and MIL provides an understanding of the pervasive societal forces of mediatisation, which implies keeping a critical perspective on the discourses that shape the field. The book concludes on “the double bind” of MIL as it is both a political project and a contested pedagogy with many currents and “sensible” practices, within a neo-liberal paradigm that tries to recombine welfare state politics and post-communist reconstruction. This double bind places the democratic and critical potential of MIL in a unique position for transformative change, in the field of media and communication as much as in the field of education. 

 

Why do you feel this is a timely publication? 

MIL has become a field of contention, where conflicting discourses and processes on citizenship, mediatization and governance are taking centre-stage. This increased while we were working on the project because of two factors: the terrorist attacks on Europe since 2015, in particular after the “Je suis Charlie” mobilisation; and the fake news controversies around Brexit and other national elections where there were suspicions of fraud or malevolent misinformation. MIL appears as the means to educate people about propaganda and as a tool to prevent radicalisation, as can be seen with the Paris Declaration “on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education”of 17 March 2015.This has impacted governance with the need for increased cooperation between states and led the Council of the European Union to further recognise and consider digital competences and critical uses of ICTs as a crucial component of media literacy. In its conclusions, adopted in May 2016, the EU states the need for “developing media literacy and critical thinking through education and training”. It recognizes the role of MIL and considers digital competence, “which encompasses the confident, creative and critical use of ICTs”, as “a crucial component of media literacy”.

Finally, the timeliness was reflected in the policy role that the network of researchers involved in the process was able to have in two policy areas: the revision of the Directive on Audiovisual Media Services that recognizes the importance of MIL and adds the social media platforms within its remit; and the creation of the European Chapter of the Global Alliance for Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL) with UNESCO, that led to two European fora already (in Paris, 2014, and Riga, 2016).

 

How do you think it can be important for other areas of research on media and communications?

The first aim was to help in the construction and structuration of the field of MIL per se. In media studies it is often perceived as a secondary area, as an applied field benefiting from fundamental research conducted elsewhere. This research has confirmed that MIL has its own core notions, an expanding perimeter, a complex epistemology, some robust methodologies and many other facets, policy-making foremost among them. This research has also consolidated the existing network of researchers in the field and given them visibility and agency in their own country and across Europe.

For other areas of research, some notions are interesting to consider. Most importantly the contributions to the field of governance are significant, in these days of Internet governance and global digital policy-making. Issues of mediatisation and social change are foremost in other areas of our field, be it in psychology, sociology of media, etc. Interestingly also, outcomes in comparative research can be noted: the tools developed for methodology are being considered for duplication by other regions such as North America and South America. The European Audiovisual Observatory also used our network and our tools for its latest mapping of MIL good practices in Europe.

 

How was the process of the ECREA book series and how important was it for your publication?

The role of ECREA was crucial for enabling this initiative to be shared by many researchers in the field. It provided an incentive to keep on working together as the ANR TRANSLIT and COST projects progressively came to an end. The professional support was excellent, especially as the data required a lot of digital edition. Besides, due to the multi-lingual composition of our teams, the editorial exchanges were very important and provided a unified voice, meeting international standards for all of Europe. We hope that this project provides an appreciation of the need for all of us at ECREA to strive for alternative and collective frames of research that can deal with constantly changing conditions and help make sense of increasingly complex media situations.

 Ana Jorge

Click here to order the book from the publisher.

Click here for more on ECREA Book Series.

Ilija Tomanić Trivundža (born 1974) is based at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, where he focuses on visual communication with a special focus on the social and political role of photography in contemporary mediated communication. He is also a co-editor of Membrana magazine on photography. Prior to being elected ECREA president, Ilija served as the association's Vice-President from 2012–2016. His strategies for remaining sane within contemporary academia are collecting vernacular photographs, running, and furniture making and upcycling.

How did you start making furniture?

For me it started out of necessity, renovating our apartment required some custom-made items, but then it gradually became a sort of rebellion against the omnipresent uniformity of IKEA furniture, and then I developed a more creative desire to create objects. But of course, it all goes back to growing up in a strong DIY environment. And I do not mean just the “home made” culture of 1980s Yugoslavia. In my family, the question was often not “Where can I buy this?” but “How can I make this?”, the guilty party being my father, who as a sculptor, always needed to “make stuff” before he could start his projects.

 

How complex are the things you are making?

There are two kinds of projects that I get involved with. One is renewing old furniture; I particularly like upcycling 1950s and 1960s armchairs, which I buy on flea markets. But sadly, we no longer have space for new ones. The other type of projects are making furniture out of scratch — I did beds, display shelves, chests of drawers or smaller items. These are now much easier to do because for the past two years I have set up a small workshop in a rented garage.

 

What is the piece you are most proud of?

Actually it will be the one I am working on at the moment, a nightstand made out of alder and oak, which incorporated salvaged parquet from an abandoned local gunpowder factory and wooden block print letters that I have collected throughout the years. Otherwise the most complex one was probably a modernist 1960s style chest of drawers I made for my home office. People get impressed by beds, but those are actually fairly easy to make, for me, it is the drawers that are more challenging.

 

In what way is your hobby connected to your academic career?

I see it as a counterbalance to research and academia. The biggest pleasure of woodworking, for me, is to work with something material, to create something tangible. A material object rather than just a string of words. You can also draw parallels, there is a research stage to it, such as tracking down old furniture or teaching yourself new techniques. And of course there is a creative dimension to the process, the incubation stage, time spent planning, designing, drawing etc. But for me it is enjoyable precisely because it stands for something completely different from academia.

 

Have you ever been so caught up in your woodwork that you missed a deadline?

No, when I miss a deadline, the reasons are connected to having too much on my (work) plate rather than to what is on my workbench. The woodworking projects are the last in line, which can be rather annoying, when you would really want to finish a project but you still need to grade 120 student essays first. But the order of priorities is time with family, academic work, running, woodworking.

Would you recommend your hobby to others?

Yes – if you want to work with your hands and if you have the space to do it. And if you appreciate the softness of a well-sanded, polished wood. But one might also appreciate it for the sobering experience it brings, which can be similar to the side effect of the old-fashioned conscription military service, when you were made to “meet” your fellow citizens. When you end up hunting down the last few remaining shops and suppliers of raw materials, you enter this parallel universe with its own networks, supply monopolies, and social hierarchies. Like in academia, there is always someone who knows someone who could help or advise you, but the big challenge is to get to know that first someone, and to get your “hands of an intellectual” accepted on a reasonably equal footing.

Jelena Kleut

Lenka Vochocová was born in Plzeň, Czech Republic in 1979. Her academic career is connected to the Department of Media Studies of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, where she focuses on online (political) participation and its gender aspects as a member of the PolCoRe group. She founded a small NGO called Inventura in 2005 where she makes documentary films together with people with learning disabilities. She has two children and green fingers, and besides gardening and raising sheep and pastured pigs, her biggest hobby is beekeeping.       

How did you become a beekeeper?

I started in 2008, after the winter during which the Varroa Destructor caused a huge pan-European problem with bees, leading to a significant decrease in the number of bee colonies. This is a mite that attacks bees and destroys them completely, and that was a very bad year. I started because my great-grandfather was a beekeeper, two of my uncles are beekeepers. I always wanted to start, and that was a good year to start. Now I have my own eight colonies.

 

How does beekeeping fit with the academic calendar?

The winter term is great because bees are “sleeping”, all you have to do is to treat them with some obligatory medicine. It all begins in April or May when you have to start taking care of them. The busiest months for beekeepers are May, June and July, and then the beekeeper’s autumn comes, early in August. We prepare the bees for winter and it all ends in September. So in relation to the academic calendar, May and June are a bit problematic. But generally my strategy as a beekeeper is not to disturb the bees too much. My attitude is not to do too much because bees know best what to do. So it is not as much work as it seems, just a couple of days altogether.

Since you write about gender issues, what does a gender perspective of the beekeeping community look like?

The majority of beekeepers in the Czech Republic are elderly and male. It used to be a business of grandfathers, but it started to change recently as younger people are becoming beekeepers. The head of one of the biggest organisations of beekeepers in the Czech Republic is a woman and from the perspective of an ordinary member of the organisation, I don't experience anything disturbing. The factor beekeepers stress is age mainly, it is an important variable as beekeeping may be physically demanding. The elderly beekeepers are happy that there are some young ones and they try to teach us everything and let us organise and become the new leaders. It is rather ideology that divides people, traditionalists on one side and people with eco-attitude on the other. The main question is whether to treat bees against diseases or not and how, that is the main ideological cause of conflict, very similar to the general discussion about vaccination.

What do you see as your greatest achievement?

Me and my colleagues just had a local meeting and one of the beekeepers in his sixties said that he was surprised how the bees always teach him. You always think you have found the best way to do something, and you are trying new approaches, but in the end the bees decide what is best for them. They teach me that it is not in my hands, it is in theirs. The good thing about beekeeping is that it is not a competition, you do not have to achieve. It’s relaxing.

 

Would you recommend beekeeping as a hobby?

I would recommend it to those who like to collect things, who are pickers. I am this kind of person who can wait till the fruit is ripe, till the honey is there in the hives. Also, for those who like taking care of others. It helps you focus, so it is good for procrastinators. There is a set time when you have to go and offer the bees more space and wax frames, and do everything that needs to be done on time. It is good training for keeping a schedule.

Jelena Kleut