ECREA WEEKLY digest ARTICLES

Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico

Deadline: June 30, 2026

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to invite submissions for the upcoming special issue in the journal Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico (EMP), a Q1 journal in Scopus: "Algorithmic Images and Information Urgencies: Challenges and Transformations of Contemporary Graphic Journalism."

As generative AI and digital shifts redefine our visual culture, photojournalism faces unprecedented aesthetic, ethical, and industrial hurdles. This monograph seeks to explore the complexities of documentary photography in an era marked by rapid technological change and global crises, from climate change and migration to the rise of polarized political narratives.

Languages for Submission:

Please note that the journal accepts original articles in Spanish, English, French, and Portuguese.

Key Information:

• Submission Deadline: June 30, 2026
  
• Expected Publication: October 2026
  
• More Details and Submission Platform: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ESMP/monograficos/periodismografico

Topics include (not limited):

• AI & Image Mutation: Deontological limits, deepfakes, and algorithmic bias.
  
• Representing Reality: Visual activism, hybrid narratives, and documenting humanitarian crises or climate change.
  
• Structural Challenges: Gender equality in the profession and the economic sustainability of the photojournalistic industry.
  

Editors: Nieves Limón-Serrano (UCLM), Marta Martín-Núñez (UJI), and Mathias-Felipe-de-Lima-Santos (UNSW/UNIFESP/UPF).

Dear colleagues,

The lists of workshops and tutorials at ACM UMAP'26 are now available on the webpage of the conference, including links to each event's webpage.

Workshops: https://www.um.org/umap2026/workshops/

Tutorials: https://www.um.org/umap2026/tutorials/

We look forward to your participation!

The UMAP'26 organizers

March 12, 2026

London, England

As part of the Italian Symposium in London, we are delighted to invite you to an evening of interdisciplinary dialogue exploring the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence, ethics, and society with Professor Luciana Parisi (Duke University), Professor Francesca Toni (Imperial College London) and Bianca de Teffé Erb (Deloitte). 

What do we mean when we call a machine “intelligent”? And what happens to ethics, accountability and power when decision-making is increasingly shared with, or delegated to, algorithms?

This panel opens a critical interdisciplinary conversation across five key dimensions: how we define intelligence itself; how ethics must evolve after and with the machine; how bias and systems of social reproduction are encoded into data and predictive models; how explainability shapes trust between humans and AI; and how technological transformation demands new forms of governance that move beyond hype and fear towards an alternative understanding of human-AI operations.

Thursday, March 12

6:15 PM – 8:00 PM GMT

King's College London, Strand Building (Room S-2.08)

London, England

The event is free and will be held in English. Booking is required at the link here.

About the Speakers

Luciana Parisi is Professor in Literature and core faculty for the Graduate Program in Computational Media Art and Culture at Duke University, USA. She was a member of the CCRU (Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) and currently a co-founding member of CCB (Critical Computation Bureau). Her research is a philosophical investigation of technology in culture, aesthetics and politics. She is the author of Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Biotechnology and the Mutations of Desire (2004, Continuum Press) and Contagious Architecture. Computation, Aesthetics and Space (2013, MIT Press). She is completing a monograph on automation and philosophy (MIT Press, forthcoming) and co-editing the collection Colonial Fractals: The Racial Politics of Planetary Computation (Duke University Press, forthcoming).

Francesca Toni is Professor in Computational Logic in the Department of Computing, at Imperial College London, UK. She is the founder and leader of the CLArg (Computational Logic and Argumentation) research group and of the XAI Research Centre at Imperial. Her research interests lie within the broad area of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in AI and Explainable AI, and in particular include Argumentation, Argument Mining, Logic-Based Multi-Agent Systems, Non-monotonic/Default/Defeasible Reasoning, Machine Learning. She is corner editor on argumentation for the Journal of Logic and Computation, in the editorial board of the Argument and Computation journal and associate editor for Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. She is also in the Board of Directors for KR Inc. and IJCAI trustee.

Bianca de Teffé Erb is Partner and Data & AI Ethics Lead at Deloitte. With over a decade of experience in consulting, she specialises in AI Governance, Ethics, Risk and Compliance. She supports multinational organisations such as NATO and ESA, public institutions and large industrial groups such as Confindustria in developing ethical and compliant AI adoption strategies, with a particular focus on the European AI Act. She is the author of the report “Towards an Ethics by Design Approach for AI,” presented at the European Parliament in 2024. Bianca was included in the “Top 20 Under 30” list by Forbes Italy in 2018. She was among the first professionals in Italy to obtain the ISO 42001 Lead Auditor certification.

The discussion will be moderated by Aglaia Freccero (Imperial College London), Dr Edoardo Occhipinti (UCL), Simone Pellegrino (Goldsmiths, University of London), and Emma Prévot (University of Oxford), four PhD and early-career researchers who will bring their diverse academic perspectives to this timely conversation on AI.

Under the broader Symposium theme, “Innovare Audere: A Future-Ready Italy,” this event reflects on the need for a critical approach to innovation and risk in shaping the future. In London, we explore how this spirit translates into Italy’s role in a rapidly changing world, through complementary perspectives on geopolitics and international relations, economic and financial competitiveness, and technology and innovation.

Over five days and across four universities, the Symposium convenes leading voices to discuss how Italy can strengthen its global influence and remain competitive in the decades ahead. The initiative is organised by United Italian Societies (UIS), a non-profit founded and led by Italian students abroad, connecting over 60 universities in more than 10 countries and representing a vibrant community of over 11,000 Italian students worldwide.

This panel is co-organised with UIS Research Centre, a student-led think tank rooted in academic excellence, committed to producing rigorous policy proposals and forward-thinking research on some of Italy's most compelling issues.

We look forward to welcoming you all to a stimulating discussion!

Reset ( special issue)

Deadline: May 4, 2026

Edited by Quentin Gilliotte (Carism, Université Panthéon-Assas), Marion Michel (Carism, Université Panthéon-Assas) and Phoebé Pigenet (Carism, Université Panthéon-Assas)

While research on content creation has existed since the 1990s, the recent development of platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok has marked a turning point by enabling the expansion of commercial activities and the professionalization of the sector. The marketing institute Reech estimates the number of “influencers” in France around 150,000 (Reech, 2025; Vie Publique, 2025). However, this estimate leaves behind a multitude of actors who engage in this activity more or less regularly, with uneven income streams, and enjoy varying degrees of visibility. These actors operate and circulate across spaces with diverse thematic orientations (ecology, sports, politics, well-being, etc.) and develop their activities both at the core of platforms (through audience success and monetization revenues) and at their margins (niche spaces, sites of reputation-building, or off-platform activities). These dynamics give rise to numerous economic or thematic subspaces that often function in opposition to dominant platform spaces.

This diversity is reflected in the ways of identifying and labeling these activities. Depending on whether the emphasis is placed on their actual or supposed influence over audiences (influencers, opinion leaders, media figures), on a specific type of production (videographers, podcasters, streamers), on claims to expertise or professional status in a given field or topic (nutritionists, journalists, engineers, sports coaches), or on anchoring within a particular digital ecosystem (YouTubers, TikTokers, Instagrammers), these labels vary according to contexts, publics, and settings. This proliferation of terminologies is also found in the academic literature and reflects divergent perspectives on these activities. Some studies refer to “Internet celebrities” or “micro-celebrities” (Abidin, 2018; Vizcaíno-Verdú & Abidin, 2023) to capture the articulation between visibility in these spaces and relationships with audiences. Other approaches foreground labor and subordination to digital infrastructures, analyzing these actors as “platform workers” within broader processes of platformization (Poell et al., 2019). Others examine content creators through the lens of leisure commodification and the continuum between amateurs and professionals, highlighting the specific forms of aspirational labor involved (Duffy, 2016). Finally, some studies explicitly label a subset of these actors as “influencers,” particularly concerning commercial or ideological forms of prescription (Bishop, 2025; Duverné et al., 2022; Godefroy, 2021; Michel, 2023), sometimes extending to attempts to measure the presumed effects of such prescriptions on audiences. Online content production for multiple and heterogeneous audiences is thus associated with a variety of labels, reflecting multiple disciplinary anchoring points (digital sociology, sociology of work, economic sociology, STS, communication and media studies, cultural studies, etc.).

In this issue, we approach these individuals and their practices through the notion of “content creators” referring to individuals who, via an account on a platform, publish digital productions to a community of followers. This term has gained significant traction in media and professional discourses—particularly among talent agencies, production companies, and communication firms—to describe segments of content production most closely aligned with commercial logic, while distancing itself from the more controversial notion of “influencer.” Nevertheless, the term has the advantage of designating these actors based on what they actually do, without presuming their degree of professionalization, economic model, focus, platform affiliation, or capacity to influence, prescribe, or orient audiences.

Research Strands

This issue aims precisely to focus on content creation and to examine the social, material, and economic conditions under which it is carried out on digital platforms. The issue welcomes a plurality of theoretical frameworks (digital and media sociology, sociology of work, economic sociology, gender studies, cultural studies, political economy of platforms, etc.) and empirical fields (France and other national or transnational contexts). Particular attention will be paid to the contributions empirical robustness, as well as to the ways in which they articulate in-depth analysis of a case or segment with a more general reflection on the structuring of the content creation space, its niches, markets, and hierarchies. The study of content creators also raises numerous methodological and epistemological challenges. Without constituting a standalone axis, submitted proposals are expected to take into account the issues involved in online data collection and to clearly explicate the chosen methodology, its relevance to the object of study, and its limitations. We also encourage submissions to detail how the production of scientific results is articulated with compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

1. Social and Professional Trajectories of Content Creators

While a substantial body of research has examined the formats, contents, and even the economic models of this activity, the individual trajectories of content creators remain largely under-explored. This axis seeks to fill this gap by examining how social, professional, and biographical trajectories articulate with the ways in which these online activities are carried out, in light of promises to lower barriers to entry.

On the side of professional trajectories, the question of the pro–am continuum (Flichy, 2010) has already been the object of a very large number of studies on online activities, which could be revisited in the light of recent developments in platform operations. Since this activity can expose individuals to many risks and criticisms from large audiences, one might ask what drives some amateurs to invest in these platforms if professionalization is not their career horizon.

When one seeks to qualify the occupations, professions, or activities involved, the extreme diversity of profiles and practices often makes analysis difficult: creators frequently combine several activities, oscillating between different professions—journalists, nutritionists, researchers, retailers, psychologists, reality TV stars. Thus, many individuals do not necessarily consider themselves content creators, while in practice being invested in these socio-digital platforms. This is, for example, the case for the artists studied by Sophie Bishop (2025), who clearly shows how the logic of commercial influence on platforms extends to many other sectors of activity, including highly amateur ones. At which point do individuals engaged in an activity outside platforms come to qualify themselves as content creators?

Although some studies have explored individual pathways through case studies (Assilaméhou-Kunz & Rebillard, 2022; Celik, 2014), it remains necessary to adopt a more systematic approach in order to analyze the dynamics of entry, staying, and career change within this activity, facilitated by the possibility of carrying out these activities remotely. How does membership in certain professional groups shape content creation? What are the bridges and the breaks between this activity and other professional sectors? While this may constitute a form of involuntary career change, as in the case of YouTube cartomancers (Gilliotte & Guittet, 2025), or a way to align professional activity with passion (Duffy, 2016), the sector’s strong commodification can also lead individuals to engage directly in it after their initial training. Which social and trajectory-related factors account for these differences?

When focusing on issues of trajectories and social stratification, several studies emphasize the belonging of some of content creators to upper social classes, such as YouTube science popularizers (Blanchard et al., 2018), eco-responsible content creators (Michel, 2023), or fitness influencers (Godefroy, 2021). Conversely, other spaces of online creation appear to be invested by members of the working and middle classes (Brasseur & Finez, 2019; Gilliotte & Guittet, 2023, 2025), which significantly shapes how they carry out their activity and how they position themselves professionally. These gaps bring to light dynamics of social stratification that deserve further investigation: what is the weight of social inequalities in creators’ access to and success within this activity? To what extent do these online spaces reproduce or transform traditional career logic and professional trajectories? Finally, to what extent do these diverse patterns of social recruitment lead to the valorization of certain segments of content-creation work? Conversely, do we observe that certain tasks tend to be delegated, following the model of “dirty work” (Hughes, 1962), and if so, which tasks and according to what criteria? Is it moderation work, accounting, video editing? These considerations invite us to rethink content creation within a collective framework: who takes charge of this “dirty work” (family, paid professionals), and how do creators’ economic, social, and cultural resources enable—or fail to enable—access to such forms of delegation?

These social effects should also be analyzed through the lens of gender. Many studies indeed highlight the continuity between feminine norms, digital expression, and the management of an online community (Duffy & Hund, 2015; Rocamora, 2017). Others show how digital entrepreneurship, because it can take place at home, is massively chosen by women seeking a better articulation between professional and family time, with the consequence of increasing their domestic workload (Landour, 2019). However, the growing commodification of content creation, alongside a symbolic revalorization of the activity, leads men to invest certain sectors such as political commentary or science popularization (Blanchard et al., 2018; Louis, 2016), while relegating women to sectors that are less socially valued, such as “lifestyle” (Gauthier, 2025). How does gender thus influence practices and representations of content creation? In the case of science popularization, for instance, women creators are more often victims of sexist attacks in comment sections than their male counterparts (Douyère & Ricaud, 2019); how can we describe the activity of these “men in women’s jobs” (Couppié & Epiphane, 2016) and, conversely, the reverse situation? How should we conceptualize the boundary between content creation “for men” and content creation “for women”? Similarly, many authors, including Angèle Christin and Yingdan Lu (Christin & Lu, 2024), have underscored the effects of race within platform capitalism, showing significant pay gaps depending on whether creators are racialized or not. Overall, intersectional approaches are strongly encouraged.

Finally, proposals may also examine these trajectories through the angle of creators’ insertion into professional organizations within the content-creation activity. This may already involve shedding light on the internal organization of channels. Thus, despite a strong embodiment around a particular figure, many channels nonetheless rely on highly collective production, as exemplified by the HugoDécrypte channel, which has more than 30 employees. How is this organization structured? How do the different actors divide up the work and manage the tension between visible and invisible labor? One may also question the professional organization of the sector more broadly. The sociology of markets observes that, in markets insufficiently regulated by public authorities, actors cooperate to collectively produce norms of exchange (Castel et al., 2016; Mallard, 2011). Since a Union of Influence Professions and Content Creators was established in 2023, what role do collective organizations take on and play in these markets? What positioning do content creators adopt vis-à-vis them?

2. Make a Living in the Content Creation Market

Various studies have highlighted the economic precariousness of the majority of these creators (Alexandre et al., 2024; Alexandre & Benbouzid, 2024). One of the first challenges for them is the organizational and economic viability of their activity, particularly in terms of shifting from amateur to professional production, given that many of them often fall within the pro-am continuum (Flichy, 2010, 2017). How do these creators manage to make a living from their activity? When creative activity pays little, what economic strategies are put in place to remain visible in the hope of one day being able to make a living from their passion (Duffy, 2016)? How do these creators professionalize themselves, while juggling different sources of income within a multifaceted market?

In terms of commercial partner relationships, a special focus will be placed on how creators negotiate relationships with various commercial partners. Creators must present themselves as trustworthy to businesses while creating a brand image that will attract specific audiences (Van Driel & Dumitrica, 2021). Marion Michel (2022) shows that eco-responsible content creators must learn to filter and choose their partners carefully so that they do not arouse suspicion among their audiences. How is the value of this relationship to audiences determined? More broadly, how do creators learn to “sell themselves,” set their rates, refuse or renegotiate certain partnerships? On the other hand, certain economic actors do not necessarily have an interest in these creators becoming more professional. This is highlighted in particular by the work of Joseph Godefroy (2021), which clearly shows how creators’ proximity to their audience leads to “friendly, contract-free work”, with creators being paid in goods or vouchers. What is preventing or slowing down the professionalization of some of these creators?

When it comes to analyzing the relationship with audiences, many studies focus on the ways in which certain forms of authenticity and closeness to audiences are performed (Bishop, 2025; Coavoux & Roques, 2020; Duverné et al., 2022). However, these performances of authenticity vary in different contexts—they depend on multiple factors such as the creators’ area of expertise, their gender, the platform, and their level of professionalization. Brasseur & Finez (2019) show how cam girls must “perform” amateurism in order to appeal to their audiences. How are these tensions expressed in other sectors? How does this proximity to audiences translate economically? In fact, certain content creation sectors place significant emphasis on donation and subscription mechanisms (Ferret, 2024), which can make the activity economically viable despite a limited presence in the public sphere. Others resort to a service market (coaching, training, consulting, crafts, care, etc.) or sell derivative products (Gilliotte & Guittet, 2025), using audiovisual platforms as a showcase for loss leaders. This diversity of models raises the issue of strategies adopted to ensure financial stability. How can content creation for large audiences be combined with smaller-scale service provision?

Finally, several studies show that monetization remains, for the most part, an uncertain source of income in the economic relationship forged with platforms, heavily influenced by the opacity of the algorithm and the volatility of visibility and remuneration criteria (Bishop, 2019; Gilliotte & Pasquier, 2024). The official rules for accessing monetization programs coexist with more discretionary changes in recommendation systems, which are never publicly announced, fueling a climate of uncertainty (Bishop, 2019, 2021) in which creators struggle to anticipate the effects of their editorial and economic choices. Contributions could therefore examine how creators interpret these changes: how do they learn to read, to comment, to anticipate or to circumvent the metrics and revenue dashboards made available to them? What strategies for maximization, diversification or, conversely, disengagement from these mechanisms do they develop (multiplication of platforms, arbitrage between monetisable and non-monetisable content, segmentation of channels according to editorial or economic functions, etc.)? How do these rules circulate in the professional field?

Beyond content creators themselves, the way the content creation market is organized can be called into question, particularly with the emergence and development of a variety of intermediaries, such as talent agencies and multichannel networks. The latter play a key part in negotiating content with advertisers, treating creators’ productions as actual advertising spaces (Desmoulins et al., 2018). What role do these commercial actors play in the professionalization of content creators and in revenue negotiations? To what extent do these new intermediaries participate in forms of delegation of “dirty work” (Hughes, 1962) or, on the contrary, reinforce the constraints on content production?

3. Creative Production and Formatting Under Constraints

Finally, the last axis focuses on content creation as an activity of its own, the practices and forms of knowledge it requires and the various trade-offs made in context. Beyond the economic issues discussed in Axis 1, content creators must operate within constrained frameworks, develop not only commercial but also artistic, bodily, and communication skills, while adapting and resisting to regulatory, technical, or algorithmic constraints (Bigot et al., 2021; Gomez-Mejia, 2016).

A growing body of research has highlighted the ways in which platforms prescribe and standardize content formats, as illustrated by the systems framing production on YouTube (Mattelart, 2021), TikTok (Guinaudeau et al., 2022), and Facebook (Alloing et al., 2021). This standardization relies on creators’ adaptation to platforms whose modes of operation are often described as opaque and highly specific. Many studies emphasize the importance of exchanging practical knowledge, through both experimentation and informal discussions among creators (Bishop, 2019), leading over time to a degree of convergence in practices. How does the learning of these norms take place in practice? What resources are mobilized? This learning process is all the more crucial given that content moderation policies are known to contribute to the visibility or invisibility of certain social groups, as illustrated by LGBT collectives affected by “over-moderation” (Grison et al., 2023). Various strategies are regularly implemented, such as creating backup accounts, self-censoring terms or images, resorting to alternative platforms, or collectively denouncing moderation measures perceived as abusive (Badouard, 2021). These constraints may even encourage voluntary exits from platforms, as illustrated by the HelloQuitX movement calling for users to leave X (formerly Twitter). Alongside strategies of resistance to censorship mechanisms are those aimed at instrumentalizing them, for instance for community-based purposes: organizing coordinated reporting campaigns or creating block lists (Pigenet, 2024). How is resistance to platform-imposed constraints organized? How are the closure or reopening of profiles across different platforms negotiated over time?

These difficulties are further compounded for creators who invest in multiple digital platforms and services simultaneously (Millette, 2013), which entails specific forms of trade-offs. Creators must therefore contend with more or less constraining formats, which may involve, for example, adapting long, horizontal content into short, vertical formats. This process constrains choices of staging and potentially complicates multi-platform creation. How does the adaptation from one format to another take place in practice? Which trade-offs lead to the choice of specific formats on particular platforms? Beyond their varying affordances, platforms also differ in terms of history, culture, and audiences. While some are experiencing rapid growth, others are in decline; some are particularly popular among younger publics, while others are more widely used by older users (Pacouret et al., 2024). How do creators adapt to real or imagined audiences?

Finally, this axis also invites reflection on adaptations to emerging legislative constraints. The rapid expansion of commercial collaboration practices targeting young audiences, combined with the media coverage of scandals involving content creators, has led in France to the adoption of a law on commercial influence on 9 June 2023. This law aims both to protect the work of creators—particularly minors—to prohibit certain practices, and to regulate advertising. Belgium has also strengthened its regulatory framework for creators, as part of a broader European movement toward the regulation and oversight of commercial influence practices, exemplified by the Digital Services Act adopted by the European Union in 2022. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission issues guidelines for creators but adopts a more flexible approach. As a result, the sector is characterized by an evolving and uneven regulatory landscape across territories, despite the international nature of creators’ visibility and content. Yet few studies have examined how legislative regulation shapes practices. How do creators take legislative developments into account? Moreover, many creators enjoy international visibility: how does this affect their commercial practices, and how do they navigate between different regulatory frameworks? Submissions grounded in legislative contexts other than France are encouraged whether or not they adopt a comparative approach.

Practical Information

The abstracts (4000 signs maximum, plus references) are due on May 4, 2026. They should be sent to the following address: journal.reset@gmail.com

And to the coordinators of the issue:

• Quentin Gilliotte : quentin.gilliotte@gmail.com
  
• Phoebé Pigenet : ppigenet@gmail.com
  
• Marion Michel : marion.michel@sciencespo.fr
  

The proposal, written in either English or French, should state the research question, the methodology, and the theoretical framework used. It will focus on the scientific relevance of the proposed article in light of the existing literature and the call for papers, and may be accompanied by a short bibliography. We would like to draw the authors’ attention to a special section called Revisiting the Classics, devoted to new readings of classical authors and theories in light of the Internet.

The abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by the issue coordinators and the members of the editorial board. Authors of submissions selected at this stage will be asked to e-mail their full papers on January 15, 2013.

The journal Reset also accepts submissions to its “Varia” section, open to scholarly work in the Humanities and Social Sciences dealing with an Internet-related object or method of research.

Important dates

Deadline for abstract submission (4000 signs maximum, plus references): May 4, 2026.

Responses to authors: Before the end of June 2026.

Deadline for full papers (6,000 to 9,000 words, plus references): November 23, 2026.

Contact

Editorial board: journal.reset@gmail.com

Coordinators:

• Quentin Gilliotte : quentin.gilliotte@gmail.com
  
• Phoebé Pigenet : ppigenet@gmail.com
  
• Marion Michel : marion.michel@sciencespo.fr
  

Bibliographie

Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références par Bilbo, l'outil d'annotation bibliographique d'OpenEdition.

Les utilisateurs des institutions qui sont abonnées à un des programmes freemium d'OpenEdition peuvent télécharger les références bibliographiques pour lequelles Bilbo a trouvé un DOI.

References

ABIDIN Crystal (2018). Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online, Emerald Publishing Limited.

ALEXANDRE Olivier & BENBOUZID Bilel (2024). La création de contenus. Un marché comme un autre?, vol. 4, Paris, La Découverte, coll. Réseaux.

ALEXANDRE Olivier, BENBOUZID Bilel, LELIEVRE Arnaud & ROUDIER Bertrand (2024). « Au marché de Youtube: organisation, revenus et topologie », Réseaux, 246-247 (4-5), pp. 43-88.

ALLOING Camille, COSSETTE Samuel & GERMAIN Sara (2021). « Faire face aux plateformes: la communication numérique entre tactiques et dépendances », Questions de communication, 40 (2), pp. 141-168.

ASSILAMÉHOU-KUNZ Yvette & REBILLARD Franck (2022). La Machine YouTube, Caen, C&F Éditions. DOI : 10.3917/cf.assil.2022.01

BADOUARD Romain (2021). « Modérer la parole sur les réseaux sociaux. Politiques des plateformes et régulation des contenus », Réseaux, 225 (1), pp. 87-120.

BIGOT Jean-Édouard, BOUTÉ Édouard, COLLOMB Cléo & MABI Clément (2021). « Les plateformes à l’épreuve des dynamiques de plateformisation », Questions de communication, 40 (2), pp. 9-22.

BISHOP Sophie (2019). « Managing Visibility on YouTube Algorithmic Gossip », New Media & Society. DOI : 10.1177/1461444819854731

BISHOP Sophie (2021). « Influencer Management Tools: Algorithmic Cultures, Brand Safety, and Bias », Social Media + Society, 7 (1), 20563051211003066.

BISHOP Sophie (2025). Influencer Creep: How Optimization, Authenticity, and Self-Branding Transform Creative Culture, University of California Press. DOI : 10.2307/jj.33092051

BLANCHARD Antoine, DEBOVE Stéphane, LE JEUNE Pleene, LOUAPRE David & LOUIS Tania (2018). « Que sait-on des vidéastes de science sur YouTube? »

BRASSEUR Pierre & FINEZ Jean (2019). Performing Amateurism: A Study of Camgirls’ Work, Palgrave Macmillan.

CASTEL Patrick, HÉNAUT Léonie & MARCHAL Emmanuelle (2016). Faire la concurrence: Retour sur un phénomène social et économique, Paris, Presses des Mines, coll. Sciences sociales. DOI : 10.4000/books.pressesmines.3397

CELIK Combe (2014). « Vlogues sur YouTube: un nouveau genre d’interactions multimodales ».

CHRISTIN Angèle & LU Yingdan (2024). « The Influencer Pay Gap: Platform Labor Meets Racial Capitalism », New Media & Society, 26 (12), pp. 7212-7235. DOI : 10.1177/14614448231164995

COAVOUX Samuel & ROQUES Noémie (2020). « Une profession de l’authenticité. Le régime de proximité des intermédiaires du jeu vidéo sur Twitch et YouTube », Réseaux, 224 (6), pp. 169-198.

CUNNINGHAM Stuart (dir.) (2021). Creator Culture. An Introduction to Global Social Media Entertainment, New York, NYU Press. DOI : 10.18574/nyu/9781479890118.001.0001

DESMOULINS Lucile, ALLOING Camille & MOHLI Vanessa (2018). « L’influence n’est-elle que donnée(s)? Médiations et négociations dans les agences de communication « influenceurs » », Communication & Organisation, 54 (2), pp. 29-40.

DOUYÈRE David & RICAUD Pascal (2019). « Présentation du dossier. Youtube, un espace d’expression politique? », Politiques de communication, 13 (2), pp. 15-30. DOI : 10.3917/pdc.013.0015

DUFFY Brooke Erin (2016). « The Romance of Work: Gender and Aspirational Labour in the Digital Culture Industries », International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19 (4), pp. 441-457.

DUFFY Brooke Erin & HUND Emily (2015). « “Having It All” on Social Media: Entrepreneurial Femininity and Self-Branding Among Fashion Bloggers », Social Media + Society, 1 (2), 2056305115604337.

DUVERNÉ Tristan, LE YONDRE François & HÉAS Stéphane (2022). « Les influenceuses beauté et leur cour: les mécanismes du prestige sur Instagram », Questions de communication, 42, pp. 333-358.

FERRET Nathan (2024). « Un capitalisme du don: sociologie économique de la plateforme Twitch », Réseaux, 246-247 (4-5), pp. 127-160. DOI : 10.3917/res.246.0127

FLICHY Patrice (2010). Le Sacre de l’amateur, Paris, Seuil.

FLICHY Patrice (2017). Les nouvelles frontières du travail à l’ère numérique, Paris, Seuil.

GAUTHIER Emma (2025). « “Je n’avais pas conscience d’être une meuf avant d’être sur Internet”. Une enquête qualitative et quantitative sur les inégalités de genre dans l’accès à la visibilité sur YouTube », thèse de doctorat, Université Gustave Eiffel.

GILLIOTTE Quentin & GUITTET Emmanuelle (2023). « La production individuelle et collective des bonnes pratiques dans une activité non encadrée. Étude de cas d’un conflit entre praticien·nes de la cartomancie en ligne », Sociologies pratiques, 46 (1), pp. 31-41. DOI : 10.3917/sopr.046.0031

GILLIOTTE Quentin & GUITTET Emmanuelle (2025). « Une cartomancie à “deux vitesses”. Inégalités économiques et professionnelles chez les travailleurs et travailleuses du tarot en ligne », Revue française de socio-économie, 34 (1), pp. 85-105.

GILLIOTTE Quentin & PASQUIER Dominique (2024). « Travailler à sa chaîne: les vidéastes des plateformes face à leurs sources de revenus », Réseaux, 246-247 (4), pp. 89-126.

GODEFROY Joseph (2021). « Des influenceurs sous influence? La mobilisation économique des usagers d’Instagram », Travail et emploi, 164-165 (1-2), pp. 59-83.

GOMEZ-MEJIA Gustavo (2016). Les fabriques de soi?: Identité et industrie sur le web, Paris, MkF Éditions.

GRISON Thibault, JULLIARD Virginie, ALIÉ Félix & ECREMENT Victor (2023). « La modération abusive sur Twitter: étude de cas sur l’invisibilisation des contenus LGBT et TDS en ligne », Réseaux, 237 (1), pp. 119-149.

GUINAUDEAU Benjamin, MUNGER Kevin & VOTTA Fabio (2022). « Fifteen Seconds of Fame: TikTok and the Supply Side of Social Video », Computational Communication Research, 4 (2), pp. 463-485. DOI : 10.5117/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN

HUGHES Everett C. (1962). « Good People and Dirty Work », Social Problems, 10 (1), pp. 3-11.

LANDOUR Julie (2019). Sociologie des Mompreneurs: Entreprendre pour concilier travail et famille, 1re éd., Villeneuve-d’Ascq, Septentrion. DOI : 10.4000/books.septentrion.92816

LOUIS Tania (2016). Situation professionnelle des vidéastes vulgarisateurs francophones.

MALLARD Alexandre (2011). Petit dans le marché: Une sociologie de la Très Petite Entreprise, Paris, Presses des Mines, coll. Sciences sociales. DOI : 10.4000/books.pressesmines.365

MATTELART Tristan (2021). « L’élaboration par YouTube d’un modèle mondial de production de vidéos », Questions de communication, 40, pp. 119-140.

MICHEL Marion (2022). « Vendre sans être une vendue. Écoresponsabilité et mise à distance de la prescription marchande sur les réseaux sociaux numériques », Réseaux, 234 (4), pp. 95-125.

MICHEL Marion (2023). « “Mon travail: créatrice de contenus engagée” », Socio-économie du travail, 11, pp. 95-128.

MILLETTE Mélanie (2013). « Pratiques transplateformes et convergence dans les usages des médias sociaux », Communication et organisation, 43, pp. 47-58.

PACOURET Jérôme, BASTIN Gilles & MARTY Emmanuel (2024). « L’espace social des réseaux sociaux: une approche relationnelle de l’usage des plateformes numériques en France », Sociologie, 15 (2), pp. 119-146.

PIGENET Phoebé (2024). « Bousculer les normes corporelles », Communication. Information médias théories pratiques, 41 (1).

POELL T., NIEBORG D. & VAN DIJCK J. (2019). « Platformisation », Internet Policy Review, 8. DOI : 10.14763/2019.4.1425

REECH (2025). Les consommateurs X les créateurs de contenus, 9.

ROCAMORA Agnès (2017). « Mediatization and Digital Media in the Field of Fashion », Fashion Theory, 21 (5), pp. 505-522. DOI : 10.1080/1362704X.2016.1173349

VAN DRIEL Loes & DUMITRICA Delia (2021). « Selling Brands while Staying Authentic: The Professionalization of Instagram Influencers », Convergence, 27 (1), pp. 66-84.

VIE PUBLIQUE (2025). « Loi influenceurs proposition de loi Delaporte-Vojetta | vie-publique.fr ».

VIZCAÍNO-VERDÚ Arantxa & ABIDIN Crystal (2023). « TeachTok: Teachers of TikTok, micro-celebrification, and fun learning communities », Teaching and Teacher

Dear Colleagues,

I have begun work on a forthcoming book project. The development of the manuscript is scheduled to commence in June 2026. 

The title is Rewriting Reality: The Role of Algorithmic Media in Shaping Thought, Society, and Digital Belonging

I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you would be interested in contributing a chapter to this volume. On this occasion, chapters will be authored by a single contributor, and participation will be strictly by invitation.

If you believe that this topic may also be of interest to other colleagues, please feel free to let me know so that their potential participation may be considered. Write to me at raquelbenitezrojas@gmail.com.

July 6-10, 2026

University of Manchester

We would like to invite applicants for the Digital Methods Summer School that will take place at the University of Manchester between 6th and 10th July 2026. 

This year, we will cover the following topics:

• Visual Methods
  
• Sensing AI Methods
  
• Creative AI Methods
  
• Text Analysis with R
  
• Data Visualisation
  
• Geospatial Methods
  
• Ethics & Open Science

Check out our website for more information about the content, fees and bursaries: https://new.express.adobe.com/webpage/53uwG1yp7TISE

The summer school is co-organised by the Centre for Digital Humanities, Cultures and Media (https://www.digital-humanities.manchester.ac.uk/) and Methods@Manchester (https://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/).

Media and Journalismo, vol. 26 N49 (2026)

Deadline: April 30, 2026

Editors:

• Berta García Orosa iD icon “ University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, berta.garcia@usc.es
  
• Inês Amaral iD icon “ University of Coimbra, Portugal,  ines.amaral@uc.pt
  
• Noel Pascual Presa iD icon “ University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, noel.pascual.presa@usc.es
  

The topic of this call for papers seeks to gather original, interdisciplinary, and empirically grounded research that exploreshow audiences are constructed within digital public spheres. The development of technologies such as artificial intelligence or big data has not only transformed the production, distribution, and circulation of information, but also redefined theways in which audiences are imagined and constructed. In its early stages (approximately 20 years ago), the continuous analysis of big data allowed for real-time audience insights and, subsequently, the prediction of audience behaviour, as exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica case. However, the focus has now shifted towards constructing audiences beforemessages are even produced, particularly in the context of electoral campaigns.

While there is a growing academic interest in the effects of media automation and personalisation, there has yet to be aconvergence of studies that systematically examine the epistemological, political, ethical, and communicative implicationsof this new relationship between algorithms and audiences. This gap is even more striking when considering the far-reaching nature of the phenomenon, which spans across journalism, political communication, digital culture, and platformgovernance.

In this fourth wave of digital communication, algorithms not only predict audience behaviours but also influence and shape them, giving rise to what has been termed the "algorithmic audience" (Riemer & Peter, 2021). This process ofdatafication has led to new methods of classification, personalisation, and micro-segmentation of audiences, profoundlytransforming the logic of political mediation.

This scenario marks a paradigm shift: while traditional scientific episteme conceived of audiences through ascribed categories such as class, gender, or ideology, the new algorithmic paradigm is grounded in behavioural data, adopting aperformative logic that dissolves fixed classifications (Fisher & Mehozay, 2019).

However, this transformation is far from neutral. The new ways of constructing algorithmic audiences present democraticrisks: automated biases (Kordzadeh & Ghasemaghaei, 2021), opacity in content selection (Livingstone, 2019), challengesto informational plurality and freedom of expression (Riemer & Peter, 2021), and growing inequality in voice representation (Jones, 2023; Zarouali et al., 2021). The construction of new public spheres requires critical and urgentanalysis.

These changes are affecting public discourse, with journalism at the forefront of the transformation. The growing relianceon algorithms is reshaping the profession, giving rise to what has been termed "automated journalism" or "robot journalism", driven by the automation and personalisation of news content (Carlson, 2015; Clerwall, 2014). Although thispersonalisation offers opportunities to strengthen the relationship with audiences (Ford & Hutchinson, 2019), it also introduces challenges, as public trust in the media may be undermined by the perceived risks inherent to these dynamics(Livingstone, 2019; Sehl & Eder, 2023). These new tools have far-reaching implications, both professionally and socially:from threats to freedom of expression and the need for new policies on content authorship, to the impact on the legitimacy of journalistic judgement and the reconfiguration of audiences (Carlson, 2018; Fisher & Mehozay, 2019; Montal & Reich,2016; Riemer & Peter, 2021).

From an identity perspective, the relationship with audiences remains central. However, the emphasis has shifted:personalised and individualised messaging have lost prominence, giving way to a more community-centred discourse. Inpractice, community is constructed around paid subscriptions and access to exclusive features and content. Narratives areconstructed around this group of members or subscribers to persuade them of their relevance to the survival and qualityof the media’s journalistic practice.

At the same time, users often perceive algorithmic content selection based on their consumption behaviour in a positive light (Thurman, 2018). This personalisation is accompanied by increasing categorisation and micro-segmentation, allowing for more granular and precise user classification (Beauvisage et al., 2024). Nonetheless, this positive perception and micro-segmentation do not protect users from the risks inherent to algorithmic governance, often carefully designedaround opaque or hidden interests (Jones, 2023; Reynolds & Hallinan, 2024).

This Call for Papers aims to:

• Explore epistemological transformations in the conceptualisation of audiences
  
• Analyse emerging journalistic and communicative practices within algorithmic logics
  
• Examine the democratic, ethical, and regulatory implications of algorithm-mediated personalisation
  
• Propose innovative methodologies for investigating hyper-segmented and opaque audiences
  
• Foster interdisciplinary dialogue bridging political communication, digital sociology, platform economics, and critical theory

Suggested topics for articles

• Political audiences and datafication
  
• Automated journalism and personalized news delivery
  
• Algorithmic biases and polarisation
  
• Algorithmic transparency and accountability
  
• Ideological segmentation and targeting strategies
  
• Civic participation in automated media environments
  
• Ethics, privacy, and data governance
  
• New forms of audience agency and performativity
  
• Youth audiences and platform culture
  
• Regional and comparative case studies
  
• Content automation
  
• Ethical and privacy implications of datafication
  
• The role of journalism in algorithmic communication
  
• Risks and opportunities of hyper-personalization
  
• Transformation of media consumption habits
  
• Informational plurality
  
• Echo chambers and information bubbles
  
• Polarisation and algorithmic bias
  
• Impact of algorithms on agenda setting
  
• Transformation of media power
  
• Trust in sources of algorithmic information
  
• Disinformation and fake news
  
• Transparency and regulatory mechanisms
  
• Audiences and engagement
  
• Media literacy
  
• New audiences and youth audiences
  
• Astroturfing campaigns
  

At the point of submission, the author must explicitly indicate the journal issue to which the manuscript is being submitted.

IMPORTANT DATES

Deadline for submitting articles: from January 22 to April 30, 2026

Publication period: continuous edition (September to December 2026) 

This call for papers is part of the R&D projects Artificial Intelligence in Digital Media in Spain: Effects and Roles (PID2024-156034OB-C22), funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF/EU”; & (d)e-HATE - Exploring Cyber Hate: Online Racism Targeting Immigrant and Racialized Communities in Portugal" (2024.18170.PEX).

Media & Jornalismo (RMJ) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (EmergingSources Citation). Each paper is sent to two reviewers, who are invited in advance to evaluate it based on the criteria ofquality, originality, and relevance in line with the aim and theme of the specific issue of the journal.

Articles can be submitted in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s website (https://impactum-journals.uc.pt/mj). Once accessing RMJfor the first time, registration is required to submit the article and track the editorial process. We recommend reviewing the Author Guidelines, Submission Conditions, and thejournal's Editorial Policy.

For more information, you can contact patriciacontreiras@fcsh.unl.pt

References

Beauvisage, T., Beuscart, J.-S., Coavoux, S., & Mellet, K. (2024). How online advertising targets consumers: The uses of categories and algorithmic tools by audience planners. New Media & Society, 26(10), 6098-6119.https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221146174

Carlson, M. (2018). Automating judgment? Algorithmic judgment, news knowledge, and journalistic professionalism. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1755-1772.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817706684

Carlson, M. (2015). "The Robotic Reporter: Automated Journalism and the Redefinition of Labor, Compositional Forms, and Journalistic Authority." Digital Journalism, 3(3), 416-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976412

Clerwall, C. (2014). "Enter the Robot Journalist: Users’Perceptions of Automated Content." Journalism Practice, 8(5), 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.883116

Fisher, E., & Mehozay, Y. (2019). How algorithms see their audience: media epistemes and the changing conception of the individual. Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1176-1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719831598

Ford, H., & Hutchinson, J. (2019). Newsbots That Mediate Journalist and Audience Relationships. Digital Journalism, 7(8), 1013-1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1626752

Jones, C. (2023). How to train your algorithm: The struggle for public control over private audience commodities on Tiktok. Media, Culture & Society, 45(6), 1192-1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231159555

Kordzadeh, N., & Ghasemaghaei, M. (2021). Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions.European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 388-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212

Livingstone, S. (2019). Audiences in an Age of Datafication: Critical Questions for Media Research. Television & New Media, 20(2), 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418811118

Montal, T., & Reich, Z. (2016). I, Robot. You, Journalist. Who is the Author? Authorship, bylines and full disclosure in automated journalism. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 829-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1209083

Reynolds, C., & Hallinan, B. (2024). User-generated accountability: Public participation in algorithmic governance onYouTube. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5107-5129. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241251791

Riemer, K., & Peter, S. (2021). Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology, 36(4), 409-426. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211013358

Sehl, A., & Eder, M. (2023). News Personalization and Public Service Media: The Audience Perspective in ThreeEuropean Countries. Journalism and Media, 4(1), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4010022

Thurman, N., Moeller, J., Helberger, N., & Trilling, D. (2018). My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection. Digital Journalism, 7(4), 447-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936

Thurman, N. (2018). Social Media, Surveillance, and News Work: On the apps promising journalists a "crystal ball." Digital Journalism, 6(1), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345318

Zarouali, B., Helberger, N., & De Vreese, C. H. (2021). Investigating Algorithmic Misconceptions in a Media Context: Source of a New Digital Divide? Media and Communication, 9(4), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i4.4090

Registration for the 11th European Communication Conference (ECC2026) is now open. The conference will take place in Brno and will bring together communication scholars from across Europe and beyond for four days of research presentations, scholarly discussion, and networking. ECC2026 offers a unique platform to engage with current research, strengthen international collaboration, and help shape the future of communication studies. Detailed information on registration fees, accommodation, and the conference program is available on this website. Notifications regarding abstract submissions will be sent after 17 March 2026. The deadline for early registration is 15 June 2026.

READ MORE

Aarhus University

Apply here: https://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/open-and-specific-calls/phd-call-2026-9

The Graduate School at Arts, Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University, in collaboration with the European Research Council and the Department of Media and Journalism Studies at Aarhus University, invites applications for a fully funded PhD fellowship in PAY4PLAY: Entrepreneurial Organizing in the Platform Society provided the necessary funding is available. This PhD fellowship is available as of 1 September 2026 for a period of up to three years (5+3).

It is expected that candidate awarded the PhD fellowship will be able to commence the PhD degree programme on 1 September 2026. 

PAY4PLAY is an interdisciplinary, large-scale investigation of organizing in the creator economy concerned with how creators and their communities come together and create value. The project is premised on the idea that organizing is essential to understand how creators—and people more broadly—both exploit and challenge the growing power of digital platforms. The project approaches creator organizing from three perspectives (culture, infrastructure, policy) and compares three industrial sectors (gamers, VTubers, adult content creators). In so doing, the project will map the industrial conditions of the creator economy, develop a new theory of organizing and platform power, and provide policy recommendations for platforms and regulators.

The PAY4PLAY team includes the principal investigator Blake Hallinan, a postdoctoral researcher, and three PhD fellows working on the sub-project “Cultures of Participation within and among Creator Communities.”

This PhD fellowship focuses on video game creators making content in English and, preferably, Spanish, as the second largest language on the livestreaming platform Twitch. The project design is flexible but should investigate organizing within (i.e., how creators, co-producers, volunteers, and audience members relate to each other) and among creator communities (i.e., how creator communities form alliances to shape industrial conditions). The PhD fellow will also have the opportunity to collaborate with team members working in other sectors and in the projects focused on infrastructure and policy, as well as with an international network of advisors and collaborators.

The PhD fellowship will be supervised by Blake Hallinan, Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Journalism Studies, and co-supervised by Pablo Velasco, Associate Professor in the Department of Digital Design and Information.

Tasks and responsibilities

The candidate will:

• Design and conduct studies of organizing within and among gaming creator communities across social media platforms (e.g., Twitch, YouTube, Discord, Patreon, TikTok)
  
• Conduct interviews with members of gaming creator communities
  
• Observe creator community organizing at industry events (e.g., TwitchCon, Gamescom)
  
• Observe creator community organizing online using relevant methods (e.g., digital ethnography, digital methods analysis of social media data)
  
• Collaborate closely with supervisors, the postdoctoral researcher, and fellow PhD researchers on the PAY4PLAY project
  
• Present research at international conferences
  
• Publish PhD research in international publication venues
  

Requirements

• Master’s degree (120 ECTS) in a relevant field (e.g., media studies, communication, anthropology, sociology, cultural studies)
  
• Experience with studying digital platforms and/or online communities
  
• Ability to speak and write in English at an academic level
  

Desirable assets

• Ability to conduct research in Spanish (reading documents, interviewing participants)
  
• Domain expertise in the creator economy
  
• Theoretical sophistication, as reflected in the project description
  
• Experience with collaborative, interdisciplinary, and/or international research projects
  

Enrolment and place of work

The PhD student must complete the studies in accordance with the valid regulations for the PhD degree programme, currently the Ministerial Order of 27 August 2013 on the PhD degree programme at the universities: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/thephddegreeprogramme/

Description of the graduate school’s PhD degree programme: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/phdstudystructure/

Rules and regulations for the PhD degree programme at the Graduate School at Arts: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/thephddegreeprogramme/  

The PhD fellow will be enrolled as a PhD student at the Graduate School at Arts, Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University, with the aim of completing a PhD degree at the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.

The PhD student will be affiliated with the PhD programme ICT, Media, Communication and Journalism.

The PhD student’s place of work will be the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University. In general, the student is expected to be present at the school on an everyday basis.

The PhD degree programme is expected to include a lengthy research stay at a foreign institution, cf. Description of the graduate school’s PhD degree programme.

School of Communication and Culture’s research programme: http://cc.au.dk/en/research/research-programmes/

5+3 programme

When you apply for a 3-year PhD fellowship (5+3), you must have completed your two year Master’s degree (120 ECTS) no later than 31 August 2026.

The PhD fellow will be employed as a PhD student at the Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University. The terms of employment are in accordance with the agreement between the Danish Ministry of Finance and the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, as well as with the protocol to the agreement covering staff with university degrees in the state sector (see enclosure 5). The agreement and the protocol including amendments are available online: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/thephddegreeprogramme/

Salary: https://phd.arts.au.dk/4-4-part-b-and-5-3/salary-and-employment

How to apply 

The application must include:

Motivation/cover letter (statement of motivation and research interests, max one A4 page of 2,400 characters including spaces)

CV (including a complete list of education, positions, publications and other qualifying activities)

Project description outlining how the candidate envisages completing the work to be undertaken during the course of the term of appointment.

The overall project description (excl. list of project literature/bibliography/reference list and timetable) must not exceed 12,000 characters including spaces, tables, diagrams, footnotes, endnotes and illustrations (5 A4 pages of 2,400 characters each)

Project literature/reference list

Timetable (mandatory form)

Cover sheet (form stating your degrees)

Copies of educational certificates (Bachelor and Master’s degrees). The diplomas or diploma supplement/transcript of records must state: name of university, education (Bachelor or Master), duration (number of years, full-time), courses, marks and (if given) ECTS credits.

Please see a detailed description of the requirements for the application in the guide for the application facility: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/how-to-apply/ 

Application

If you require professional guidance regarding your application for the PhD fellowship please contact the PhD programme director at ICT, Media, Communication and Journalism:  http://phd.arts.au.dk/about-us/contact/

For further information, please contact Assistant Professor Blake Hallinan, School of Communication and Culture, bhallinan@cc.au.dk, + 45 93 99 75 01.

The application must be submitted in English.

All applicants must provide documentation of excellent communication skills in English which are considered essential, and you must therefore be able to read, write, and speak academic English fluently. English language requirement is comparable to a minimum of TOEFL 83 or IELTS 6.5. Please see this page for further information: http://phd.arts.au.dk/applicants/english-test/

Child protection certificate

In accordance with Ministerial Order no. 554 of 23 May 2023, Aarhus University is obliged to obtain a statement of no previous convictions in respect of children in connection with the appointment and employment of staff whose work will involve direct contact with children under the age of 15. If you, in connection with your PhD project, will be in direct contact with children under the age of 15 who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian, childcare professional or teacher, you will be covered by the requirements of the ministerial order.

If you are covered by these requirements and read Danish, please complete the section “Samtykkeerklæring” (declaration of consent) in the police form and upload the file under “Other information to consider” in the application form. You can download the form here: https://politi.dk/-/media/mediefiler/landsdaekkende-dokumenter/straffeattest/brneattest-p274.pdf

If you are covered by these requirements and do not read Danish, please upload a brief statement with the headline “Child protection certificate needed” under the field “Other information to consider” in the application form.

Applications for the PhD fellowship and enrolment in the PhD degree programme can only be submitted via the application form in Aarhus University’s web-based facility.

Deadline for applications: 1 April 2026 at 23.59 Danish time (CET/CEST).

Reference number: 2026-9

During the assessments, Aarhus University can conduct interviews with selected applicants.

March 20, 2026 and March 23, 2026

Online

The Euromedia Ownership Monitor (EurOMo) has now made its full database available to registered users, including information on beneficial owners. To introduce the database and highlight the main resources in EurOMo’s latest version, we are hosting a public webinar with two sessions:

 Friday, 20 March 2026, 11:00 CET

Monday, 23 March 2026, 15:00 CET

Each session includes a 30-minute presentation and live demo, followed by a Q&A. If you would like to attend, please register via this form (also available on the project's website).

Kind regards,

Tales Tomaz and Josef Trappel

Coordinators of EurOMo