Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization [1st ed.] 9783030563592, 9783030563608

Citation preview

Christine W. Trültzsch-Wijnen

Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization

Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization

Christine W. Trültzsch-Wijnen

Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization

Christine W. Trültzsch-Wijnen Centre of Competencies Media Education and E-Learning Pädagogische Hochschule Salzburg Stefan Zweig Salzburg, Austria

ISBN 978-3-030-56359-2 ISBN 978-3-030-56360-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56360-8

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Emilia and Sascha

Acknowledgements

Holding a book manuscript in your hands, you realize how much time has ‘disappeared’ into this project. Time that you were not always able to spend with family and friends in the way that you might have liked. So it is important for me to pause here and to thank those who have given me particular support in my work. First and foremost, thanks go to my family: I thank my husband Sascha TrültzschWijnen, who has not only relieved me of many burdens in everyday life, but has continually challenged me with relevant discussions. I thank our daughter Emilia, who reminds me again and again of how wonderful life is. I thank my father, who has never stopped believing in me. And I remember those who were always there for me, but are no longer there to be thanked. Thanks must also go to the many international colleagues with whom I have been able to discuss media literacy and young people’s everyday media activity over the last few years, at conferences and in the context of research projects. Special thanks go to Nico Carpentier and Alice Němcová Tejkalová from the Charles University in Prague. Furthermore, I want to thank Anja Löbert, Nicola Barfoot and Lydia Schiffkorn for their good collaboration.

vii

Contents

1

Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy . . . . . . . . . .

Part I 2

3

1

Social and Individual Aspects of Media Activity

The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Perspectives on Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Sociological Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Psychological Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Communication Studies Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the Help of Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Experiences of Socialization and Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Media Repertoires and Modes of Communication . . . . . . 2.3.2 Media Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Preliminary Summary: Media and Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 On the Relationship Between Different Forms of Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Education as a Social Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Bourdieu’s Contribution to the Explanation of Media Activity . . . 3.2.1 Bourdieu’s Approach in the Context of Communication Studies Discourses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Discourses on Media Habitus Within Media Education Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Preliminary Summary: Media Activity in the Light of Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

11 12 15 26 31

. . . . .

38 46 46 50 54

.

61

.

62

. . .

67 70 73

.

80

.

83

.

86

ix

x

Contents

Part II 4

5

Competence, Performance and Media Literacy

Theoretical Approach to the Concepts of Competence and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 On the Relationship Between Competence and Performance . . . . . 4.1.1 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Competence and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Competence as an Educational Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Key Qualifications and Key Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Criticism of the Functionalization of an Educational Concept of Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Preliminary Summary: Understanding Competence and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competence and Literacy in Relation to Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Media Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Theoretical Roots and Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Current Discourses and Attempts at Operationalization . . . 5.2 Media Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Theoretical Roots and Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Current Discourses and Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Preliminary Summary: Opportunities for Cross-Fertilization of Approaches to Media Competence and Media Literacy . . . . . .

Part III

. . . . . . .

93 93 95 100 110 111 112 115 118 127 127 130 139 145 147 172

. 196

Empirical Perspectives

6

Researching Media Literacy and the Appropriation of Media . . . . . . 207 6.1 Example: Social Distinction and Cultural Fit in Dealing with Top Model Shows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 6.2 Preliminary Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

7

Media Competence and Media Performance in Using the Social Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Quantitative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Qualitative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Main Results of the Quantitative Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Age-Specific Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Differences Relating to Gender and Formal Education . . . . 7.3 Media in the Light of Life-World Contexts: A Cross-Case Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 General Approach to and Evaluation of Media . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Media Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Abilities, Skills and Individual Action Strategies . . . . . . . .

219 221 223 228 239 241 242 245 248 250 256 257

Contents

7.4

8

xi

Typical Media Activity from the Perspective of Individual Action Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Defining Milieu and Life-World Orientation . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Media Activity Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Noteworthy Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 Individual Factors Influence Media Activity . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

262 263 268 293 298

Conclusion: Sensitivity and Open-Mindedness Are Needed . . . . . . . . 305

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire: The Social Web in the Everyday Life of Children, Adolescents and Young Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Instruments for the Qualitative Substudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instruments for Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 311 . 311 . 323 . 335

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4

Baacke’s media-ecological approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EU Kids Online revised model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The practical meaning of media activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socio-ecological and media-ecological representation of the relationship between the individual and the environment . . . . . . . . . . . How the media environment encompasses the socio-ecological levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

Fig. 3.1

Media field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

Theoretical explorations of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Theoretical explorations of competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Understanding of competence in educational theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Baacke’s model of media competence . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . Development of literacy concepts in relation to research perspectives and new media culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacies according to degree of generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of media literacy assessment criteria . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. .

Fig. 2.5

Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4

24 45 55 57

133 168 170 190

Relationship between media competence and media performance I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Relationship between media competence and media performance II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the individual substudies .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . Schematic sequence of the qualitative substudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview: typification. Blue, elementary categories for habitus hermeneutics; green, elementary categories for media habitus; yellow, elementary categories of media performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221 223 234

269

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Developmental tasks according to Havighurst (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 4.1

Psychological concepts of competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4

Information-based literacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media-based literacies .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. Comprehensive multimedia literacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relevance of children’s rights in the context of ICT and media literacy .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .

181

Composition of sample by formal education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composition of the qualitative sample . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. Categories for participant observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualities of an ideal friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elementary categories for habitus hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elementary categories of media habitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elementary categories of media performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of educational milieus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

224 230 231 236 237 238 240 267

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8

29

149 151 153

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

The notion of media literacy is one of the most fundamental concepts in media education and is central to the question of a confident and self-determined approach to media, whatever the perspective—be it academic (communication studies, media studies, education studies, psychology, linguistics, cultural studies, etc.), practical (the teaching of abilities and skills), social (participation, the knowledge gap, digital inequality, etc.) or political (digitalization, economic competitiveness, etc.). Within communication studies and particularly in the field of audience research, discourses on media literacy are mainly significant in the context of media use by children and adolescents. In some cases, empirical studies on the way children and adolescents deal with media conclude with policy recommendations about the promotion of media literacy for various target groups. Media literacy is also part of the debate on the opportunities and risks of the Internet. [m]edia education has been taught in schools in many countries for some decades sometimes as part of a protectionist agenda (teaching children to critique and be wary, the better to defend themselves against mass culture), sometimes as part of a creative agenda (teaching children to appreciate the cultural forms and genres, the better to extend their aesthetic and critical understanding), and more recently as part of an empowerment agenda (teaching children to use the technical tools of self-expression, the better to participate in modern society). The value of media literacy is also recognised by critical scholars and civil society advocates as part of a wider citizenship agenda, as a form of participation and inclusion, as a means of overcoming disadvantage, a means of community empowerment or, more tactically, as a preferable alternative to technical or regulatory content restrictions (Lunt and Livingstone 2012, p. 117).

Within communication studies and particularly in the field of audience research, discourses on media literacy are mainly significant in the context of media use by children and adolescents. In some cases, empirical studies on the way children and adolescents deal with media conclude with policy recommendations about the promotion of media literacy for various target groups (e.g. parents, educational institutions, policymakers, etc.) in various contexts (e.g. Paus-Hasebrink et al. 2019; O’Neill and Staksrud 2014). Media literacy is also part of the debate on the © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. W. Trültzsch-Wijnen, Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56360-8_1

1

2

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

opportunities and risks of the Internet (e.g. Livingstone et al. 2011) and on the online rights of children and adolescents (Livingstone and Third 2017). And lastly, there have been studies on the early acquisition of digital competencies (e.g. Chaudron 2015; Marsh et al. 2017), in the light of the increasing mediatization and digitalization of everyday life. If we consider different studies on young people’s approach to and use of media, studies carried out independently, at different times and in different countries, we find widespread indications that children and adolescents from education-oriented and socio-economically higher milieus appear to be more critical and more selfdetermined—or one could say ‘more literate’—in their approach to media and often have a more diverse media repertoire than peers from less education-oriented and socio-economically weaker milieus (e.g. Parycek et al. 2010; Behrens et al. 2014; Paus-Hasebrink et al. 2019). For example, the pan-European comparative study EU Kids Online (Livingstone et al. 2011) concludes that ‘children from high SES households have a wider online repertoire [. . .] compared to those from middle [. . .] and low status groups [. . .]’ Sonk et al. (2011). Urbančíková et al. (2017) were able to observe similar effects in adolescents (14 and older) and adults, and Shala and Grajcevci (2018) reach similar conclusions in a study on the digital skills of students. In a report on the state of research on adult media literacy, Livingstone et al. (2005, p. 54) stress that ‘across most research domains, SES is a clear barrier, especially to the access but also to the understanding and creation dimensions of media literacy’. Sowka et al. (2015) emphasize connections between the degree of capacity for media criticism, formal education and age, and Riesmeyer et al. (2016) describe the socioeconomic status of a family and the social environment as key factors in adolescents’ motivation to act in a media-literate (i.e. reflective) manner. Thus there is evidence of a tendency for social differences to lead to different ways of dealing with media, resulting in different forms of more or less critical, reflective and self-determined media activity. What has not yet been thoroughly clarified, however, is how social differences and differences in media use as well as media activity are connected. This gives grounds for exploring the socially and individually determined nature of media literacy. The central question is how the media activity of individuals can be explained and evaluated in terms of their media literacy, in the sense of confident and self-determined action when dealing with media. This book therefore explores the social factors that foster self-determined action in relation to media, including the necessary abilities and skills and the associated knowledge, drawing on a wide range of theoretical approaches. To guide the reader through the complex theory, it is divided into three major parts: Part I: Social and individual aspects of media activity Part II: Competence, performance and media literacy Part III: Empirical perspectives A close examination of the social and individual aspects of media activity (Part I) is needed as a prerequisite to understand media-related action and behaviour. It serves as the starting point for discussing how young people’s media use, approaches to media and individual media activity strategies can be evaluated, paying special

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

3

attention to factors of social and individual determination. The two chapters that make up the first part of this book focus on two different aspects of the media activity of individuals. From the perspective of different academic disciplines, Chap. 2 throws light on the significance of media within the framework of socialization processes and the question of what role socialization plays in relation to an individual’s media activity. With a view to investigating social determination, this chapter examines the social, socio-ecological and individual factors which can influence media activity and seeks possible explanations for different approaches to media and media activity strategies. Chapter 3 then navigates the reader through the complex work of Pierre Bourdieu. His theories of habitus, social distinction and social fields provide fruitful insights into the analysis of media activity as social practice and question the existence of legitimate media tastes as well as power relations in the field of (media) education. Part I thus gives a holistic overview of media activity as sociocultural activity. Media as agents of socialization are inherently difficult to define, but as Chap. 2 shows, there is a reciprocal relationship between the individual and his or her media environment. Exploring the role of media in socialization processes further illustrates that media activity is not a one-sided or unidirectional process. Individuals actively use media but are then also influenced by them: when dealing with their social environment and when coping with developmental tasks, they may draw on media experiences and the media content they have appropriated. Furthermore, abilities, skills and knowledge acquired through practical media activity contribute to the development of media literacy or competence in dealing with media. Not only can media influence processes of socialization, however: an individual’s media activities are shaped, conversely, by experiences of socialization. Thus media activity is not only dependent on individual maturation processes, but also on mediarelated experiences of socialization and on an individual’s socio-ecological environment. When it comes to media use and appropriation, subjective meaning assumes central importance. This is a product of the individual’s exploration of his or her social environment, in the context of identity formation and personality development, against the background of his or her personal dispositions. Media activity is embedded in these life-world contexts and everyday routines. This enables the development of expectations and courses of action in specific situations of use (e.g. modes of communication) and of habitualized forms of use (e.g. media repertoires). The same processes lead to the domestication of media and media devices or encourage individuals to feel that they belong or do not belong to a particular media generation. Based on these considerations, we need Bourdieu’s theory (1979, 1980) to develop a deeper understanding of media activity as social practice. In Chap. 3 his concept of habitus as a structured and structuring structure draws our attention both to the subjective perspective of audiences as active individuals and to external structuring factors which shape and influence media activity, such as social milieu, gender or age. Habitus develops in socialization processes and is formed by different social and individual factors (e.g. ethnic origin, experiences of migration, etc.). This

4

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

habitus shapes an individual’s actions, but at the same time, these are also determined by other factors, e.g. psychological ones. The concept of habitus underlines the theoretical and empirical importance of examining media evaluations (personal relevance, preferences, ascriptions of function, assumptions about effect and expectations of benefit), media repertoires, media generations or media styles (spatio-temporal qualities of media activity). Here practical sense (sens pratique) takes on a special role. It is assumed that early agents of socialization and specific conditions of existence (embodied as habitus) influence an individual’s schemata of perception, thought and action from earliest childhood. Based on these internalized experiences, the individual attains, in particular social spaces, a certain fundamental security—in the form of practical knowledge or practical sense. Furthermore, a close reading of Bourdieu helps to understand how much an individual’s social field influences the significance and relevance of specific structuring factors in different contexts. From this perspective, an individual’s media activity is dependent on those options that are potentially available to him or her within the field of media communication. These options for action are not equally accessible to everyone, however, because the different prior understanding embodied in the habitus (as practical sense) causes individuals to act as seems natural to them. From this perspective, an individual’s media activities appear to be based not so much on explicit goals as on unspoken, practical habits. Hence the concept of habitus is especially suited to the analysis of internalized patterns of media activity. Another essential component of Bourdieu’s theory is the concept of social distinction. The initial point here is that there is a particular strategy underlying social practice, a strategy based on the position of an individual in a social field and the quantity and combination of cultural, social and economic capital available to him or her. Bourdieu is interested in how different positions in social space and the relationships between them are manifested as differences in the conduct of everyday life, e.g. as differences in taste, different ideas and values and different views of the social world. He assumes that principles of classification, differentiation, evaluation and ultimately of thought and action and principles acquired through socialization and internalized via the habitus are manifested in the practice of everyday life. Seen in this light, possessions, status symbols, preferences, attitudes and so on point to an individual’s affiliation to a particular social milieu. It follows that an individual’s cultural needs, practices and tastes—including those related to media—must always be viewed against the background of his or her social origin and formal, non-formal and informal education and upbringing. Similar material conditions of existence and contexts of the social environment result in similar forms of everyday life. Social differences are symbolically marked by the striving for distinction between social milieus. This again relates to an individual’s media activities. From the perspective of habitus theory and the concept of social distinction, there is nothing random about which media and media content an individual prefers to use, about how particular media and media content are evaluated (e.g. the differentiation into ‘serious’ and tabloid media), about the motives and purposes behind media use, about the contexts

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

5

in which they are used or not used (e.g. during family mealtimes), about what media devices are used (e.g. eReaders or books) or about whether media are regarded as status symbols and, if so, which ones (e.g. bookshelves in the living room, the latest smartphone, a large-screen television, etc.). All these things are products of the conduct of everyday life and are closely linked with the practical sense of media activity. That is, individuals integrate media into their everyday lives and acquire specific media content, in whatever manner seems natural, appropriate and sensible to them against the background of their internalized schemata of thought and action. Depending on the social milieu and the associated endowment with various kinds of capital, habitus shapes people’s ‘media taste’ not only in dealing with familiar media but also with regard to new media developments. It also influences the manner in which people appropriate such new media (e.g. in the form of self-socialization or ‘learning by doing’) and thereby build up media literacy. This detailed discussion of the social and individual aspects of media activity and of the relation between habitus, practical sense and agency with regard to the appropriation of media is followed, in the second part of this book, by an in-depth look at basic theories on competence, performance and media literacy (Part II). For a further discussion of how the media activity of individuals can be explained and evaluated, it is necessary to also consider media activity in the light of the relationship between the competence to act—the sum of a person’s abilities, skills and knowledge and cognitive mastery of rules of conduct (moral rules, legal rules and rules of prudence)—and performance, i.e. the actual actions of an individual. This is particularly important if we consider the theories of Bourdieu, which stress practical sense and habitus as the basis for human behaviour and action. Following this line of thought, we can assume that people who possess similar competencies might act differently due to their habitus and as a consequence of different positions in social space and unequally distributed economic, social and cultural capital. To elaborate further on this, it is also important to gain an overview of the theoretical roots of the concepts of competence and performance and of how these concepts have been further developed in different academic disciplines. This will be addressed in Chap. 4. The focus here is on the relationship between competence and performance and their significance for an exploration of the media activity of individuals. Starting from the discussion of media activity as social practice, for which the foundations were laid in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 highlights, the added value of a theoretical distinction between competence and performance. Based on these considerations, Chap. 5 further explores the concept and definition of media literacy and how it relates to similar concepts such as media competence. The concept of competence has its origins in linguistics, mainly in Saussure’s distinction between langage as the innate human ability to speak, langue as the complex and abstract system of rules of language in the narrow sense and parole as the concrete speech act or use of language (Wunderli 2014). Building on this, Chomsky (1965) makes the distinction between (innate) competence as a natural knowledge of language and performance as actual language use. He pays little attention to the latter in his theoretical work, however, regarding it as a deformation of pure language, which follows universal rules. Habermas (1995a, b, c) refers to

6

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

Chomsky in his theory of communicative action, thus introducing linguistic approaches to debates on communication theory, expanding the concept of competence to include the component of social interaction and combining linguistic competence and behavioural competence within the concept of communicative competence. Understood in this way, communicative competence refers not only to language but to different kinds of behaviour and also includes action. From Habermas’s perspective, communicative competence means humans’ ability to interact effectively with their environment and thus develop increasingly efficient strategies for coping with various situations. Nonetheless, Habermas’s arguments remain on the theoretical level of ideal speech acts or of power-free discourse; like Chomsky, he pays little attention to the everyday communication in which performance manifests itself. And yet performance, in the form of actual media activity, is especially important for discussions of media competence and media literacy. And like the concept of competence, the concept of performance cannot be adopted without reflection: it too has undergone a theoretical evolution of its own. Discourses on performance also have their theoretical roots in linguistics and rely in particular on Austin’s (1969) speech act theory, which distinguishes between two types of linguistic utterance: constative descriptions of states and performative statements. Although Austin’s concept of performativity refers to ideal linguistic action, discourses on performance outside linguistics refer to his focus on actual linguistic and social action. Theoretical explorations of performance are found in the discussion of the self-referentiality and non-referentiality of literary works in literary theory, in the context of aesthetic discourses within art theory and in explorations of performance as an act of embodiment and an identity-creating action in cultural theory. In cultural theory, performative acts are also discussed as being embedded in apparatuses of power (e.g. in the context of gender studies). Similarly, Bourdieu sees performative acts such as the awarding of titles and offices as a means of establishing and fixing social distinction. It should be noted that the subsequent reflections on the distinction between media competence and media performance are focused neither on an ideal form of communication or media use, as in Austin’s ideal language use, nor on the way performative acts are embedded in apparatuses of power. Instead, media performance is understood in this book as actual, practical and everyday media activity, based on an underlying media competence. Media literacy plays an important part in today’s society and is therefore discussed in a wide range of contexts. Chapter 5 looks at the various discourses on media literacy, as well as at related concepts that are found in different academic disciplines and policy domains. Different concepts are described and compared, and their diverse interrelations are explored. A clear definition proves difficult, however. In order to adequately address all analogue and digital media, as befits a mediated society, a broad definition of media literacy is advocated here. In the view of the elaborations in the first part of this book, an exploration of media literacy as social practice rather than its definition as the sum of required abilities and skills is emphasized. This once again draws attention to the importance of social determination and practical sense for the conversion of media literacy into actual media

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

7

activity. This paves the way for discussing social disadvantage and social power imbalances, which have so far only attracted marginal attention in studies of media literacy. Moreover, understanding media literacy as social practice enables us to consider it not only on an operational but also on a cultural and critical level. Besides a close description and in-depth investigation of the various concepts and definitions of media literacy and related terms such as digital literacy, information literacy and the like, Chap. 5 also draws attention to distinctive features of the German language discourse on media competence and its potential to enrich the international discourse on media literacy. It is a further aim of this book to connect theoretical discourses on literacy or media literacy from the Anglo-American world and within the international scientific community with theoretical discussions on competence and media competence, which are strongly rooted in the Germanspeaking region. There is much theoretical potential in both these lines of discourse—but especially when they are combined. To some extent, however, these discourses run parallel to each other because of linguistic barriers: although many German-speaking colleagues publish in English, the seminal texts of the German language debate on media competence are as yet largely untranslated. It is therefore a particular concern to examine the founding ideas of the German language discourse on media competence in terms of their potential compatibility with English language discourses on media literacy and digital competence, while making them accessible, in detail, to an international audience. This particularly applies to the work of Baacke (1980a, b), which proves especially fruitful here. As a result of its links to Chomsky and Habermas, the concept of media competence involves a theoretical separation of competence and performance, which makes it possible to understand why different individuals act differently, even if they have a similar level of competence in the form of knowledge, abilities and skills in dealing with media. This is the theoretical strong point of this concept. An exploration of media competence, and especially the underlying theoretical discourses on competence and performance, also sharpens the focus of the media literacy concept, drawing attention to the relationships and connections between existing knowledge, abilities and skills and the actual media activity of an individual. Drawing on the theoretical reflections of Bourdieu which are outlined in the first part of this book, the concept of media competence once again underlines an actionoriented and praxeological approach to media literacy practices. Once the theoretical foundations for this book have been laid and its rationale has been expounded, the focus shifts from theory to empirical perspectives (Part III), to the multifaceted nature of media literacy and the appropriation of media in the context of socialization and agency and to media activity embedded between competence and performance. This third part of the book illustrates how the concept of media competence can add value to studies of media literacy, media appropriation and media activity. As described in the second part, the concept of competence applied here refers to a holistic understanding of action competence, informed by a Humboldtian view of humanity (Müller-Ruckwitt 2008). This differs from purely psychological concepts of competence in that it includes not just motivational and cognitive aspects of human intelligence but also social prerequisites for successful action.

8

1 Introduction: On the Multiple Facets of Media Literacy

Chapter 6 expands on the theoretical considerations of the first two parts of this book in terms of researching media activity and media literacy. It highlights the theoretical separation of competence and performance and focuses on the interrelation between media literacy and media performance. In taking account of the relation between habitus, cultural capital, media-related taste and media activity, an action-oriented approach to media literacy practices is emphasized. A brief description of a secondary analysis of a study on the appropriation of top model shown by adolescents serves as an example to underline the empirical relevance of the theoretical discussion by paying special attention to social distinction and cultural fit. The analysis focuses on how the factors of education and gender are linked to different forms of media activity, an individual’s reflection on his or her own media activity, the evaluation of the media content and indicators of socially desirable response behaviour. The study provides interesting insights into gender differences as well as differences with regard to formal and informal education, as it draws our attention to inequalities in the possession of cultural capital. The analysis shows how differences in media performance can be attributed both to cultural capital in the form of media education in the family and to the (media) education received at school. Chapter 7 presents a detailed study on the relation of media competence and media performance in using the social web. It shows how the theoretical considerations that are presented in this book can be applied in empirical practice. The study carries out a detailed exploration of the media performance of children and adolescents, taking into account individual action strategies and everyday challenges and at the same time reflecting the difficulty of appropriately evaluating media performance within the framework of empirical studies. The focus is on children’s and adolescents’ approaches to the social web and on how they deal with social network sites (SNSs). The study consists of a broad quantitative survey on the social web use of children, adolescents and young adults from the ages of 10–30 and two qualitative substudies. One of these substudies examines concepts of privacy and publicity (S. Trültzsch-Wijnen 2018), while the other is concerned with the abilities, skills and individual action strategies of children and adolescents when dealing with the social web. It is the latter that takes centre stage in this book, as it is focused on whether and how relations between young people’s media performance and their media competence can be traced in the light of individual action strategies. Because the results of the quantitative study have already been published elsewhere (e.g. C. TrültzschWijnen et al. 2015), they will only be presented in brief. The results of the qualitative substudy and in particular the in depth analysis and typification of the 50 individual cases are of central interest in the context of this book. They have not previously been published and are presented and discussed here for the first time. Last but not least Chap. 8 connects the empirical results from this study on young people’s use of the social web to the theoretical considerations explored earlier in this book. In order to guide the reader through the complex theories explored here, a preliminary summary highlighting the main trains of thought is to be found at the end of each chapter. Together with the division into three parts, as described above, this is intended to serve as a kind of road map through this book.

Part I

Social and Individual Aspects of Media Activity

Chapter 2

The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

In audience research carried out in media and communication studies, two traditions can be identified: that of media effects research and that of media reception studies. While media effects research is interested in the effects of mass communication and the impact of media content on audiences, research on media reception concentrates on the way people appropriate, process and experience media and media-based content (Valkenburg et al. 2016; Patriarche et al. 2014; Gauntlett 2005). The beginnings of media effects research were very much shaped by topics from outside the discipline, such as the influencing of opinions (Bonfadelli and Friemel 2014, p. 23; McQuail 2010, pp. 52–59), and the focus was on the implementation of the communicators’ intentions (e.g. the stimulus-response model). Over time, however, more importance has been accorded to the function of audiences, for example, as opinion leaders (e.g. in the two-step flow of communication model; Lazarsfeld et al. 1944), and not least to their perspective on the needs associated with media use (e.g. the uses and gratifications approach, Katz et al. 1973). Bonfadelli and Friemel (2014, p. 25) trace this development by looking at changes in the concept of effect in media research. While effect is still defined in very narrow terms by Berelson and Steiner (1972, p. 334, quoted in Bonfadelli and Friemel 2014, p. 25) and Maletzke (1963, p. 190, quoted in Bonfadelli and Friemel 2014, p. 25), a broad and comprehensive understanding of various phenomena of media effect has become prevalent today. In contrast, Abercombie and Longhurst (1998, quoted in Livingstone 2012, pp. 258–260) identify three key phases in the development of twentieth-century audience research: the behavioural paradigm, referred to in both media effects research and the uses and gratifications approach; the incorporation-resistance paradigm, which has its roots in cultural studies; and the spectacle-performance paradigm of post-modern societies. Today these classic approaches are challenged by developments in information and communication technologies, which provide audiences with numerous opportunities to produce media content themselves and share it with others, without extensive prior knowledge. In view of this, new terms have © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. W. Trültzsch-Wijnen, Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56360-8_2

11

12

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

emerged to describe audiences which are no longer merely active, but also productive and participative. In relation to the Internet, we often encounter the term ‘user’ or ‘produser’, a combination of ‘producer’ and ‘user’. Both Livingstone and Das (2013, pp. 106–107; see also Livingstone 2012) and Bilandzic et al. (2015) are critical of the term ‘user’, however. The latter authors, with reference to the media typology developed by Beth and Pross (1976, pp. 109–123), particularly stress the fact that—in relation to technological change—the tertiary or technical medium may be variable today, but the (primary and secondary) media (text, image, sound) are still the same and must be processed as such by the audience (ibid., p. 23). In order to adequately understand the significance of a media product for an individual, it is necessary to examine both the media content and subjective processes of interpretation (see S. Trültzsch-Wijnen 2018; Trültzsch 2009). Here too, we are dealing with different theoretical viewpoints, which merge together in empirical reality, but are not always analysed in such a way that they complement each other. In contrast to historical explorations of media effects, particularly cultural studies teach us that the meaning of media content is only constructed by the audience itself (Decherney and Sender 2018; Hasgood 2003; Buckingham 1998; Hall 1980). This construction of meaning has to be understood as a process that takes place in a particular situation over a particular period of time. In addition, each instance of reception differs in the intensity with which it is experienced or processed, and in the state of mind of the audience, which is shaped by connections to personal experiences, emotional situations, etc. (Gauntlett 2005). In the following discussion, however, the focus is not solely on processes of media reception but is much broader, considering the general media activities and media appropriation of individuals, against the background of an increasing mediation (Livingstone 2009a) or mediatization (Couldry and Hepp 2017; Hepp 2012) of the life-world of children, young people and adults. Working on the assumption that the development of media competence or media literacy is closely linked with an individual’s actual media activities or media performance, this chapter will discuss the social and individual contexts in which media are used and appropriated.

2.1

Perspectives on Socialization

The concept of socialization refers to the lifelong process in which individuals engage with the social and physical world around them, against the background of their personal dispositions. Theories of socialization investigate how the human personality develops; the emergence of identity is the centre of attention here (Grusec and Hastings 2015b). Socialization can be broadly defined as all areas of human personality development that are based on social influences. This includes informal learning as well as deliberate pedagogical interventions. More widespread, however, is a narrower definition of socialization, referring to informal and extrainstitutional learning processes that take place independent of pedagogically driven

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

13

influences. In general terms, theories of socialization seek to explain specific behaviours of individuals in the light of their previous social experiences (Maccoby 2015). Questions of socialization theory are discussed in sociology, cultural anthropology and ethnology, as well as in education and sociology. How socialization is actually understood in theoretical terms thus depends on the perspective of the given discipline (Grusec and Davidov 2010). This interdisciplinarity means that there are different theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of socialization. Of particular importance here are psychological approaches (learning theory, psychoanalysis, developmental theory) and sociological ones (systems theory, action theory, social theory). Studies of socialization centre on the relationship between the individual and the environment and between social determination and self-determined action (Fromme 2006, p. 48). This field of research is too heterogeneous, however, to allow identification of a unified theory. According to Geulen (2004), two approaches can be distinguished. From a sociological perspective, socialization theory is understood as a ‘theory of the connection between social character, social action, and the structure or development of society’ (ibid., p. 5), while from a psychological perspective, it is understood as a ‘theory of individual epigenesis under socially given environmental conditions’ (ibid., p. 5). While psychology is mainly interested in the development of personality, against the background of maturation processes and individual predispositions, sociology focuses on the confrontation between an individual and society and the adoption of values, norms and social roles. These different perspectives on the phenomenon of socialization should not be seen as opposites, however, but as a common whole within a broader context of theory and research on socialization (ibid., pp. 3–20; Grusec and Davidov 2010). From the perspective of media and communication research, the challenge here is not simply to capture, as well as possible, the psychological or sociological focus, respectively, the subject or its objective social conditions. Instead, the challenge is to examine and describe as accurately as possible the interaction between them and thus specifically the way they connect and work together in everyday life (Paus-Hasebrink and Bichler 2008, p. 49). The concept of socialization presupposes that innate instincts alone are insufficient to ensure the survival of individuals in the sociocultural world around them. Children and adolescents must therefore internalize, step by step, the norms, values and role systems of the social environment into which they are born and acquire the abilities and knowledge needed for social action. Socialization is considered successful if a high degree of symmetry between an individual and his or her social environment has been attained. The goal of an individual’s lifelong socialization process is to gain confidence in dealing with his or her social environment (Grundmann 2004, p. 318) and thus to achieve a stable self-image. In their definition of socialization, Grusec and Hastings (2015a, p. xi) emphasize that this is never to be understood as a one-sided process, in which older generations socialize the younger generations. Instead, younger members of a social group actively engage with their social environment and consciously decide what they will and will not accept from other (older) members of their social group. Socialization takes place in different social situations and contexts and is a lifelong process.

14

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

There is relatively widespread agreement that media have a certain importance in the context of socialization processes and that approaches to media are, in part, internalized through these processes (Genner and Süss 2017; Prot et al. 2015; Dubow et al. 2007; Kelly and Donohew 1999; Rosengren 1994). It is difficult, however, to exactly identify potential media effects: In whichever formulation, the general proposition that media have a socializing effect is clearly supported, but it is only indirectly founded on empirical evidence. (McQuail 2010, pp. 492–493)

Studies of media socialization use a varied theoretical repertoire and are often interdisciplinary in outlook. The focus is on how media are used and appropriated by children, adolescents, young adults and increasingly also older population groups, what role media play in the everyday worlds and life-worlds of individuals and what importance they have in the context of personality development and socialization. Studies assume a reciprocal relationship between the individual or subject and the media environment, investigate the development of social subjects and examine the related forms of participation and creativity (Hoffmann et al. 2017b, p. 4). Long-term studies would be the best way to explore these issues, yet there are very few research projects in which young people have been studied over a long period of time. One example is a study on the media socialization of socially disadvantaged children in Austria over a period of 10 years (Paus-Hasebrink et al. 2019); other examples are an examination of a British secondary-school class by Livingstone and Selfton Green (2016) over three semesters, studies by the German Youth Institute (DJI) (Barthelmes and Sander 1997, 2001) and a long-term study by Charlton and Neumann-Braun (Charlton and Neumann 1990). It is far more common to find projects in the field of child and youth media studies, in which certain forms of media use and approaches to particular media products or media ensembles are examined and then classified and interpreted in terms of socialization theory (e.g. Zizek 2017; Wagner 2011; Schmidt et al. 2011). In this context it is also worth mentioning the international cross-sectional study EU Kids Online (2014a), which examined the Internet usage of children and adolescents aged 9–16 in 33 European countries, in the light of various mesostructural factors (e.g. media education in the home) and macrostructural factors (Internet diffusion, political strategies, etc.), as well as the Global Kids Online study (Byrne et al. 2016) that extends this approach beyond Europe. Within research on media use, media appropriation and media education, a special discourse about media socialization has developed, particularly in the German-speaking community of media and communication studies, going beyond purely empirical considerations and examining the role of media in processes of socialization on a theoretical level as well (see Hoffmann 2013; Hoffmann and Mikos 2007). Core assumptions here are that individuals are capable of actively engaging with media and that agency or the capacity for action is the goal of socialization processes (Krotz 2017, p. 23). This perspective leads, on both a theoretical and an empirical level, to a focus on the opportunities and risks of media use, on the acquisition of media literacy and on those abilities that are

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

15

important for media appropriation—in each case taking into account links with the everyday world and the life-world. The emphasis is on questions about the development and appropriation of practical knowledge and the formation of socialcommunicative skills against the background of individual and societal conditions. A particular focus is on questions of personality development and identity formation (Hoffmann et al. 2017b, pp. 5–6). In this context researchers often draw on approaches from social and developmental psychology, such as Havighurst’s developmental tasks model (see Sect. 2.1.2.2). In the international field of audience research focusing on young people (a field that is also gaining importance within international professional associations, e.g. the ECREA Section on Children, Youth and Media, or the Children, Adolescents and Media Division in the ICA), the concept of socialization is not widely used in relation to media. The term ‘media socialization’ generally only appears as a translation, usually in the context of lectures or publications by German-speaking academics. However, the questions explored on an international level are similar to those that shape German-language research on media socialization. For example, international researchers also discuss and criticize questions of personality development and identity formation and the attributes associated with the phases of childhood and youth in Western modernity. On the other hand, theoretical discourses in the area of cultural studies play a greater role in international studies on the appropriation and use of media than they do in German-language research on media socialization (Hoffmann et al. 2017b, p. 6). Taking these discussions as a starting point, the following sections will examine various theoretical points of reference for exploring the relevance of media for socialization—though it is not possible to consider all of them in detail.

2.1.1

Sociological Foundations

Theories about the development of the human personality reflect the society of the era in which they emerge and the self-image of the people living in that society. Such theories point to the social practices of a particular time, and the dominant issues of the era, which can only ever be recognized as such in retrospect (Veith 2004, pp. 350–363). We can basically identify two opposing poles, between which theoretical approaches can be positioned: a structural functionalist understanding of socialization and an interactionist understanding. The classic concept of socialization, which goes back to Emile Durkheim (1893/2013a, 1895/2013b), refers to psychoanalytical theories of personality as developed by Sigmund Freud and behaviourist theories of learning such as those of John B. Watson (1913, Watson and Rayner 1920). It understands successful socialization as the adaptation of the individual to the expectations and exigencies of society (Süss 2004, p. 29; Maccoby 2015, p. 5–8). This perspective is also present in the structural functionalist approach to socialization, based on the work of Talcott Parsons (1937/1949, 1991), in which the individual is regarded as the object of external, socially determined influences.

16

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

This is now considered to be obsolete and has been replaced by an interactionist understanding of socialization, going back to George H. Mead’s discussion of the interrelation between Mind, Self and Society (1934/2015). Here it is seen as an interaction between the adoption of social roles and the autonomous definition of these roles, as a self-determined process in which the individual grows up and becomes part of society, against the background of the interplay between socialization and individuation (Archer 2013). The active interaction of an individual with his or her environment takes centre stage here, and the question of the appropriation of culture is raised. It is assumed that individuals are able to not only adopt attitudes, values and norms but actively construct, interpret and change them. Thus people ascribe certain meanings to objects (including media) and act on the basis of these ascribed meanings. A key aspect of the interactionist understanding of social action is the capacity for perspective-taking, that is, the ability to recognize the subjective orientation on which others base their actions and to relate this to one’s own actions (Charmaz et al. 2019; Archer 2013). The primary goal of this debate is to find joint solutions for contradictory aspirations and possible ways to coexist while taking into account individual specificities (Grusec and Davidov 2010). The basic prerequisite for this is the emergence of identity, the core of personality development under the changing influence of developmental psychology factors and conditions of socialization. When it comes to developing a stable self-image, the aim of successful identity formation—which, like socialization in general, is to be understood as a lifelong process—is to create a balance between personal and social identity, as the result of an individual’s interaction with his or her social environment. A core element of this is the capacity for self-perception, self-evaluation and reflection on one’s individual competencies (Paus-Hasebrink et al. 2019, pp. 45–75).

2.1.1.1

Life-World and the Conduct of Everyday Life

The term Lebenswelt, which has its origins in German philosophy, is usually translated into English as ‘life-world’ or ‘lifeworld’. It came to have particular importance in Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology (Held 1986). Criticizing academia for being out of touch with real life, Husserl focuses his philosophical observations of everyday life on the phenomena of human consciousness. At the same time, he points out that scientific theories always have their foundations in the experience of the everyday life-world, or are part of it. Phenomenology can be understood as an attempt to systematically analyse subjective perspectives on and experiences of reality. The term ‘life-world’, in the sense of a natural attitude or a natural concept of the world (Husserliana XIII, quoted in Føllesdal 2014, p. 38), was not used by Husserl until his late work The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy. Nonetheless, the basic assumptions associated with it can be traced throughout his philosophical oeuvre (Føllesdal 2014, p. 27). Husserl assumes that individuals perceive their environment in different ways, since looking at a particular object provides too little information for it to be exactly identified in its distinct quality. In

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

17

order to nonetheless allow recognition of objects, this incomplete information is compared and supplemented with structures of knowledge and perception that are already present and have been acquired from prior experience: According to Husserl, our experience in a given situation can always in principle be structured in different ways; what reaches our senses is never sufficient to uniquely determine what we experience. [. . .] Usually we are not even aware of any structuring going on; objects are simply experienced by us as having a structure. (Føllesdal 2014, p. 29)

This subjectivity of perception means that different people perceive one and the same object in different ways, even if they may be largely in agreement about the shape of the object in question. Individual perception is embedded in routines, which are in turn shaped by the person and the immediate environment of the individual. This affects the individual classification of past, present and future, as well as the internalization of norms and values: The life-world, for us who wakingly live in it, is always there, existing in advance for us, the ‘ground’ of all praxis, whether theoretical or extratheoretical. The world is pregiven to us, the waking, always somehow practically interested subjects, not occasionally but always and necessarily as the universal field of all actual and possible praxis, as horizon. To live is always to live in certainty of the world’. (Husserl, Crisis § 37, quoted in Føllesdal 2014, p. 40)

A follower of Husserl, Schütz, aiming to construct a theoretical substantiation of the Weberian approach of ‘interpretive sociology’ (Eberle 2012, p. 281), expanded Husserl’s concept of the life-world to mean ‘that province of reality which the wideawake and normal adult simply takes for granted in the attitude of common sense’ (Schütz and Luckmann 1973, p. 3). From today’s point of view, this definition must be criticized, firstly because it refers only to adults and secondly because the designation ‘normal’ is questionable and requires a definition itself. Current authors referring to Schütz understand life-world as that which is certain and familiar to an individual and is based on things that are taken for granted, individually, socially and culturally. It provides the foundation for communicative action, for the construction and attribution of meanings and for the emergence of attitudes and beliefs which ultimately constitute a shared communicative environment. At this point it is necessary to add an explanatory note: Schütz’s analysis of the life-world has a much stronger tradition in the German-speaking countries than in the Anglo-American world; in the former it is still considered highly relevant today— especially when it comes to the socializing power of media (e.g. Paus-Hasebrink et al. 2019; Pfaff-Rüdiger 2011; Röser et al. 2009): Following Luckmann, it is discussed as a protosociological foundation of the methodology of social sciences or, following Srubar, as a philosophical anthropology with two poles: a subjective and a social, pragmatic pole. [The focus lies on, CTW] the meaningful constitution of the social world, to serve as a foundation of sociological methodology and to provide guidelines for an ‘adequate’ sociology. (Eberle 2012, p. 279)

It is therefore worth taking a closer look at this approach when discussing the sociological foundations of media socialization research.

18

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Schütz’s theory is not concerned with individual idiosyncrasies, but with identifying general structures of thinking and action. He understands the life-world both as the space of action of everyday life practice and as a structure of consciousness, in the form of practical knowledge acquired through socialization, things that are taken for granted: The life-world is the quintessence of a reality that is lived, experienced, and endured. It is, however, also a reality that is mastered by action and the reality in which—and on which— our action fails. Especially for the everyday life-world, it holds good that we engage in it by acting and change it by our actions. Everyday life is that province of reality in which we encounter directly, as the condition of our life, natural and social givens [. . .]. (Schütz and Luckmann 1989, p. 1)

The individual is at the centre of his or her life-world, which is in turn embedded in a social world. Here, according to Schütz and Luckmann (1973, p. 5), the following basic assumptions apply: the individual acknowledges the existence of fellow humans (1) and assumes that they have a similar consciousness (2) and ascribes a similar meaning to things in everyday life (3). The individual can enter into relationships with his or her fellow humans (4) and can communicate with them (5). There is a social and cultural environment which is seen as the frame of reference for the individual and his or her fellow humans (6). This leads to the conclusion that social situations are not produced by one individual alone, but are a product of interactions with his or her fellow humans. Above and beyond this, Schütz and Luckmann see everyday, life-world actions as determined by pragmatic motives (Schütz and Luckmann 1973, p. 6), and as having their roots in a subjective interpretation (Schütz and Luckmann 1989, pp. 3–18), which is dependent on individual, societal and cultural systems of relevance. According to this view, an experience acquires subjective meaning when it is judged and classified by means of existing schemata of experience. Individuals repeatedly reappropriate their life-world by reflecting on their experiences; it is only through this that the subjective meaning of human action emerges. This action does not simply occur of its own accord, but is aimed at a particular goal: Action is behavior based on an antecedent project. Since every project has an ‘in-order-to’ or ‘for-the-sake-of-which’ structure, it follows that every action is rational. Without such a project, one does not ‘act’; one merely ‘behaves’ or ‘has experiences’. (Schütz 1967, p. 239)

According to Schütz (1967, pp. 239–240), the concrete structure of meaning of an action is determined by ‘in-order-to’ motives, which constitute a plan or blueprint for action, and ‘because’ motives, that is, biographical contingency and the anchoring of an attitude in the life-world, in previous experiences. The individual can only become aware of these motives in retrospect, however. Despite the assumption that any action is in itself goal-oriented, Schütz’s theory still allows a distinction to be made between rational action, i.e. action with clearly defined, logical interim goals, and routine or habitualized action, which is not called into question. Everyday action is largely characterized by habitualized action (Pfaff-Rüdiger 2011, pp. 74–75).

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

19

The concept of the conduct of everyday life also derives from Husserl (Buckley 1992, pp. 11–13). It is part of the family of sociological theories of practice (Lange 2002, p. 425) and connects approaches from the sociology of socialization with those from the sociology of the life course. It is understood to mean the sum and combination of all the practical activities that an individual carries out on a daily basis in various areas of life. It supplements the scholarly perspective on the life course and the biography by drawing attention to the whole ‘breadth of life’ (Jurczyk and Rerrich 1993). Here the focus is not merely on adding up different activities, or identifying their sequence, but on the manner in which these come together to form a coherent and consistent whole (Diezinger 2008, p. 221). The form taken by the conduct of everyday life arises from the everyday practice followed in different areas of life (Lange 1997, p. 17). It is largely determined by the way individuals coordinate the specific requirements of different fields of activity, temporally, spatially, materially, socially and meaningfully, and how they fuse these together to make up their everyday life. This is at the centre of this sociological approach, which works on the assumption that the specificities of everyday life conduct determine how individuals engage with the real conditions in which they live. Thus the conduct of everyday life is understood as an active effort by the individual and not just as the consequence of social conditions of life, which influence, but do not determine, the actions of the individual (Diezinger 2008, p. 221). The conduct of everyday life gives rise to routines, relieving the individual of the need to make regularly recurring decisions. At the centre of this concept is the context of life from which an individual acts. This is closely linked with other individuals, who are part of everyday coexistence (e.g. everyday family life). The order of everyday life is produced, reproduced and transformed by individual persons based on their idiosyncratic dispositions and motives, aspirations and resources, plans and calculations and experiences and competencies. It is a lifelong process of self-definition and definition by others, of appropriation and resistance (Kudera 2001, p. 51, quoted in Lange 2002, p. 425). Over and above this, the conduct of everyday life is defined by access to material, cultural and social resources, which lead to concrete experiences of inequality (Charmaz et al. 2019, pp. 235–238). Lange (1997, 2002, 2003) introduces this approach to youth studies and emphasizes the different everyday activities of adolescents, which give meaning or direction to their everyday actions and stability and continuity to their lives. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields (see Sect. 3.1.2) also points to this, with a special focus on social milieus. These form the basis for the habitus, the sum of things taken for granted, internalized norms and cultural practices.

2.1.1.2

The ‘New’ Sociology of Childhood

In the 1990s the ‘new’ sociology of childhood, which became especially popular in the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries, brought harsh criticism of theories of socialization that regard children and young people as individuals in a process of

20

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

development (Bühler-Niederberger 2010, pp. 437–438; Moran-Ellis 2010). This ‘new’ approach focuses on engaging with children as equal actors (Raitelhuber 2016; Tisdall and Punch 2012; Qvortrup 1993a, b). In contrast to social structural research on socialization, attention is centred not on different milieus of origin, but on differences between age groups, between children, adolescents and adults, and on the social construction and reconstruction of childhood (Leonard 2016, pp. 26–36; Baader 2016; James and Prout 1997). Research focuses on the cultural achievements and social worlds of young people (Qvortrup 1993a, b). The classic concept of socialization is criticized for seeing children and adolescents as immature beings rather than independent individuals with their own cultural practices, and there are calls to give children and young people greater (political) rights, so they can improve their social status themselves. Linked with this is an intensive preoccupation with socio-structural and socio-theoretical questions of social justice and order, with regard to generational differences, and, lastly, a complete rejection of the classic concept of socialization (Leonard 2016, pp. 26–36; Bühler-Niederberger 2010, pp. 438–439). This stance was subsequently softened to some extent (e.g. in Prout 2004), but it has nonetheless had a major influence on the discourse of socialization theory. This ‘new’ sociology of childhood has brought about a change of perspective (Matthews 2007), insofar as the focus has shifted to adolescent agency, in the sense of self-determined and competent action as social actors, and to the continuous elaboration of generational categories with regard to social participation (Bollig and Kelle 2016). Of major interest here is how children and young people deal with and shape social situations (negotiation of conflicts, interaction in the peer group, gender roles, etc.). Especially important in this context is a self-determined and competent approach to media. Discussion of the rights of children (Mayall 2000; Therborn 1993) and the question of how young people can be empowered to exercise their rights also play a key role (Leonard 2016, pp. 26–36). Established sociological approaches are criticized not only from a theoretical but also from an empirical point of view. With regard to the research design of sociological studies, for example, it has been pointed out that it is necessary to interview children and adolescents themselves about different areas of their lives, rather than relying solely on information given by adults (e.g. parents, teachers) (Spyrou 2016), and to develop appropriate research methods for dealing with children and young people (Warming 2016; Matthews 2007, p. 328; see also Komulainen 2007; Cocks 2006; Greene and Hogan 2005; Christensen 2004; Alderson and Morrow 2004; Christensen and Prout 2002; Punch 2002; Davis 1998). Within sociology, however, there are critical discussions about whether this really is a paradigm change or whether this approach is not simply the result of continuing to follow historical sociological, psychological and pedagogical theories, against the background of social change. Thus the actual novelty of this ‘new’ sociology of childhood is called into question, and the ‘new’ is now usually placed in quotation marks:

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

21

The road from Rousseau to Dewey, from G. H. Mead to Bluebond-Langner, and from Freud to Coles leads respectively from the authentic, the conditioned, and the developing child fully into a political child construed as a subject participating in the social construction of childhood. That this road was travelled prior to recent efforts to post flag for a new paradigm is hardly surprising; in Kuhnian terms, paradigm shifts are neither promissory, nor predictable. (Ryan 2008, p. 574)

Regardless of the controversies about the originality of this approach, the related discourse is relevant for various areas, including research on media socialization. Under the influence of the changed perspective on children and adolescents, and in view of the fact that individuals these days are increasingly left to fend for themselves, thanks to the many different sources of orientation available, current debates on the theory of socialization connect with interactionist theories and focus on individualization, self-organization and self-socialization (Charmaz et al. 2019). The importance of self-socialization is also highlighted with reference to Luhmann’s systems theory (1984): as the effects of the social environment are ultimately always regulated by the individuals themselves, and external influences are admitted to greater or lesser extent, this perspective stresses the fact that children and adolescents are not only socialized but also socialize themselves to a considerable degree. In current approaches to the sociology of childhood, it is assumed that traditional institutions of socialization such as the family, neighbourhood or work environment have less and less orientational force for the individual today. Instead new spaces for action and decision-making are opening up, and as a result social roles are no longer automatically adopted, but rather people can make their own choices between the groups and cultures they wish to join. Orientation is offered by new, anonymous agents of socialization, such as media, which presuppose the ability to self-regulate and self-organize—though not everyone possesses these abilities in equal measure. Not only are today’s young people seen (to a much greater extent than earlier generations) as having the competence to make decisions themselves; they are also expected to do so.

2.1.1.3

Media Ecology, Social Ecology and the Appropriation of the World

Various approaches can be identified within the ecological view of media, differing in the extent to which they focus on the relationship between media and society, or more on the individual and his or her social environment. Protagonists of media ecology invoke McLuhan as the founder of this field of research (Gencarelli 2006a; p. 202; see also Strate 2008; Lum 2006; Gronbeck 2006) and attribute the introduction of this term to Postman (1970), who defines media ecology as ‘the study of media as environments’ (Lum 2006, p. 28; see also Gencarelli 2006b). Ramos (2000, p. 46) goes further back in her classification of this research field. She locates its beginnings in Innis’s research on media philosophy and also names Havelock, Goody and Eisenstein as significant pioneers in the study of the influence of media (as means of communication) on the development of culture and society. Postman’s

22

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

student Nystrom (1973) made a particularly important contribution to the establishment of media ecology as a recognized field of research (Milberry 2012). The term ‘ecology’ refers here to the environment in which a medium is used. Interest centres on the manner in which media influence social change: Simply put, theories of media ecology at the macro-level are focused on changes in human experience—often discussed at both society-wide and self-conscious or self-reflexive planes of experience—that follow or accompany shifts in the dominant media of collectivities. (Gronbeck 2006, p. 340)

In discourses about media ecology, media are sometimes discussed as a sensory environment (e.g. McLuhan 1964) or a symbolic environment (e.g. Doelker 2016), but there are also studies of media as an environment per se (Lum 2006, pp. 30–31). Early proponents of this approach are particularly inclined to see media as an environment in which social change takes place. The subsequent development of the approach has seen an interest in human and technological evolution, with reference to systems theory and cybernetics, and in the way these developments interact to produce culture; the focus is on the diverse relationships between humans, technologies, media and the environment. In comparison to early approaches, interest now centres less on monocausal attempts at explanation and more on the dynamics of the interplay between communication, culture and consciousness. Further trends that can be identified are a technological determinist view of media ecology (Gronbeck 2006, pp. 340–342; Lum 2006, p. 34), focused on the study of media as an environment, and a more poststructuralist tendency, which also reflects on questions of dominance and power (e.g. Fuller 2007). The main concern here is media systems, as complex, dynamic systems, and their relationship to other social systems such as politics and education, against the background of social and media change. A key question for the media ecology approach is how the media environment can help or hinder human development (O’Neill 2015, p. 34). While media ecology is an approach that explicitly belongs to media studies, social ecology has its origins mainly in sociology and (in its original form at least) attributes only peripheral importance to the role of media. Theories of social ecology are concerned with the interplay between different individual and social factors, with regard to their influence on human development. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) study of The Ecology of Human Development, which he later developed into a ‘biopsychosocial ecological model’ (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994), achieved great prominence within this field of research and quickly found a place in developmental psychology and child and youth studies (O’Neill 2015, p. 36; Chen et al. 2015, pp. 453–454). His model of the socio-ecological environment is often represented graphically with concentric circles. At the centre of this socio-ecological theory is the interaction of an individual or of a growing child with his or her social environment: Seen in different contexts, human nature, which I had once thought of as a singular noun, turns out to be plural and pluralistic; for different environments produce discernible differences, not only across but within societies, in talent, temperament, human relations, and particularly in the ways in which each culture and subculture brings up the next generation. (Bronfenbrenner 1979, p. xiii quoted in Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 43)

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

23

The core assumptions of the socio-ecological approach are (a) that an individual develops in various social contexts such as the family, the neighbourhood, social communities, etc. and (b) that these different contexts and the relationships between these different areas of the social environment have a major influence on the development of the individual. Further assumptions are (c) that individuals actively seek out the social contexts in which they live their lives and that this choice in turn influences their development. The approach also takes into account (d) the experiences of attachment figures, gathered in social contexts that are not directly accessible to the individual (e.g. the parents’ place of work), but which can indirectly affect his or her development (cf. Vandewater 2017, p. 47). In his model of the social environment, Bronfenbrenner distinguishes between the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. The microsystem refers to interpersonal relationships in the immediate surroundings of a growing child, particularly within the family, but also with friends, in a childcare facility or at school. The mesosystem refers to the interrelations between two or more microsystems in which the growing child is actively involved, such as the relationship between the childcare facility or school and the home. The exosystem encompasses one or more areas of life in which the growing child is not actively involved, but which nonetheless have an influence on his or her area of life (e.g. the parents’ workplace, or their involvement in clubs and societies, local politics, etc.). The macrosystem refers to the structural composition of a culture or subculture within which a child grows up; this is shown in cultural and social contexts, attitudes, ethnic and religious ideas, etc. The final dimension that is superimposed on and/or influences all the relationships between the above-mentioned systems, as well as the developments within the systems, is time; for this Bronfenbrenner introduces the chronosystem (O’Neill, pp. 36–26). In his original model, Bronfenbrenner did not accord any special importance to media, and consequently it is rare to find distinctly socio-ecological perspectives in international research on media use, or audience research (Vandewater 2017, p. 50). An exception is the international project EU Kids Online, which took into account the ecological environment of children and young people growing up in different national contexts (O’Neill 2015). In the German-speaking area, things developed somewhat differently due to the introduction of Bronfenbrenner’s model to German youth studies by Baacke (1983, 2003). Baacke developed the original socioecological approach into a media-ecological approach, thus facilitating its entry into child and youth media research within the field of communication studies and media socialization research. With their socio-ecological and media-ecological perspective, Baacke et al. (1990, p. 17) propose that media and social contexts should not be considered in isolation, but that media environments should be analysed as a whole. Closely following Bronfenbrenner and Baacke (1980) offers a model of spatial/ socio-ecological zones, also arranged in concentric circles (Fig. 2.1). The ecological centre (1) refers to the immediate environment into which a child is born (the family, the home) and is marked by close emotional ties, a high degree of privacy and a great dependence of children and adolescents on older people. The

24

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Fig. 2.1 Baacke’s media-ecological approach (own representation)

ecological neighbourhood (2) stands for the area immediately surrounding the ecological centre, in which young people have their first ‘external relationships’. Here relationships are diffuse, tend not to follow prescribed paths and are open to experience. The ecological sectors (3) are less cohesive and are defined by functionspecific relationships (e.g. school, sports venues, workplace). It is in these areas that young people will find the greatest disparities with their family and neighbourhood environments. Older children and adolescents, however, develop their peer relationships at the margins of the ecological sectors, e.g. with schoolmates or friends who do the same sports. Contacts with the ecological periphery (4) occur only occasionally, often as an alternative to one’s daily routine (e.g. holidays, recreational activities in more distant locations, more distant shopping centres). Older children and adolescents expand the radius of their actions and seek alternatives to their immediate environment, for example, to avoid contradictory living conditions, or to independently test their capabilities (Baacke 1989, p. 103; Vollbrecht 2007). In the zones described above, an individual operates between various media worlds (Ganguin and Sander 2005). Thus the media ecology approach does not look at the way people use individual media, but at media environments, determined by spatial/socio-ecological factors, as contexts for individual spaces of action and experience. From the perspective of this approach, a holistic analysis of such media worlds includes, on the one hand, an individual’s ‘concrete’ life context:

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

25

interconnecting social spaces, from the socio-ecological centre to the socioecological periphery, and subjective assessments of situations, based on individual experiences. On the other hand, it includes specific media worlds associated with socio-ecological locations, worlds characterized by a more or less conscious use of media (Treumann et al. 2002, pp. 29–31). Baacke et al. (1991) refer to these as centred and uncentred media environments. The distinguishing feature of the media ecology approach is that it does not focus on individual needs, but on symbolic links between social worlds and media worlds. Its premise is that the media-related experiences and behaviour of children and young people can only be correctly interpreted if their social environment and the different socio-ecological connections associated with it are sufficiently taken into account. In a reflection on the media ecology approach in the light of current developments in the media and society, Dallmann et al. (2017) observe that this approach is in need of modification, because the ecological zones formulated by Baacke are now less strongly linked with a specific way of using media; instead these ecological spaces are becoming increasingly blurred, as a result of media use itself (see also Brüggen and Wagner 2017). This leads to the development of new, relational ecological neighbourhoods (Dallmann et al. 2017, p. 200), in which social proximity can be constituted via spatial, but also communicative, presence. Or to put it in Bronfenbrenner’s terms: mobile communication in particular allows different microsystems to interact with each other simultaneously, causing different mesosystems to overlap. Nonetheless, an analytical division between the socioecological zones still seems helpful, if we are to consider these with regard to their communicative specifics. The integration of Bronfenbrenner’s original approach would add to the value of Baacke’s model, however, in that it would also draw attention to the role of media within individual mesosystems. The concept of the appropriation of the world is concerned with the way social experience is internalized and dealt with. The focus is on the individual’s ability to systematically relate objects and other subjects to each other. From the perspective of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Yamagata-Lynch 2010; Foot 2001; Engeström 1987), ‘objects’ comprise both man-made products in a narrower sense and knowledge as a product of thought. This approach is closely related to socioecological and media-ecological models, in that the appropriation of objects and knowledge takes place in social spaces, which reflect the structures of society. The socio-spatial context is therefore of central importance for the process of interpretation and the subjective appropriation of objects (Wagner 2011, pp. 35–36; Deinet 2014). The appropriation of media content, of technical devices for the receptive and communicative use of media and of communicative structures, as well as the creation of one’s own media spaces (e.g. personal profiles on social network sites), also takes place in various socio-spatial contexts. In research on media appropriation, these socio-spatial aspects of socialization with and via media are central; references to theories about the domestication of media can also be found here (see Sect. 3.2). The development of the Internet as a social space in itself and the increasing diffusion of mobile devices challenge the concept of media appropriation, in that

26

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

they lead to a greater interconnectedness and overlapping of social and media spaces. Nonetheless, this perspective offers a good starting point for understanding processes of interpretation in the media socialization of children, young people and adults. A point to be criticized in the media-ecological and socio-ecological perspective is that the development of personality is understood as a primarily exogenous process and that only minor importance is ascribed to the subjective perception of the social environment and the process of the appropriation of culture (Süss 2004, p. 32).

2.1.2

Psychological Foundations

In contrast, personality development is at the centre of psychological studies on the way children and young people grow up. Psychoanalysis formed the picture of childhood and youth as a phase of gradual development of the personality. Early psychoanalysis took an extreme view, seeing the newborn baby as an unfinished being, driven solely by instincts, which develops into a ‘social being’ by way of socialization. Since then psychology has modified its view of humans, yet psychological studies are still based on the core assumption that children develop gradually, against the background of the fulfilment of wishes and needs—what is central here is the desire for recognition and the development of identity while engaging with the social environment (Frønes 2016, pp. 51–53). Thus classic developmental psychology uses empirically tested concepts of stages to study personality development, focusing on the distinction between a disturbed and an undisturbed socialization process (Heymans 1994, pp. 3–8). Structural genetic theories of development are used to formulate age norms or stages, in which certain developmental tasks should be achieved (Süss et al. 2018, p. 33). When it comes to considering media socialization, approaches based on developmental psychology can help to explain children’s media activities and the acquisition of media literacy or media competence. Some authors use models of the stages of child development to explain children’s media activities at different ages (e.g. Paus-Haase 1998). From the perspective of media socialization research, then, it is well worth considering concepts from cognitive psychology, which assume that individuals learn to understand their environment (which includes media) to the same degree that they learn to understand themselves. That is, children repeatedly apply their existing structures of thought to their social environment, and this permits ongoing development. However, developmental and cognitive psychology pay little attention to connections to specific situations or to the life-world. Such perspectives are therefore only productive for media socialization research if they are combined with other theoretical approaches. Learning theories from the perspective of pedagogical psychology also come under the heading of psychological foundations. One example is Bandura’s (1985, 1997, 1999) social cognitive theory (SCT) and the concept of self-efficacy, that is,

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

27

belief in one’s ability to successfully cope with challenges, even major ones, on one’s own. In terms of approaches to media, psychological theories of learning are primarily used in media didactics. As the following remarks are mainly concerned with the potential relevance of media for socialization, however, approaches in educational psychology will not be discussed in any further detail.

2.1.2.1

Classic Models of the Stages of Child Development

The key concern of developmental psychology is the search for principles of cognitive development which contribute to the successful formation of the human personality and to successful socialization. Here the work of Piaget (1936/2002) is often invoked. His four-stage model of levels of cognitive achievement particularly emphasizes the creation of a balance between processes of assimilation and accommodation (Sutter 2004, p. 98). Here not only biological maturity but also interaction with the social environment plays an important part: Accommodation is the active organism's cognitive adaption to new challenges, while assimilation means that the experiences are interpreted within the existing structures of cognition. The acquisition of culture is not driven by passive internalization, but by active subjects relating to their surroundings. (Frønes 2016, p. 55)

Piaget describes the development of various abilities involving perception, attention, thinking and conceptualization (Schneider and Lindenberger 2012, pp. 386–393; Wadsworth 2004; Carpendale 1997). While systematic intelligence develops in the first 2 years of life (sensorimotor stage), the capacity for conceptual thought evolves in the following phase. In the 2nd to the 7th year of life (preoperational stage), the play with symbols and the use of fictions (make-believe) assume great importance. Children’s image of the world is still very egocentric in this phase, and they cannot distinguish clearly between animate and inanimate objects. It is only in the third phase of development that children learn to think rationally (stage of concrete operations, 7–11 years of age). The prerequisite for this is mastery of the main cognitive operations, which enable them to classify objects, construct hierarchies, apply inclusion strategies, define terms and carry out elementary logical operations including the categorization of numbers. This is, in turn, the condition for the transition to the fourth stage of development (formal operations) and entry into the youth phase (11 years of age and older), in which abstract and hypothetical thought is developed (Siegler et al. 2011, pp. 128–143; Wadsworth 2004; Carpendale 1997). Along similar lines to his model of cognitive development, Piaget (1932/1986) also gives consideration to children’s moral development. Based on a study of their approach to the rules of a game (marbles), he defines four developmental phases (the amoral stage, moral realism, heteronomous morality, autonomous morality), which roughly correspond to the stages of cognitive development described above. Referring to Piaget’s work, Lawrence Kohlberg (1981, 1984) devises a six-stage model of moral development. According to this, children can initially only judge social

28

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

conflicts from an egocentric perspective. They then increasingly take their bearings from their immediate social environment, at first adopting rules and norms without reservation, until they are eventually able to call into question social norms and ethical principles and consider social problems from different sides (Schneider and Lindenberger 2012, pp. 527–530; Paus-Hasebrink and Bichler 2008, pp. 60–63). Robert Selman (1984; see Dimitrova and Lüdmann 2014, p. 6) comes to a similar conclusion. Models of moral development show the connections between the social and cultural environment and individual self-exploration (Frønes 2016, p. 56). Erikson (1968) presents a further model of developmental stages, centring on the development of the ego identity and emotional development. He assumes an epigenetically predetermined construction plan for physical development and views socialization as a series of psychosocial crises. Based on this, he formulates specific developmental tasks for each psychosocial stage. He points out that young people’s sense of self changes considerably as they grow up. Small children tend to see themselves in a wholly positive light and to overestimate their abilities; they only gradually begin to integrate the perceptions of others into their self-image. Adolescence—as a period of identity crisis and role diffusion—is especially important in Erikson’s theory. But how and when young people develop their identity—just like their moral development—is influenced by various personal, familial, social and cultural factors (Siegler et al. 2011, pp. 439–440; Schneider and Lindenberger 2012, p. 53).

2.1.2.2

The Developmental Tasks Model

The concept of developmental tasks or of life-span theory was introduced in 1948 by Havighurst (1972; see Table 2.1). The basic assumptions of this approach are (1) that the development of an individual is a lifelong process (life-span development); (2) that individuals shape their own life trajectory (agency) to the best of their ability, by means of conscious decisions; and (3) that this freedom to shape one’s life is framed by historical and geographical circumstances (time and place). It is also assumed (4) that individuals differ in their development in terms of when they undergo biographical transitions (timing) and (5) that individual development does not take place in isolation from the social environment, but is embedded in a social network (linked lives) (Vandewater 2017, p. 48). This concept is fundamentally well-suited to the interactionist understanding of socialization prevalent in media socialization research (Süss et al. 2018, p. 33). What Havighurst means by developmental tasks is goals of socialization that must be achieved in particular age segments and at particular biographical transitions. According to this model, individuals are repeatedly confronted with new situations and specific developmental tasks in which they must prove their competence. These developmental tasks are given normative form by social contexts. For example, Heymans, who expanded on Havighurst’s concept in the 1990s, defines a developmental task as follows:

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

29

Table 2.1 Developmental tasks according to Havighurst (1972) Phase of life Mid-childhood (6–12 years)

Youth (13–18 years)

Young adulthood (18–30 years)

Mid-adulthood (30–60 years)

Developmental tasks according to Havighurst (1972) Learning physical skills necessary for ordinary games Building wholesome attitudes towards oneself as a growing organism Learning to get along with age-mates Learning an appropriate masculine or feminine social role Developing fundamental skills in reading, writing and calculating Developing concepts necessary for everyday living Developing conscience morality and a scale of values Achieving personal independence Developing attitudes towards social groups and institutions Achieving new and more mature relations with age-mates of both sexes Achieving a masculine or feminine social role Accepting one’s physique and using the body effectively Achieving emotional independence of parents and other adults Preparing for marriage and family life Preparing for an economic career Acquiring a set of values and an ethical system as a guide to behaviour—developing an ideology Desiring and achieving socially responsible behaviour Selecting a mate Learning to live with a marriage partner Starting a family Rearing children Managing a home Getting started in an occupation Taking on civic responsibility Finding a congenial social group (together with the partner) Assisting teenage children to become responsible and happy adults Achieving adult social and civic responsibility Teaching and maintaining satisfactory performance in one’s occupational career Developing adult leisure-time activities Accepting and adjusting to the physiological changes of middle age Adjusting to aging parents

A developmental task is a period or trajectory during which the individual has the opportunity to prove or to make plausible before a specific audience or jury that he is capable of performing certain actions. This capability is inferred from the controlled and goal directed use of personal, social and/or material resources available. If the audience or jury is persuaded that the individual is capable, then the individual is granted the right to act on its own account as if the individual has acquired a new competency. (Heymans 1994, p. 8)

The jury or audience here refers to the social environment, which determines the significance of particular developmental tasks, and prescribes how much leeway the individual has when engaging with specific tasks. This approach nonetheless sees the individual as playing an active role in shaping his or her own development (Süss et al. 2018, p. 33). The following table shows the developmental tasks defined by Havighurst for mid-childhood, youth and mid-adulthood.

30

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Havighurst (1972) developed his concept for American society in the 1940s and 1950s and adapted this to the 1970s in a later edition of his publication. Subsequent discussions of this theory can be found, for example, in Heymans (1994), Sugarman (2001), Steinberg et al. (2011), Hatherley (2014) or Newman and Newman (2018). Today, however, things have changed, especially the age-specific definition of adulthood. There are no clear criteria for dividing this phase of life into concrete age bands. In comparison to the time when Havighurst described the developmental tasks, Western societies now show a trend towards a much longer phase of emerging adulthood, roughly defined as the period from reaching the age of majority to the late 20s, as people spend longer in education and training and marry and start families later. This extended transition from youth to adulthood is characterized by preparation for working life or entry into the labour market (often associated with frequent changes in job), an intense focus on the self, a gradual separation from the family of origin, but as yet no commitment to individual, close relationships or a particular lifestyle. Many young adults thus experience their twenties neither as young people nor as adults, but feel as though they are somewhere in between. In contrast, the following phase of young adulthood, from the end of the 20s to the mid-30s, is often experienced as difficult, because there are many challenges to be overcome, both professional (education and training, career entry, career planning) and private (building up a sustainable partnership, starting a family), and because the steady encroachment of the phase of emerging adulthood means there is little time left to cope with the developmental tasks of young adulthood (Freund and Nikitin 2012, pp. 260–264). It must be assumed, moreover, that not all individuals follow the ideal middleclass biography proposed by Havighurst and that the selection and sequence of developmental tasks proceeds differently in different social milieus and cultural contexts (Süss et al. 2018, p. 33). Flammer and Alsaker (2002), for example, expanded the concept of developmental tasks to distinguish between abilities and rights: they understand developmental tasks as abilities and rights which must be acquired and which are assigned by society based on age-specific transitions (Süss et al. 2018, p. 34). Individuals complete developmental tasks and acquire abilities while engaging with their social environment, in which media now play a significant role. To explore the significance of media in socialization processes, we therefore also need to consider theories from communication studies.

2.1.2.3

Media Effects

Given the large amount of time children, young people and adults spend using media, and the increasing mediatization of the social environment, psychologists have also investigated potential positive and negative effects of media use and related moderating factors (Dubow et al. 2008, p. 405). From this perspective, however, the role of media with regard to identity development or interaction with the social environment plays a subordinate role (Prot et al. 2015, p. 278). As proponents of this field of research, Dubow et al. (2008, pp. 411–419) point to the

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

31

difference between short-term and long-term psychological effects of media use and refer to the latter as media socialization. They stress the different factors that influence the impact of media on perception and cognition, behaviour and emotions. The first factors they mention are personal characteristics of the user, including both sociodemographic data such as age, gender and socio-economic status (SES) and personal variables such as behavioural tendencies, existing schemata and beliefs, the perceived realism of the content and identification with models. Referring to the uses and gratifications approach (see Sect. 2.1.3.1), they also emphasize the user’s motivation with regard to the expected gratifications of media use (e.g. entertainment, information, escapism or passing time) as a key influencing factor. What becomes apparent here is the close connection between psychological media research and socio-psychological audience studies, focusing on phenomena such as involvement, entertainment, the management of emotions, narrative experience and perception, as well as the development of relationships with media figures. With regard to the socio-psychological exploration of media effects, Dubow et al. (2008, pp. 411–419) also cite cultural factors such as values and norms, and the viewing context (e.g. joint media use in the family), as relevant influences. And last but not least, a certain importance is also ascribed to media content (e.g. characters, plots, etc.). It is assumed that all these factors, with varying degrees of intensity, have an impact on the psychological processes underlying potential media effects (observational learning, priming/schema activation, arousal/excitation transfer, desensitization, didactic learning processes). This field of research not only has a long tradition; it is also highly relevant today and plays an important part in communication studies. But the question of the relevance of media for socialization goes far beyond the exploration of more or less generalizable media effects. This is why the approaches underlying this research perspective will not be dealt with in any further detail here, and the focus will instead be on processes of self-socialization and socialization by others, with and via media.

2.1.3

Communication Studies Foundations

Media socialization research, as a field that is open to interdisciplinary approaches, has its disciplinary roots mainly in communication and media studies, most notably in the area of audience research. At the same time, it goes beyond these disciplines, expanding its perspective to include different social and cultural contexts of media appropriation and usage. Classic research considers the selection and processing of media content mainly from a socio-psychological perspective. Social and (inter)cultural dimensions of media use are also of increasing relevance in the field of communication and media studies, however. These dimensions are especially important when it comes to the relevance of media for socialization, which is why they are foregrounded in the following discussion of the communication studies foundations.

32

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

2.1.3.1

Reasons for Media Use

The uses and gratifications approach has a long tradition within psychologically oriented research on media use. McQuail (2010, p. 432) therefore describes it not so much as a research approach but more as a school of research, focused on investigating why and for what purpose people use media. In terms of the media socialization of children, young people and adults, the uses and gratifications approach is mainly important because it has constantly evolved and adapted to new media developments and forms of use. Despite some justified criticism, it has therefore lost little of its relevance in media psychology and audience research: A principal strength of the Uses and Gratifications approach is its inherent ability to interface interpersonal and mediated communication. [. . .] With its developed repertoire of interpersonal and mediated motives, as well as social and psychological antecedents and possible communication outcomes, U&G is an ideal framework for the study of newer and convergent medium use. (Papacharissi 2013, p. 109)

The strength of this approach lies in its adaptability to current media developments and its explanatory power for the expected benefits and consequences of individual media activity (i.e. media-related action and behaviour). It allows an exploration of motives, individual dispositions and routines, as well as possible consequences in terms of perceptions, attitudes and behaviour (Papacharissi 2013, p. 112). The approach was substantially influenced by an essay on ‘uses and gratifications research’ by Katz et al. (1973), in the American journal Public Opinion Quarterly. Today the authors are regarded as the founders of this approach, although Papacharissi (2013, p. 100) traces its origins back to Lasswell’s formula (1948)— ‘Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?’—and sees early audience studies (e.g. by Paul Lazarsfeld and Herta Herzog) as the beginning of uses and gratifications research. Katz et al. reject behaviourist, monocausal conclusions about the effects of media on audiences, based on media content. Instead, following a symmetrical model of mass communication, they emphasize the active subject, choosing and using media in a highly selective way to satisfy individual needs: [T]he approach simply represents an attempt to explain something of the way in which individuals use communications, among other resources in their environment, to satisfy their needs and to achieve their goals and to do so by simply asking them. (Katz et al. 1973, p. 510)

The basic assumption of the uses and gratifications approach is that individuals consciously select media and media content to satisfy particular desires and needs. These needs are expressed in the motives for the selection and mode of use of a particular medium or element of media content, motives which are in turn closely linked with an individual’s social environment and psychological predispositions (Rubin 2002, p. 527; Sundar and Limperos 2013, pp. 504–505). On the basis of the needs they feel, and of their social and psychological conditions, individuals consciously choose media to which they ascribe specific qualities and from which they receive certain gratifications or the satisfaction of certain needs. In this way, the

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

33

approach makes it possible to investigate different modes of media use, as well as the media activity of individuals (Papacharissi 2013, p. 99). Treumann et al. (2002, pp. 24–25) criticize the uses and gratifications approach as functionalistic, because of the underlying assumption that the selection of the individual media menu is purely based on its functional benefit for the subject (well-being, adaptation to the environment, structural living conditions), whereas this media activity is actually not completely free and autonomous. McQuail (2010, pp. 425–426) also underlines this criticism, stressing that this approach cannot adequately explain the connection between attitudes to media and the way they are actually used. Further points of criticism are the concept of action underlying this approach and the extent to which it takes into account the relationship between the media available and the motives for media use, as well as the failure to explain the sociological and psychological origins of media-related needs (Pfaff-Rüdiger 2011, pp. 55–57; Ruggerio 2000, pp. 5–6). Nonetheless, or perhaps for this very reason, the uses and gratifications approach has continued to evolve (Ruggerio 2000). In reaction to criticisms of an excessively individualistic perspective, which allows little leeway for explaining connections between individual media activity and cultural and societal structures and power relations, of an imprecise definition of key terms and of a failure to distinguish between expected and actually received gratifications, Palmgreen et al. (1980, 1981) linked the original approach with expectancy-value theory, developing a focus on ‘gratifications sought’ and ‘gratifications obtained’. They connect the expected gratifications with those actually received and thus attempt to explain people’s satisfaction with a specific media product (McQuail 2010, pp. 426–427). Further revisions follow, placing media use and media activity in a broader context of everyday routines and the life-world of individuals. This is the basis for the uses and dependency model developed by Rubin and Windahl (1986), which assumes that individuals who have a wide range of channels of communication at their disposal, and who utilize these channels, concentrate less on a specific medium to satisfy their needs, instead weighing up various forms of personal and media-based communication for the achievement of different gratifications. The strength of this model is that it places greater emphasis on the activity of the individual and points out that different channels of communication do not simply exist in parallel, but are used simultaneously and complement each other (Papacharissi 2013, pp. 99–102; Ruggerio 2000, p. 9). The current uses and gratifications approach, which is still frequently deployed to examine different communication phenomena, is therefore guided by the fundamental assumptions that media activity and media use are goal-oriented and influenced by individual social and psychological factors, that media and media content are utilized to satisfy needs and desires (with a distinction to be made between gratifications expected and those actually obtained) and that different media-based and personal channels of communication are used simultaneously and in such a way that they complement each other. The strength of this approach lies in its adaptability and its applicability to a number of different contexts of individual media use and media activity (Papacharissi 2013, pp. 101–102; see also Sundar and Limperos 2013;

34

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Papacharissi and Mendelson 2011; Papacharissi and Rubin 2000). It is particularly suitable for comparative studies of media use (McQuail 2010, p. 426). This also allows it to be linked with other theories from psychology and the social sciences, such as reflections on media activity and social distinction (for more details on this, see Chap. 3). In a criticism of the shortcomings of the uses and gratifications approach, with a view to possible perspectives for developing this approach, Pfaff-Rüdiger (2011, pp. 57–64) points out that the focus is mainly on the instrumental use of media, less on their ritualized or habitualized use, although both forms of use are part of the everyday media activity of individuals. She also argues that more attention should be paid to media content and to the manner in which media are used and integrated into everyday life. If, however, the lack of theoretical differentiation of the uses and gratifications approach is not seen as a deficit, but as a potential openness towards links with other social science theories, then this approach can be expanded and modified to accommodate different theoretical perspectives (Ruggerio 2000). One example is the attempt made by LaRose et al. (2001; see also LaRose and Eastin 2004) to combine social cognition theory with the uses and gratifications approach, in order to distinguish more precisely between gratifications sought and gratifications obtained in the context of Internet usage. The primary focus of the uses and gratifications approach, however, is still on the functional perspective of media activity, while structural approaches to research on reception and use concentrate more on the social conditions of media usage. One example therefore is Weilbull’s (1985, quoted in McQuail 2010, pp. 421–422) approach. He distinguishes the social structure, in which he includes sociodemographic data that influence an individual’s social behaviour and general perspective, such as education, income, place of residence, gender and age, from the media structure, by which he means the media system, the channels of communication it offers (e.g. the number of television stations) and the media content available at a particular point in time. The strength of Weibull’s model is that it illustrates the relationships between internalized habits of media activity and actual media use on a specific day or in a concrete situation. According to Weilbull’s structural model of media use (McQuail 2010, p. 422), key factors for media reception or media use are, on the one hand, individual needs such as the search for information, the desire for entertainment and relaxation or the creation of social contacts via media. On the other hand, media use is influenced by the media system and the available media products and potential opportunities for use (e.g. Internet access, television stations, ownership of mobile devices, etc.). Individual needs and the available media repertoire lead to the development of individual habits in relation to media, which subsequently influence individual patterns of use and/or the focus on particular media products. Thus actual media use at a particular point in time is shaped by habitualized media practices and individual patterns of use. At the same time, however, it is dependent on the actual needs of an individual in a concrete situation and on the social context in which the individual finds himself or herself at this particular point in time. Furthermore, the choice of a specific use of media is also

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

35

dependent on the media products available in a particular social situation (e.g. what is currently on television). The real reasons for individual modes of media use are difficult to grasp, both empirically and theoretically. Following Webster and Wakshlag (1983, quoted in McQuail 428), who developed an approach to explain why people choose particular television programmes, McQuail (2010, pp. 427–430) also devises a structureanalytical model to explain the choice of media products. He distinguishes individual influences from the influences of the media system. On an individual level, personal qualities come first. These include sociodemographic factors such as age, gender and marital status, but also education, work situation, income and lifestyle. Closely linked with this is social background or social milieu, which is marked by a particular habitus and a specific cultural capital (for more details see Sect. 3.1). This gives rise to certain habits of media use. The awareness of what media are potentially available also influences the actual choice of media products. McQuail (2010, p. 429) assumes that the better informed someone is about potentially available media, the more consciously and actively he or she chooses a specific media product. He also attributes great importance to the context of media use, that is, whether media use occurs alone or in the company of/in dialogue with others and in what social location a media product is used (e.g. in the workplace or at home). Besides the social environment, however, individual media-related needs—as identified in the context of the uses and gratifications approach—affect an individual’s media activities. Closely linked to this are personal preferences such as particular genres, formats or Internet platforms, which, in combination with media-related needs, result in a tendency to choose particular media products. This is then the basis for the choice of an actual media product in a specific situation, which—depending on the above-mentioned influencing factors—leads to a particular use of media. The preference for media products is partly determined, however, by the media system itself and the range of media available in a particular society. As well as the range of media available, the marketing of particular media products can also influence the choice of a particular element of media content or a particular media product. Another mediaspecific factor that influences an individual’s actual choice of media and his or her actual media activities is the time at which particular content is accessible (e.g. as a result of the programming structure of television stations). However, the increasing availability of media content on the Internet at any time (e.g. via on-demand players) means that time positioning is becoming less significant. Both Weibull’s model and that of McQuail need to be considered carefully in terms of current media developments. In particular, the spread of the Internet and of mobile devices, giving access to a large quantity of media content anytime and anywhere, has a relativizing effect on the influence of the available media at a particular point in time; recipients and users have an ever greater range of content available, from which they can choose at any time in accordance with their needs. Models based on structural analysis cannot predict the actual media use of an individual. The different factors are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to adequately account for all the influencing factors:

36

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization Chance often plays a part in media exposure, and its intervention reduces the ability to really explain choice or audience composition. (McQuail 2010, p. 429, emphasis in original)

Nonetheless, these models are significant because of their focus on action; they are therefore suitable for demonstrating complex processes of media activity and are also important for understanding processes of media socialization.

2.1.3.2

Cultural Dimensions of the Appropriation and Use of Media

The so-called cultural turn within the social sciences (see also Morley and Chen 1996) has also influenced discussions on the reception, use and appropriation of media in communication studies. It stands for a process that began in the 1970s: the rejection of a reductive concept of objectivity, in favour of a stronger tendency to analyse the construction of meaning, at both individual and societal levels (Bennett 2008, pp. 94–102). Discussion focuses on the complexity of social processes and a multidimensional view of these. The protagonists of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies like Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart developed their theories in the context of the political struggles of the 1960s and 1970s in the UK and published their critical papers in so-called partisan journals such as New Left Review or Marxism Today (Christ 2013). Here we can observe similarities with the development of critical media theories in the context of the Frankfurt School and the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s in Germany (e.g. Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Dieter Baacke; see also Sect. 5.1.1 on the theoretical roots of the concept ‘media competence’). In terms of the approach to media, this means a holistic view of media use, which is embedded in social contexts (Grossberg et al. 1998; Kellner 1995). Cultural studies should not, however, be seen purely as an approach within media and communication studies; instead it is interdisciplinary, with links to linguistics and literary studies, anthropology and sociology. It cannot easily be pinned down to a methodological or theoretical paradigm, but is rather to be understood as an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary project (Johnson et al. 2004 pp. 9–25). Ang (2008, p. 240), for example, describes cultural studies as a ‘post-modern (inter)discipline’. Core aspects are a rejection of the traditional concept of high culture and an understanding of culture as everyday culture, negotiated in discursive processes. This negotiation of meanings does not proceed without conflict, however; cultural studies therefore also explores different power relations between various social groups, considering key categories such as gender, ethnicity and social status, and consistently examining the political implications (Ang 2008; Bennett 2008; Carey 2009). The core premise of cultural studies is a holistic view of cultural processes and of the appropriation of cultural products (Decherney and Sender 2018; Barker 2008; During 2007). Here particular significance is attached to the concept of the cultural practice, as a complex form of action that is imparted by conventional means and embedded in sociocultural and discursive contexts. According to this, cultural products such as media content are generated by specific cultural practices; their

2.1 Perspectives on Socialization

37

analysis therefore requires consideration of the conditions of production and the contexts of use (Grossberg et al. 1998). The concept of (media) appropriation, as a complex sociocultural process in which media content is integrated into the everyday world of individuals (McQuail 2010, p. 405), plays a key role here (e.g. Buckingham 1993, 2000, 2011). It represents the basic assumption of cultural studies that media use is not a process of adoption of or assimilation to certain media content (a criticism levelled at traditional studies of reception), but that the active role of audiences in negotiating meaning, as in ‘making it their own’ (Hepp 2010, pp. 165–197), takes centre stage. This perspective on the appropriation of media content is supported by Stuart Hall’s (1980) encoding/decoding model. It shows how media content is produced through the encoding of certain structures of meaning and their decoding by the audience. Based on the concept of the appropriation of cultural products, Hall (1973/ 2007) concludes that there are three ways of reading media content: the dominant position or favoured reading adopts the original meaning of the media content, as intended by the producers, while the oppositional reading interprets its meaning in a consciously oppositional manner. The negotiated reading or position acknowledges the original meaning, but calls it into question, and comes to a compromise between adoption of and opposition to the original meaning. Different readings are seen as being socioculturally mediated, but at the same time, it is stressed that social factors such as milieu do not necessarily have a direct influence on different readings: it is only in combination with other factors and discursive positions that social positions can elicit a particular reading (Kellner 1995). The perspective of cultural studies differs from other positions in media and communication studies in that both the encoding and the decoding are seen as productive (Christ 2013). From this it can be concluded that a specific element of media content can only achieve particular effects, or satisfy particular needs, if its message has been appropriated by the audience in a manner that is meaningful for them. Media-specific effects, uses and gratifications are thus seen, from the perspective of cultural studies, as mediated by specific structures of meaning. In other words, in order to determine the potential meaning of media texts, we must also reflect on their sociocultural framework. This approach is especially important if we are considering intercultural and sociocultural differences between producers and recipients of cultural products and the different stores of cultural knowledge and power relations associated with these differences (Hepp 2010, pp. 117, 136). The ‘circuit of culture’ model (du Gay et al. 1997; Johnson 1986, 1996) has also developed into a key approach in the cultural analysis of media. This centres on the understanding of culture as a cycle in which cultural products are produced as meaning-bearing texts and then read, embedded and given meaning in living cultures. Here culture appears in a different form in production to the one it takes as a product or cultural text and its readings or interpretations in everyday life. The conditions of production and reception differ, according to this view, and must be examined and described separately, in accordance with their specificities. They cannot be deduced from one another, but are both parts of a greater whole: the circuit of culture. This study of the relation of production and consumption also leads

38

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

the researcher’s attention to cultural capital and the circulation of power among the active audience ‘as readers actively construct uses of text while they are concurrently being “produced” with particular indentities [sic!]’ (Hasgood 2003, p. 389). Within the research on reception in communication studies, the cultural turn— rejecting not just the traditional stimulus-response model of media reception, but also the uses and gratifications approach (due to its one-sided focus on individual needs for media use) (Hepp 2010, pp. 114–115, 167–168)—has paved the way for a new or additional research perspective, which is nonetheless seen by some as irreconcilably different (with regard to media education, see also Christ 2013). Thus, for example, Bilandzic et al. (2015, pp. 226–227) have emphasized, as the fundamental distinction between ‘cultural media studies’ and the sociopsychological ‘mainstream reception studies’ which they advocate, that reception studies as defined by them are focused on generalization and theoretical structuring, in contrast to cultural studies. They criticize the contextualism of cultural studies, arguing that no generally valid statements about phenomena of media reception and effect can be made from this research perspective. Despite the perceived ‘incompatibility’ of these two approaches, however, the authors acknowledge that they do produce complementary findings when it comes to exploring the phenomenon of media reception. And yet it would seem that the most promising option for future research is a multiperspectival and integrative view of the phenomenon of media appropriation and media use, going beyond mere reception and use. Even if cultural studies emphasizes the specificities of particular situations of media use, and argues against a decontextualized view, a certain degree of generalization and structuring is certainly useful or even necessary in order to be able to make statements that have empirical and theoretical substance. At the same time, this structuring must not lead to reductionism, which factors out social and cultural contexts of media appropriation and media use, or only considers them in passing. For purposes of empirical manageability, some aspects of social reality do have to be reduced or simplified. In the interpretation and classification of empirical data, however, a holistic view is not only useful but necessary, in order to avoid monocausal and monodirectional conclusions.

2.2

Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the Help of Media

In view of current changes in media and society, which are generally summarized under the term mediatization, Krotz (2017, pp. 33–34) highlights the challenges these raise for socialization theory. He stresses that self-reflection, as an essential component of socialization processes, no longer takes place solely as an internal dialogue, but is also externalized, insofar as people present their personal experience as a story via the social web (e.g. via social network sites) and receive feedback from

2.2 Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the. . .

39

their social environment via the same channels. He also observes that perception and experience are not naturally given, but are increasingly shaped by the appropriation and use of media. As an example Krotz points to the significance of central perspective in vision. Another example is musical harmonies in hearing. The differences between traditional European and East Asian music show especially clearly, for example, that the musical concept of harmony is the result of socialization processes. It can therefore be assumed that in the present day, the way we see and hear is partly influenced by media (e.g. the importance of the sound quality of music recordings, which is much higher for CD recordings than MP3 files). Individual ideas about the world are also partially media-based. In this respect the development of the Internet of things will be particularly important in future discussions of socialization theory (Mascheroni and Holloway 2019). In the quest for possible ways to theorize the complex phenomenon of media socialization, various approaches can be identified in the field of sociology, psychology, cultural studies, communication and media studies, which have proven useful with regard to the media activities and media use of individuals. Each of them is focused on a different area of human life and activity, but together they can contribute to a better understanding of media socialization. The approaches presented above are just a selection of possible points of connection from the very broad spectrum of theories in each individual discipline. This selection could be supplemented with additional strands of theory, which would further support the line of argument chosen here, or expand its focus. The aim of the selection made here is to find starting points for further discussion of the relevance of media for socialization, of media activity with regard to habitus and social distinction and lastly of the extent to which media competence or media literacy is socially determined. In terms of approaches to media, an interactionist understanding of socialization has generally become prevalent. It is assumed that an individual’s cultural actions are based on those challenges and themes that make sense for his or her life practice, in the context of the conduct of everyday life and the associated orientations and views. This subjective practical meaning also plays a key role in the appropriation and use of media and in the attribution of meaning and the classification of media content. Weiß (2000, pp. 48–57) used this approach, for example, to examine the development of para-social relationships with media figures. Using the reception of daily soaps as an example, he argues that adolescents form para-social relationships with the heroes and heroines of these series because the content of the programmes coincides with their subjective (unfulfilled) ideas and desires, with regard to a ‘perfect way of life’. In his studies he observes that watching such programmes gives subjective meaning and symbolic form to these unfulfilled wishes and utopian concepts of life, against the background of the viewers’ own everyday life practice (Weiß 2000, p. 59). Adolescents who form para-social relationships with media figures in this way reinforce their outlook on life by emotionally experiencing a symbolic media version of it (Weiß 2000, p. 60). Another important contribution to the debate on the relevance of media for socialization is offered by approaches associated with the so-called ‘new’ sociology of childhood, as these mainly foreground the self-efficacy or agency of children and

40

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

adolescents. The ‘new’ sociology of childhood turns its attention to the rights of children and to the manner in which young people can be supported in exercising their rights. This question becomes especially important in current discussions about the Internet use of children and young people and the development of media literacy; it is discussed in greater detail in Sect. 5.2.2.1. Socio-ecological approaches also make an important contribution to the classification of media activity, for example, to classify and explain approaches to the opportunities and risks of Internet use (EU Kids Online 2014a; Livingstone et al. 2015). Unlike sociology, psychology focuses its attention on the individual development of personality; this—in particularly sharp contrast to the ‘new’ sociology of childhood—is based on the assumption that children develop gradually against the background of the fulfilment of desires and needs. These theories can help, in various ways, to understand how boys and girls appropriate media and deal with media content. For instance, Piaget’s theory on cognitive development makes it possible to assess the active effort children make to understand media content and modes of presentation. And Selman’s reflections on the capacity to adopt the perspective of others are useful for understanding how children perceive and process content in media contexts. Affective dimensions of reception tend to be excluded from these two approaches, but they do feature in Erikson’s model of the development of ego identity (Paus-Haase 1998, pp. 87–89). The significance of media, however, can also be considered in the context of developmental tasks, as defined by Havighurst, or of the explanation of socialization as a series of separation crises that must be coped with (Vollbrecht 2007, p. 102). In relation to this, Paus-Haase (1998) identified a few starting points for analysing children’s understanding of television programmes, which can also be applied to more current forms of video and film viewing via mobile devices. With regard to the way young people deal with what is offered by the social web, Schmidt et al. (2011, p. 27) have also shown how the concept of developmental tasks can be transferred to media activities, identifying three forms of exploration (see also Roth’s (1971) pedagogical anthropology): self-exploration, social exploration and material exploration. They juxtapose self-exploration (guided by the question: ‘Who am I?’) with identity management in dealing with media and point to the way people design profile pages on social network sites (SNS), or publish personal photos and videos. They associate social exploration (guided by the question of individual positioning in the social environment or social network: family, friends, peers, etc.) with relationship management via social media and mention as examples contact requests and public and private comments and posts on SNS. And lastly, they relate material exploration (guided by the question of general orientation in the world) to information management via social media, citing as examples the use of search engines to find information, as well as wikis, blogs, video platforms and the like. Media and communication studies is the academic discipline in which media and approaches to media take centre stage. The uses and gratifications approach has become especially important in this respect, as it emphasizes the activity of the individual and points out that different channels of communication are used in

2.2 Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the. . .

41

parallel and in such a way as to complement each other. It is assumed that media use is goal-oriented and dependent on individual, social and psychological factors. A broader perspective, going beyond purely functional media activity, is offered by structure-analytical approaches, which point to the connections between internalized habits of general media activity and actual media use at a specific point in time. Such approaches take into account not only individual factors but also the influence of the media system and the context of media use. Due to their complexity, structureanalytical models are not suitable for predicting the actual media use of an individual, but they make an important contribution to clarifying complex processes of media activity and also offer starting points for research on media socialization— especially because of their strong emphasis on action. Cultural studies focus on media appropriation as a complex, sociocultural process of integrating media content into the everyday life-world of individuals with special importance being attached to the activity of the audience and the sociocultural framing (Buckingham 1998, 2013; Hasgood 2003; Ang 1996). When it comes to exploring the relevance of media for socialization, what cultural studies contributes is its multiperspectival and integrative view of the phenomenon of media appropriation and media use, which goes far beyond the narrow study of media content and/or its reception and use. The relationship between media and socialization can only be understood with this sort of integrative approach, incorporating a range of disciplinary perspectives. All the approaches mentioned have different degrees of explanatory power for diverse phenomena of media appropriation and use. What is certain is that the lifeworlds of children and adolescents today—at least in the ‘Global North’—are in large part media worlds and that media products, alongside other institutions of socialization, serve as a means of self-affirmation and of exploring the self and the social environment. With regard to the appropriation of media and their importance for socialization processes, it can be noted that children develop a kind of media knowledge from an early age: for example, the ability to recognize and classify characters (e.g. protagonists from picture books or television shows) and other content (e.g. jingles) and skills in using media (e.g. watching videos or playing games on a tablet) (Nieding and Ohler 2006, p. 46; with regard to the medium of television, see also Barth 1995). This knowledge, which gradually increases with age, is referred to by PausHasebrink and Bichler (2008, p. 69), with reference to Schmidt and Weischenberg (1994, p. 216), as the accumulation of media schemata. These media schemata help children and adolescents to structure situations and perceptions in relation to media—both familiar ones and new ones whose parameters are not yet clear—and to find their way through the proliferation of available media, or to actually process these (e.g. by categorizing symbols, themes, patterns of action, etc.). Media schemata help children and young people to understand media, and this understanding is both tied to the cognitive development of children and adolescents and a component of developmental tasks in the context of general socialization (Paus-Hasebrink and Bichler 2008, p. 69–75). In the increasingly mediated environment in which children and young people are growing up today, media symbolism has, right from the start, a

42

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

special importance for their exploration of the self and the material world and for their construction of identity. Media content gives children and adolescents a surface on which they can project and explore wishes and fantasies; it offers potential opportunities for orientation and identification, which they can either accept or decline, and it can also help them to manage their emotions. Furthermore, it has an important function in communication with peers and family members. This includes both joint media use, subsequent media-related communication and the social negotiation of media symbols, as well as direct use of media as a means of communication, e.g. via messaging services such as WhatsApp or social network sites. Furthermore, media heroes and heroines can give young people the chance to explore fantasies of superiority or of being a strong protector, or experiences that they have not yet had, such as first love. Schorb (2010, p. 386) sees media as having three core functions in relation to socialization. Firstly, as factors in socialization, combined with other such factors, they can influence attitudes, judgements, knowledge and also to some extent (especially in the case of younger children) behaviour. Secondly, they serve as mediators of socialization in conjunction with consciously intended learning. Thirdly, as instruments in socialization processes, they support children and adolescents in exploring themselves and their social and cultural environment. When we consider the way children and young people deal with media, the last-mentioned function assumes a particular importance, because it points to practical, real-life contexts for media behaviour and the appropriation of media content. Fromme (2006, p. 12) also points out that it is not just a matter of media influencing processes of socialization, but that, conversely, experiences of socialization also have an impact on media use as a sociocultural activity. Just as social rules and role models are negotiated against the background of the socio-ecological environment (with individual life practices, ideas and behaviours), socialization with media is not to be seen as a monocausal process. Media structures and media content confront individual motives for media use and related expectations, as well as diverse sociocultural and socio-structural contexts in which an individual engages with media. Even if there is a consensus about the fundamental relevance of media for socialization, and there is empirical evidence of this (insofar as data on the media use and media behaviour of individuals can be interpreted in this way at various levels and from the perspective of different disciplines), this field has not yet been sufficiently researched: Thus, due to inadequacies of much of the research to date, we have gained little understanding of the developmental connections between media use and various developmental outcomes across childhood, the extent to which these developmental connections may be different for different groups of children, and the processes or mechanisms linking media use and developmental outcomes across childhood. (Vandewater 2017, p. 51)

Given the ongoing tendency towards mediatization, the increasing interconnection of everyday objects (Internet of things, Internet of toys) and the blurring of boundaries between online and offline, socialization with, via and by media will raise many more questions for future research. Of particular importance will be the

2.2 Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the. . .

43

relations between opportunities (taken) and (potential) risks and between participation, democratization and the self-determination of consciously and unconsciously generated information (big data). This also lends ever-greater importance to the question of media competence and media literacy and their development in the context of socialization processes. Ethical issues such as human rights are also the focus of growing interest within research on media socialization—not only with regard to children and adolescents but all generations. These questions can only be explored by means of an interdisciplinary research perspective, which considers micro-, meso- and macrosociological aspects of media appropriation and use. Nonetheless Sutter (2007, p. 135; see also Geulen 2004, pp. 17–19) criticizes discussions of the relevance of media for socialization and complains that these generally focus on either subjective processes of reception, processes of communicative appropriation of media products or the analysis of structures of meaning of media products and only rarely consider all these areas and their interdependence. On the contrary Hoffmann (2007, Mikos et al. 2007) complains that general theories of socialization ascribe too little importance to media, which they tend to see as marginal phenomena. At the same time, she and Mikos point to the lack of a complex theoretical model, taking into account all the parameters important for the relevance of media to socialization (Hoffmann and Mikos 2007, p. 9). The demand for such a theoretical model will probably never be fully met, since the interplay between media use, media appropriation, media activity and different processes of socialization is so multifaceted that it would be difficult to fully consider all the important factors and even more difficult to explain in detail the complex interplay between them. Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind the main factors and look at them from different perspectives, in order to better understand processes of media activity, media appropriation and, lastly, socialization with and via media. One proposal for this has been made by Paus-Hasebrink (2017, pp. 107–110), with regard to media socialization within the family. Coming from a socioecological perspective, she describes three sociological levels in which the socialization of children takes place. At the centre, that is, on the sociological micro level, is the individual child or adolescent with his or her specific developmental tasks and forms of media use. The child is in constant dialogue with its immediate social environment, with peers, friends and other family members, who can be seen as being on the meso level. For children and adolescents, shared interests with friends are especially important: these influence the way they organize their own everyday lives and are negotiated in peer relationships. The family, with its specific relationship structures and social resources, is also of considerable importance. The central element here is the shared family life which is shaped by the family climate and by the joint management of the challenges of everyday life (including leisure activities and shared media use). Family life is influenced by all the members of the family and by the general life tasks that occupy the parents and confront the family as a whole. Closely related to this are the family’s concepts of child-raising and the general approach to media in the family. With respect to the latter, the media equipment available is also important, as is the question of the rooms particular devices are located in and the social contexts in which these are used (e.g. dinner in front of the

44

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

television, or a ‘no phones at the table’ rule). Shared family life is also shaped by macrosociological factors, however. This includes the general social situation, which is dependent on the education, occupation and income of the parents and plays a part in determining the social milieu. The neighbourhood in which a child is growing up is also reflected in the family’s social situation. Families are, in addition, dependent on the political, economic and cultural contexts of a country and on socio-structural contexts closely related to these, such as the education system, family policy, access to childcare and recreational facilities for children and young people, but also the technical infrastructure (e.g. Internet access) and the general media system. The sum of all these factors is ultimately reflected in the real life-world of every single child and young person. This life-world shapes the everyday media use and media activities of children and adolescents. From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, it is the basis for any social action, because of the meanings that individuals ascribe to objects (including their media representations). The everyday media activity of an individual is dependent not only on the life-world contexts but also on biological experiences, individual explorations of identity and subjectivity, ideas about norms and values and basic ethical attitudes (Mikos 2007, p. 36). PausHasebrink’s model also demonstrates the mutuality of the relationships between different social levels and actors, which plays a particularly important role on the meso level. Boys and girls exchange views on shared media experiences and negotiate the meaning that they ascribe to particular media content. They also exchange views with their siblings and negotiate rules for media use in the home with their parents, or take their parents’ approach to media as an example. Also important in this respect is the fact that socialization can no longer be understood as a one-sided process, since children and adolescents are not only the object of socialization but, conversely, also socialize their social environment, for example, their parents (Süss 2004, pp. 29–30). This reciprocal socialization demands particular attention, especially with regard to the appropriation of current developments in ICT. Another promising proposal has been developed by the of the EU Kids Online research network (Livingstone et al. 2015, p. 10). While Paus-Hasebrink and Bichler take their cue from Baacke’s media-ecological approach, the model used by EU Kids Online (see Fig. 2.2) is based on Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological approach. It is focused on identifying different factors that can help to make Internet use beneficial for children. At the centre is the individual level: individual children with their abilities and skills, psychological and sociodemographic specificities and experiences. These personal preconditions, as well as opportunities to access the Internet, influence children’s practices and the abilities they acquire in using the Internet, which in turn influence their experience of and approach to opportunities and risks. This in turn has an impact on whether the Internet helps to foster children’s well-being and supports them in exercising their rights (ibid., p. 11). Each child is embedded in his or her social environment (level 2), which is made up of family, friends, the school environment and various social networks. The digital environment within the family (e.g. positive or negative attitude towards media, technical equipment available, etc.) is also important on this level. Lastly, on the third level, that of the nation state,

2.2 Identity Work, Relationship Management and Orientation in the World with the. . .

Children

A c c e s s

Child identity and resources

O N L I N E

45

Child well-being and rights

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Family

Educators

Peers

Community

Digital ecology

SOCIAL LEVEL

Societal inclusion (inequality, welfare)

Technology provision and regulation

Education and knowledge

Culture, media and values

COUNTRY LEVEL

Fig. 2.2 EU Kids Online revised model (Livingstone et al. 2015, p. 10)

structural factors such as technological infrastructure, social inequalities and the general prosperity of society, the educational system and cultural values have an impact on a child’s individual experiences and practices when dealing with the Internet (ibid., pp. 12–13). Although this model is primarily focused on children’s use of the Internet, and the way they deal with the related opportunities and risks, it is particularly significant because it has not only been developed on a theoretical level, but empirically tested and modified by means of extensive quantitative and qualitative studies and secondary analyses of existing data. It is oriented towards international and intercultural comparisons, adopts a socio-ecological perspective and at the same time takes into account socio-psychological factors. The emphasis is mainly on the well-being and welfare of children and adolescents in connection with their approach to the Internet. This is not a model which is firmly rooted in the sociology of the media—or at least it is not described as such by its authors—but it offers a good starting point for further research on media sociology, as it identifies key actors and institutions and at the same time concentrates on the child or adolescent with his or her identity and the resources available to the individual.

46

2.3

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Experiences of Socialization and Media Use

It is apparent, then, that the appropriation of media is a fixed component of processes of socialization in a mediated society. This occurs against the background of experiences in the life-world and is deeply embedded in contexts of practical life. It should be noted, however, not only that media influence processes of socialization but, conversely, that experiences of socialization also affect the way people use and deal with media as a sociocultural activity. This also has empirical significance and is shown, for example, in the concepts of media repertoires, modes of communication and media generations, which will serve as examples of connections between experiences of socialization and media use in the following discussion. The ‘media repertoire’ approach does not focus on the use of individual media, but looks at all the media used by an individual and the way different media are combined. Differences between media repertoires can be attributed to phases in life and life-world contexts, and this in turn shows the importance of practical meaning for an individual’s media use. The concept of modes of communication also refers to practical contexts of media use, exploring the question of how individuals define a specific situation of media use for themselves. Another example showing connections between media preferences and experiences of socialization is ‘media generations’. This concept is focused on the importance of media for generational self-positioning. Working on the assumption that media serve both as a platform and as an object of processes of communitization, the approach draws attention to the way individuals turn to or appropriate particular media and media content, based on their experiences of socialization and the conditions in which they conduct their everyday life. These become visible in the form of a generational and social habitus.

2.3.1

Media Repertoires and Modes of Communication

The development towards increasing media convergence and cross-mediality creates new challenges for audience research, in several respects. On the one hand, it is becoming more difficult to define media use on the basis of the specific medium, as the same device can potentially be used to read the newspaper, listen to the radio, surf the Internet and watch television or films. The phrase ‘using a smartphone’ is insufficient to describe the actual media use taking place via this device. Classification is also becoming more difficult on the level of content, since the same media content is often made available via different platforms or different media, thus offering a range of options for learning about the latest news, for example. To do empirical justice to this, various approaches have been developed in media and communication studies since the mid-2000s, seeking to analyse the media consumption habits of individuals from a holistic perspective (Bjur et al. 2014; Schrøder

2.3 Experiences of Socialization and Media Use

47

2011); thus researchers have once again shifted their focus away from the mass audience and now emphasize the active selection and use of media by the individual. One example of this is the Q method, developed by Schrøder (2011, 2016a, b; see also Courtois et al. 2015), an approach for quantifying and boosting the comparability of qualitative data, with the goal of identifying patterns of use in the sense of specific media repertoires1 (Kobbernagel and Schrøder 2016). With regard to crossmedia news consumption, Schrøder and Larsen (2010) and Schrøder and Kobbernagel (2010) were able to use this method to identify seven cross-media news repertoires within the Danish population (see also Peters and Schrøder 2017; Schrøder 2016a, b). Also comparable is Westlund and Bjur’s (2013, 2014) study of the ‘media lives’ of young Swedes aged 9–16. They too take a repertoire-oriented approach as their starting point, in order to observe specific, cross-media patterns of use and to investigate the extent to which the life-worlds of children and adolescents are shaped by the use of digital media. Further studies of patterns of use and media repertoires can be found, for example, in the work of van Rees and van Eijk (2003, use of specific media products/services and preferences regarding content), Yuan (2011, focus on news consumption), Webster and Ksiazek (2012, fragmented audiences due to the use of digital media), Taneja et al. (2012, cross-platform media use) and Jung et al. (2014, smartphone app repertoires). An approach based on media repertoires, developed at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research/Hans-Bredow-Institut, has also become increasingly well-known internationally (e.g. Kim 2016; Lepa and Hoklas 2015). It is characterized by a broad theoretical and empirical foundation, and, rather than just describing patterns of use, it offers connecting points for a theoretical exploration of the social and individual contexts of media activity and media socialization. This research perspective focuses on all the media that an individual uses regularly and on the manner in which audiences combine different kinds of media. It works on the assumption that this combination, or this ‘comprehensive pattern of exposure’ (Hasebrink and Popp 2006, p. 369; see also Hasebrink 2010, p. 139)—in other words the specific repertoire or the totality of the media products/services used—is of greater importance than the sum of all individual contacts with different media (Hasebrink 2014a, b, p. 15; Hasebrink and Hölig 2017). ‘Media repertoire’ is taken to mean a relatively stable, individual, cross-media pattern of use; of particular importance here are the connections between the different components of the media products combined by the users (Hölig et al. 2011, p. 74). It is assumed that people, when

1

The repertoire-oriented research perspective has its origins in television research (Taneja et al. 2012, p. 954) and in the study of ‘channel repertoires’, for example, in the work of Heeter (1985; Heeter et al. 1983), Lochte and Warren (1989) or Ferguson (1992; Ferguson and Perse 1993, 2000; Ferguson and Melkote 1997). This special focus on the medium of television has subsequently been extended to other media (e.g. Reagan et al. (1995) considered the complementary use of radio and newspapers) and then steadily expanded into a cross-media perspective (Yuan 2011, p. 1002; Jung et al. 2014, pp. 354–355). The difference between earlier and current studies of media repertoires is that these are no longer constructed purely by deductive methods, but that the perspective of the audience is now increasingly taken into consideration.

48

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

constructing their specific media repertoire, take their bearings from principles which apply to all media (e.g. usefulness, involvement, ritualized media use, expansion of cultural capital, legitimate media use, etc.) and which make it easier for them to choose specific media (Hasebrink 2014a, p. 31). In theoretical terms this approach follows on from (among other things) the uses and gratifications approach (see Sect. 2.1.3.1) and at the same time extends this by asking to what extent different motives for use are connected, giving rise to a pattern of gratifications sought and media-related needs, which is in turn reflected in a specific combination of individual media products/services, or in other words the media repertoire (Hasebrink 2014a, b, p. 17; see Hasebrink and Popp 2006 for further theoretical connections). The media repertoire approach can also be fruitfully linked with lifestyle studies and with the investigation of social milieus from the perspective of practical sense or meaning (sens pratique, Bourdieu 1980). This is about reconstructing the way people give practical meaning to their everyday actions and develop specific everyday communicative practices. The focus is on questions about an individual’s social milieu, and, connected to this, his or her position in social space, and the associated endowment of social, cultural and economic capital. This social background shapes the habitus, the sum of everyday cultural practices and methods of conducting everyday life, which ultimately includes all the ways a person uses and deals with different media. Connecting to this, media repertoires can be regarded as the expression of a particular media habitus (see Sect. 3.2.2) (Hasebrink 2014a, b, p. 20). Empirically, the main characteristic of the concept of the media repertoire is that its emphasis is not on the analysis of and the relationship between individual variables, but on the identification of specific patterns of use: The basic idea of a repertoire-oriented approach to media use does not specify on which level media use is described. There is just the abstract principle of analysis to search for patterns of exposure, for combinations of media behaviors. Thus, a repertoire can be made up by certain portions of use of media in general (e. g., TV, radio, newspapers, Internet etc.), or by certain topics used in any media (e. g., politics, economy, sports, culture etc.), or by certain genres (e.g., drama, comedy, action, romance etc.). In this respect, a repertoire-oriented approach is not exclusive; i.e., there are no theoretical arguments in favor or against one of these levels. As a consequence, any concrete research on media repertoires has to clarify the respective level of analysis it refers to. (Hasebrink and Popp 2006, p. 375)

Hasebrink (2014a, b, p. 23; Hasebrink and Domeyer 2012, pp. 758–759) understands this approach partly as a link between standardized and qualitative audience research. From the perspective of standardized audience research, this is about researching media repertoires as behavioural patterns (e.g. the nature of the media content used, preferences, attitudes, relative proportions of use, selectivity, etc.), while from the perspective of qualitative audience research, the focus is on the everyday practical meaning behind this use (subjective theories, social context, everyday routines, habits, personal values and ambitions, etc.). A fundamental characteristic of this approach is that different empirical indicators and components of media use are examined not as individual elements, but with regard to the connections and correlations between them (Hasebrink 2014a, b, p. 27; Hasebrink

2.3 Experiences of Socialization and Media Use

49

and Domeyer 2012, p. 760; Hasebrink and Hölig 2013, pp. 193–196). Hölig et al. (2011, p. 75) formulate three key areas for the study of media repertoires: the first is about surveying aspects of media repertoires, which encompass both pure media contacts and general usage preferences and are focused on the way these are embedded in everyday structures. The second is about examining the levels of media use, such as media forms, genres, content and themes, media brands and providers. And the third, crucial component involves analysing relational criteria such as relative proportions of use, relevance, variety, complementarity and competition between different products and services, in order to be able to describe the inner structure and the interrelationships between the individual components of a media repertoire. As already mentioned, a repertoire-oriented perspective can both cover the whole of a person’s media use and focus on a specific subsection. With reference to the latter, information-oriented media use attracts particular interest (Hasebrink 2017). The associated concept of the ‘information repertoire’ was introduced by Reagan (1996) in connection with a study on the information-oriented usage of radio and newspapers and was further developed by O’Keefe et al. (1998) from the perspective of health communication (Yuan 2011, p. 1002). More recent studies on the information repertoires of different population groups have been carried out by, for example, Hasebrink and Schmidt (2013), Robinson (2014), Wolfsfeld et al. (2016) and Sin and Vakkari (2017). Furthermore, Hasebrink (2017, pp. 369–373), starting from the concept of the media repertoire and making theoretical connections to the uses and gratifications approach and to debates on ‘information seeking’ and ‘information needs’ (e.g. Bowman and van de Wijngaert 2002; Case 2002), analyses two areas of change: on the one hand changes in information repertoires in relation to the development of the media since the 1980s and on the other hand changes in information repertoires from the perspective of the life course and of the changing challenges and developmental tasks facing the subjects involved (Havighurst 1972). Besides the focus on a specific content area of media use, the social environment of the media use can also be examined. Watson-Manheim and Bélanger (2007), for example, explore media repertoires in the occupational environment from the perspective of organizational communication. Here the question is which media—in the sense of an actually experienced social practice—are available within a company (as the legitimate media repertoire of a particular organization) and what portion of these is actually used in different contexts by the employees. A similar approach can be found in the work of Robinson (2014, p. 509), who investigates a ‘mediainformation repertoire around the issue of homelessness’. When studying media repertoires, researchers focus on general, socially integrative functions of media use, which structure everyday life. In the concept of ‘modes of communication’ (Hasebrink 2004; Hölig 2014), in contrast, the central question is how audiences define a specific situation of media use for themselves (Hasebrink and Hölig 2017). Hölig et al. (2011, p. 79) describe a mode of communication as a pattern of expectations and ways of acting in a certain situation, with the goal of fulfilling a specific communicative function of media use. The concept of ‘modes of communication’ introduced here thus differs fundamentally from the concept of

50

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

‘modes of media’ commonly used in sociolinguistics (Halliday 1985/1999; Gee 2008) and sociosemiotics (Kress and Van Leeuwen 1992; Kress 2000, 2003; Jewitt and Kress 2003a) and in the context of cultural studies (Norris 2004; Scollon and Wong Scollon 2003; Lemke 2000; O’Halloran 2004; O’Halloran et al. 2009; Fairclough 2000), to describe the way people deal with text, image and tone. It is assumed that audiences, at a particular point in their media use, are in a specific mode of communication and that they are aware of this, though usually only implicitly. This ‘becomes particularly obvious when there is a dis-match between the mode and the respective service: as soon as the ongoing interaction does not suit the current expectations, the user will re-evaluate the situation and change the service (according to the function he or she would like to realize) and/or redefine the communication mode (according to the features offered by the respective service)’ (Hasebrink and Hölig 2013, p. 198). Thus the focus is not so much on which media or media content is used, but on the way a particular user assesses a specific situation of use. The emphasis is therefore on the differentiation of communicative acts, not connected to a product-specific or device-specific perspective, and on actual situations of use, as well as on communicative actions that are carried out, and functions of media use that are thereby fulfilled. It is assumed that different modes of communication can underlie one and the same form of media use and that the significance of media use itself can vary for different audiences in different situations. This once again puts the spotlight on the purpose and subjective meaning of media use (Hölig 2014, p. 86) and on the question of which levels and values of characteristics audiences use to differentiate their communicative actions (Hölig et al. 2011, p. 80).

2.3.2

Media Generations

Discussions of the relevance of media for socialization include various concepts of media generations. These are mainly to be found in popular science discourses, but also appear in scholarly contexts. Examples are the ‘gamer generation’ (Beck and Wade 2004), the ‘net generation’ (Tapscott 1997; de Witt 2000; Oblinger and Oblinger 2005; Seufert 2007), the ‘millennials’ (Howe and Strauss 2000), the ‘generation @’ (Opaschowski 1999) and last but not least the often-cited ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2001a, b; Palfrey and Gasser 2008). These attributions are comprehensively criticized by Schulmeister (2009), and Aroldi (2011, p. 51) and Colombo (2011, pp. 23–24) also warn against the oversimplification inherent in such labels. Andò (2014, p. 157) voices the objection that such popular generational constructs are often the result of marketing strategies and usually only occur from the perspective of adults, looking at technological innovations and the way younger generations interact with them. In contrast, sociological concepts of generations ascribe common traits to an age cohort and choose a particular feature of a specific time span as a metaphor for the whole cohort (Schulmeister 2009, p. 47). Historically, they can be traced back to

2.3 Experiences of Socialization and Media Use

51

Karl Mannheim’s 1928 essay, ‘Das Problem der Generationen’, first published in the Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie and published in English (as ‘The Problem of Generations’) in 1952. Although Mannheim’s concept has been criticized because it is primarily focused on political participation, it is still referred to frequently in discussions of the generations in sociology, cultural studies and history (Corsten 2011, p. 37; Bolin 2017; Gal-Ezer 2014). Mannheim (1928, 1952) assumes that there are historical generations (Frønes 2016, p. 72; see also Bolin 2016a, b, pp. 252–253), which he describes as groups of individuals who feel loosely connected among themselves, similar to the phenomenon of the social stratum or class. This generational location (Generationenlagerung) leads to chronological simultaneity and, connected with this, an identical stratification (Schichtung) of life and consciousness and thus gives the members of a specific age cohort (in a particular cultural setting) potentially similar opportunities, but also limitations. The generational context2 (Generationszusammenhang) resulting from this can in turn lead to the constitution of particular generational units (Generationseinheiten), characterized by a particular approach to the potential possibilities, opportunities and limitations of a specific generational location (Jureit 2011). Different generational units within a historical generation are based on a shared generational context, but can either resemble or contradict each other in their specific forms of expression (e.g. different youth cultures) (Corsten 2011, p. 41). Bolin (2014, p. 114; see also Hepp et al. 2017a, p. 85) distinguishes generation from age by the fact that the actual age of an individual is constantly changing, while the generation he or she belongs to remains the same despite ageing. While Mannheim’s theory was restricted to a national framework, social, political and also media changes mean that theories of generations today must be conceived in global terms, or must take into account global interconnections. In relation to the generational context described by Mannheim, attention is now increasingly focused on generational self-positioning as a ‘we-sense’ (Corsten 1999; see also Colombo 2011, pp. 31–32), a shared awareness of or attitude towards life and a shared definition and classification of historical contexts by a group of individuals who see themselves as belonging to the same generation (Bolin 2017, pp. 13–15; see also 2016b; Napoli 2014, pp. 183–185). Adolescence is especially important in the development of this sense of fellowship. This is a phase of intense self-exploration and searching for identity, against a background of shared historical, social and cultural contexts. It takes place within a large group of age peers, who have a common semantics (a common language), common discursive practices and a common ‘thematic repertoire’ (Aroldi 2011, p. 55), including values, ideals, preferences and tastes—in short, the habitus of a generation (ibid.) (see also Sect. 3.1). From the perspective of cultural studies, there

2

The German term Generationenzusammenhang is difficult to translate into English. Translations found for it include not only ‘generational context’ but also ‘generation as actuality’ and ‘generational cohesion’ (see also Corsten 2011 and Bolin 2017, p.122).

52

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

are similarities here between ‘doing gender’ and ‘doing generation’, as a performance and a process of negotiation with others (Vittadini et al. 2014, p. 73; Hepp et al. 2017b, p. 111): The ‘Historical New’ of a generation is not a substance, a thing in itself. The ‘Historical New’ is a perspective, a ‘practical sense’ (Bourdieu 1980) for the new constellation shared by the members of the youngest generation. The shared awareness for the ‘Historical New’ is also the ‘we-sense’ of a generation with which they identify themselves by facing the meaning of ‘our time’. (Corsten 2011, p. 48)

Aroldi (2011, pp. 56–58) understands generation building as a process shaped by both past and present exogenous factors. Generational identity develops under the influence of these factors in conjunction with discursive and reflexive processes of negotiation, which are in turn formed by rituals and narratives, self-representations of the relevant generation and representations of and ascriptions by other generations. Influencing factors on the one hand are formative experiences of the past (historical and political events, material and symbolic conditions and resources, cultural institutions, processes and conditions (e.g. the education system), as well as everyday experiences and social practices. On the other hand, conditions in the present (age, life-cycle and biographical factors, current events, social and cultural conditions and everyday experiences) influence the development of a generational identity as well. A generation’s social agency appears both as different forms of political and social participation and as particular lifestyles, preferred consumer goods and brands—or, in simplified terms, as a specific generational habitus. The basis for the form of generation building described here is a process of communitization which takes place mainly in the public sphere. As the object and outcome of collective understandings, such communitization processes also need objects of identification which are available in the mass media, for the negotiation and transmission of potential commonalities (Jureit 2011; Corsten 2011, pp. 44–48; Napoli 2014, pp. 183–185). In addition, media serve not only as instruments but also as platforms and mediators of collective discourses and negotiation processes (Kortti 2011). Aroldi (2011, pp. 58–59) sees media as having various functions in the formation of generational identities: on the one hand as mediators of cultural values (see also Gillespie 2005, p. 3, and Landabidea Urresti 2014, p. 136) and symbols, as well as of historical events, and on the other hand as domesticated and fixed components of the social environment and the conduct of everyday life. In the context of formative experiences of the past, media serve as instruments and materials for the formation of generational semantics. As the mediators of information in the form of reports and images, as the creators of celebrities and the stages on which they perform and as the mediators of emotions and of (popular) culture (e.g. music, media brands, rituals and symbols), they imprint themselves on the shared memory of a generation, influencing the tastes, attitudes and expectations of those individuals who see themselves as part of that generation. Media also mediate and influence experiences of the present, which are in turn influenced by past mediabased experiences. In the context of the conduct of everyday life, they offer a range of products and services from which individuals, based on their generational and

2.3 Experiences of Socialization and Media Use

53

social habitus, select certain media content and reject other content, or from which technologies and media products can be ‘domesticated’ in a very specific manner. Moreover, media are part of discursive and reflexive negotiations of generational identity and constitute a resource and at the same time a platform for representations, narratives and discursive practices in the framework of public processes of communitization: They contribute to establish (and sometimes they simply are) the meaningful rituals where generational contents are shared and interpreted, appropriated or contested; they are the stage where the mutual generational representations are acted out. (Aroldi 2011, p. 59)

Last but not least, social agency can be seen in the form of an everyday practice of dealing with media, which is common to a particular generation (e.g. the way people participate in politics and society via media, the formation of media-specific competencies, etc.) (Fromme 2006, p. 13). Following on from this, media generations can be defined, in the words of Hepp et al. (2017b, p. 111), as ‘thickenings’ of an age cohort or several age cohorts, ‘who in their media appropriation share a specific experience space of mediatization and subsequently, based on their personal media biographies, develop a shared self-image as a media generation’. The social science concept of media generation(s) thus draws attention to the potential significance of media for generational self-positioning and for the selfconstruction of generations. Based on this, it can be assumed that individuals who feel they belong to a particular (media) generation tend to use media in similar ways, seek similar gratifications and have common media-specific practices and motives, rather than being linked by the use of a specific technology (as the superficial ascriptions mentioned at the beginning of this section might suggest). Similarly, it may be supposed that specific modes of reception, acquired in a particular historical media environment which has shaped a media generation, also have an impact on the way people deal with more recent media developments (Hepp et al. 2017a, p. 85). For example, both digital texts and traditional audiovisual and print media can be read in a linear way (linear reading of online news), or in a hypertextual way (e.g. TV channel hopping) (Vittadini et al. 2014, p. 77). Nonetheless, the concept of generations should not hide the fact that there can be major differences in the use and appropriation of media even within a generation (Hepp et al. 2017a, pp. 106–107): [G]enerations who are similarly located in the historical process and the technological media landscape need not necessarily develop the same kinds of responses to arriving or existing media due to historical and geo-political circumstance. (Bolin 2017, p. 64)

Lepa et al. (2014, p. 211) also point out the significance of additional social factors such as milieu, family traditions, education or peer groups, which can contribute to different habits of media use. In Mannheim’s terms, this offers a possible explanation for the formation of different media generation units, which, despite their shared media-specific generational context, can have either similar or radically different forms of expression and ways of dealing with media.

54

2.4

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Preliminary Summary: Media and Socialization

To sum up, it is clear that despite the difficulty of precisely defining potential media effects within the framework of socialization processes, media nonetheless play a special part here. From the perspective of various disciplines, it is possible to observe an interrelationship between the individual or subject and the media environment. At the centre of any socialization process is the individual, with his or her personal attributes such as age, sex, gender, personality structure and personal resources. Important for the development of personality are social exploration and the maintaining of relationships with other people, material exploration and orientation in the world and, lastly, self-exploration and identity management. In addition to this, the individual is constantly confronted with developmental tasks and challenges which must be mastered as part of growing up and during the lifelong process of negotiation between the individual and society. It is typical of an increasingly mediatized society that self-exploration no longer takes place solely as an internal dialogue, but is also to some extent externalized, via the presentation of personal experiences and thoughts on social media. Similarly, social and material explorations also take place partly through media, or include exploration of media. For example, knowledge, abilities and skills in relation to media can be learnt both in the context of material exploration and by means of social interaction with peers, and the negotiation of meanings ascribed to media content also takes place in various processes of social exploration. And in the same way, as part of their material exploration and orientation in and by means of their social environment, children and adolescents develop media schemas which allow them to understand media content and categorize media experiences. In the context of the complex phenomenon of media appropriation and media socialization, the practical meaning of media activity (see Fig. 2.3) assumes central importance. The subjective interpretation of everyday actions is the product of an individual’s exploration of his or her social environment, against the background of his or her personal attributes and dispositions, in the context of identity formation and personality development. On the one hand, this leads to the habitualization of values, norms, personal ideas and routines, and on the other hand, it gives rise to plans, goals and wishes for life, based on experiences of everyday reality and exploration of the social environment. Together with developmental tasks and challenges relating to the development of identity and personality, these internalized values, norms, ideas and routines, and these plans, goals and wishes for life, are the foundation for an individual’s everyday actions and give practical meaning to these actions. This practical giving of meaning also underlies media-related actions (‘media practices’), which are similarly embedded in everyday routines and lifeworld contexts. This leads to expectations and ways of acting in concrete situations of use, which in turn form the basis for specific modes of communication. Media activity is expressed, moreover, in the development of media repertoires as the result of habitualized media use, which also acquires practical meaning from the interplay of routines, values, developmental tasks, etc. An individual’s identification with a

2.4 Preliminary Summary: Media and Socialization

55

Fig. 2.3 The practical meaning of media activity

media generation, or the conscious decision not to identify with one, also has its foundations in the meaning that such an identification is considered to have in everyday practice. Similarly, the domestication of media devices occurs by way of the practical meaning associated with their use. An individual’s media activity is not a one-sided process, however; the activity also has an effect on the individual, as media experiences, appropriated media content and abilities and skills acquired through media activity are used to explore the social environment and to cope with developmental tasks. But it is not only a matter of media influencing processes of socialization; conversely, experiences of socialization also shape media use as a sociocultural activity. These experiences of socialization occur in the individual’s relationship to different agents of socialization, which are in turn located on different social levels. It is difficult to visualize the special role of media and the categorization of their use and appropriation within this interrelationship between the individual and the social environment. From a socio-ecological perspective, the interrelationship between individual and social environment is often represented in the form of concentric circles, with reference to Bronfenbrenner (1979). Livingstone et al. (2015, p. 10), for example, use this model to represent different factors influencing the way children and young people deal with opportunities and risks on the Internet. In German-language research on child and youth media, Baacke’s (1989) media ecology approach— also based on the work of Bronfenbrenner—has become influential. These two models differ in that Bronfenbrenner draws attention to the interrelationships

56

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

between individuals and various areas of society, while Baacke’s concept is focused on the categorization of these relationships in terms of social spaces. Both approaches have the potential to be misunderstood, however, as they deviate from the widely accepted sociological practice of dividing society into three levels: the micro level, on which the social actions of individuals and their interactions with others are examined; the meso level, focused on organizations, institutions and networks; and the macro level, on which phenomena such as society, culture and civilization are analysed. Bronfenbrenner distinguishes between the microsystem (interpersonal relationships in the immediate environment), the mesosystem (interrelationships between two or more microsystems), the exosystem (areas of life in which children and adolescents are not actively involved, but which have an influence on their life-world), the macrosystem (culture) and the chronosystem (time). In contrast, Baacke’s approach distinguishes between the ecological centre (family), the ecological neighbourhood, ecological sectors (function-specific places such as schools) and the ecological periphery (only occasional contacts, e.g. holiday location, distant shopping centre, etc.). Nonetheless, both approaches are well-suited to representing the interrelationships between the individual and the social environment while simultaneously analysing the role of media, which is embedded in this. The following section will therefore attempt to combine the advantages of both approaches (Fig. 2.4); here attention is focused on the individual with his or her specific developmental tasks and ways of dealing with media, constantly interacting with his or her social environment. Baacke’s differentiation between social spaces makes it easier to situate important agents of socialization such as family, friends and peers, as well as school or kindergarten, in relation to the individual, while Bronfenbrenner draws attention to social contexts (macrosystem) and to those areas of life in which young people are not directly involved (exosystem). The level of the ecological periphery from Baacke’s model is disregarded here, as it comprises social spaces which, as mentioned above, are only rarely visited. Furthermore, this level has an increasing tendency to merge with other ecological levels as a result of mobile media use (e.g. communicating with friends from home while on holiday). Just as Bronfenbrenner introduced the chronosystem to show that the dimension of time encompasses all relationships between social systems and all developments within a social system, our model presents the media environment as the outermost level to highlight the increasing mediatization of live. Media encompass different socio-ecological levels and shape the relationships and the interaction between individual microsystems and mesosystems. This overlapping of social and media spaces subsequently leads to an increasing conflation of individual ecological zones; at the same time, media-based interactions are more and more likely to occur in parallel on several ecological levels (Fig. 2.5). The different ecological levels and the agents of socialization embedded in them, especially family, friends and peers (see Fig. 2.4), relate in various ways to each other and have differing significance with regard to an individual’s media activity. Shared family life plays a particularly crucial role for children and adolescents. This includes the family climate, family models or concepts of life, the shared

2.4 Preliminary Summary: Media and Socialization

57

Fig. 2.4 Socio-ecological and media-ecological representation of the relationship between the individual and the environment

management of the challenges of everyday life, leisure activities and the associated (shared) use of media, as well as upbringing or education in general and media education in particular. Shared family life is shaped by a family’s social milieu and social situation, which is in turn dependent on the parents’ level of education, occupation and income, and is influenced by social contexts such as the economic and political conditions in a country, social inclusion and the welfare system, the education system and cultural specificities such as social norms and values. The technical infrastructure and the media system (e.g. media regulation) are among the macrosociological factors which influence family life and, in particular, the associated approach to media.

58

2 The Significance of Media for Processes of Socialization

Fig. 2.5 How the media environment encompasses the socio-ecological levels

Peers and above all friends are also important for children and adolescents: on the one hand, they face similar challenges, and on the other hand, they are confronted with the same developmental tasks and generational specificities or situations. Thus common interests are shared, and meanings (in relation to media and media content, but also beyond this) are negotiated. In this way media are appropriated within the peer group, meanings are ascribed to media content, and abilities, skills and social norms and behaviours in relation to media are learnt. In this context, media also play a special role as ‘instruments of socialization’ (Schorb 2010, p. 386), for example, with regard to social exploration and relationship management via social media, or self-exploration and identity management in the form of self-presentation on social media platforms and the negotiation of this self-presentation in the discourse with peers. Other agents of socialization such as school and kindergarten, youth centres and leisure facilities, clubs and faith communities also play an important part in socialization processes. On the one hand, these are the ecological sectors where intense

2.4 Preliminary Summary: Media and Socialization

59

social contacts with peers take place. On the other hand, children and adolescents in these institutions are confronted with ideas (from both within and outside school) about media education and how to deal with media, ideas which in turn influence expectations and specific ways of dealing with media. Like socialization in general, processes of media socialization are not the sole preserve of children and young people. Adults engage with their social environment in a similar way, albeit in different relations of dependence. Here too, media socialization in the family, with regard to habitualized ways of dealing with media, plays a part; moreover, parents are confronted with processes of reciprocal and mutual (media) socialization by their children. Adults negotiate attributions of meaning (e.g. in relation to specific media content or media devices) in exchanges with family members, friends and other peers (e.g. work colleagues) and may, for example, use these to identify themselves as part of a particular media generation.

Chapter 3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social distinction, expounded in numerous publications but most notably in what is often seen as his most important work, La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement (Bourdieu 1979), is in many respects well-suited to explaining media-related activities. This has already implicitly become clear in the preceding remarks, as several of the above-mentioned attempts to explain media activity (media-related action and behaviour) or the relevance of media for socialization refer to practical sense and the theoretical introduction of this concept by Bourdieu (Le sens pratique, 1980). From the perspective of communication studies, one of the reasons why Bourdieu’s theory is attractive is that it helps to explain empirical findings from audience research which point to connections between certain media preferences and social origins (Treumann et al. 2002, pp. 25–29). In addition, this approach offers points of reference for a discussion of media literacy and media competence. Wiedemann and Meyen (2013, p. 10) note that, in the last three decades, Bourdieu has become the most frequently quoted social scientist. They base this on his second-place ranking behind Foucault in Thomson Reuters’ ISI Web of Science index for 2007; this far surpasses such figures as Giddens, Habermas, Weber or Beck. Nevau (2013, p. 74) points to international and interdisciplinary differences in reception, with Bourdieu being variously seen as a cultural sociologist, an educational sociologist, an anthropologist or even as the founder of a sociology of the elites or of the state. It is less common, however, for Bourdieu’s writings to be cited in discussions of media and public discourses. And yet Bourdieu’s works on social theory and cultural sociology are very much concerned with questions of language and communication, with the different ways educational and media messages are received and with cultural assets in the broadest sense (which also include media) (Neveu 2013, p. 78). He understands media or media use as a means or an indicator of social distinction, even if they are not the focal point of his analyses (Beck et al. 2013, p. 234). Barberi (2013, 2014a, b and c) has examined this from a

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. W. Trültzsch-Wijnen, Media Literacy and the Effect of Socialization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56360-8_3

61

62

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

media studies perspective and regards Bourdieu’s sociology of education as a praxeological theory of media. Wiedemann and Meyen (2013, p. 11), in an analysis of communication studies research, are able to observe international differences in the way scholars approach Bourdieu’s theoretical corpus, ranging from a hesitant engagement to intense popularity within particular academic disciplines. The reasons for this lie in differing priorities, ranging from a more psychological orientation to various sociological and socio-philosophical tendencies (Wiedemann and Meyen 2013, p. 11). In the AngloAmerican world in particular, Bourdieu’s writings are becoming increasingly important within communication studies discourses. Park (2014, p. 2) highlights certain work as particularly ground-breaking in this respect: that of Benson and Neveu (2005) in journalism research, Hesmondhalgh (2006, 2012) in the area of media production, Thompson (1995, 2012) in the exploration of symbolic power and media systems and Couldry (2016; Couldry et al. 2010) with regard to practical media activity.

3.1

Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

Bourdieu’s (1980, pp. 43–50) social practice approach, with the concept of habitus as its central category, arose mainly as a critique of the theories of class and stratification, primarily focused on material resources, which had dominated sociology up to that point. It constitutes a rejection of the idea that social action is the result of conscious decisions and the following of rules (Krais and Gebauer 2013, p. 5). Bourdieu does not see capital solely as an economic factor but also presents social and cultural resources as forms of capital, determining the social situation of groups and individuals. Moreover, he does not assume a vertical model of social situations but expands this by introducing the idea of social space, in which differing social positions can be defined by means of the varying distribution of social, cultural and economic capital. He develops the concept of social space with reference to but also as a critique of Marx’s theory of class and also in connection to Weber’s reflections on the conduct of life, shifting the focus to the lifestyles of different social milieus, with particular emphasis on their social practices in relation to culture and education (Krais and Gebauer, pp. 9–10). This is linked to a specific idea of the relationship between individual and society or between social situation, the associated opportunities in life and—in relation to this—individual ways of perceiving the world and acting (Carnicer 2017, p. 29). Bourdieu understands habitus as a ‘socially constituted system of structured and structuring dispositions acquired in practice and constantly aimed at practical functions’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 121). An individual’s habitus is the result of prior experiences, which are reflected in schemata of perception, thought and action. These determine perceptions and judgements of the social and material world and

3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

63

structure both individual and collective action (Carnicer 2017, p. 33). Habitus is not a rigid construct; it can certainly change. Such changes, however, occur only slowly, an aspect which Bourdieu refers to as hysteresis or inertia of the habitus. This can mean that individuals or social groups have a habitus which is no longer adequate for the new, changed social conditions. He explores this phenomenon in depth with the example of the rural Berber or Kabyle population (Bourdieu 1972; Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 18–22; Schultheis 2013). These people had largely internalized a pre-capitalist form of economy before being confronted with the utilitarian economic model of modern Western societies. Their habitus reveals the embodied past or the value system, based on the material living conditions of a pre-capitalist society, as the structured structure of habitus (Bourdieu 1977). Unlike Weber, then, Bourdieu attributes habitus or inner attitude not to religious dogma but to real conditions of life and existence (Krais and Gebauer 2013, p. 22). Bourdieu’s translation of Panofsky’s study on Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism (1952; French translation by Panofsky 1967) is equally important for the development of the habitus concept (Bourdieu 1974, pp. 125–158; Schumacher 2013). Panofsky adopted the concept of habitus from Thomas Aquinas, who describes this as a durable disposition to act in a certain way, a medium between pure power and pure action (Krais and Gebauer 2013, p. 26). Here Thomas Aquinas is in turn referring back to Aristotle, who, in contrast to Plato, emphasizes the significance of experience, habit and practical memory for human action. Aristotle contends that experience arises from repeated memories and enables both practical skills and insight into the practice of these skills. According to Aristotle, habitus (Greek hexis) develops from the experience that is gained in individual actions. Thomas Aquinas adopts this idea, differentiating between different habitus and describing these on the basis of the activities that arise from them. This means that an individual’s habitus can be reconstructed from his or her actions (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 26–29). Panofsky, examining medieval architecture and scholarship from the perspective of art theory, builds on these ideas; he discerns a fundamental attitude, a collective aspect of a culture, which gives stylistic unity to different artistic productions from a particular era. This offers Bourdieu a starting point and foundation for defining habitus not only as a structured but also as a structuring structure (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 23–24). In a critical response to Chomsky’s generative grammar approach (see Sect. 3.1.2), Bourdieu (1974, pp. 125–158) suggests that habitus as a structuring structure is also a generative principle: he sees it—like the relationship between grammar and linguistic utterance—as the basis for an individual’s ability to behave in conformity with social rules. He does not, however, assume a system of innate generative structures which, as in Chomsky’s universal grammar, allow an infinite number of grammatically correct utterances. Instead Bourdieu argues that the grammar of behaviour, internalized as habitus, is a product of the experiences individuals have in their social environment from earliest childhood. Habitus as a structuring structure in this sense makes it possible to act appropriately in all sorts of situations—with regard to both the situation and the acting subject (Lenger et al. 2013, p. 19). Unlike Chomsky, however, Bourdieu does not see a grammar as a rigid structure but

64

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

emphasizes that the structure is produced by the subjects themselves. This implies that social rules are neither unchangeable nor abstract but are closely linked with the social activity of the subjects. The social order associated with this therefore only becomes effective via the actions of individuals (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 31–35): The habitus is not only a structuring structure, which organizes practices and the perception of practices, but also a structured structure: the principle of division into logical classes which organizes the perception of the social world is itself the product of internalization of the division into social classes. (Bourdieu 2010, p. 166)

In his explorations of the social order, Bourdieu initially concurs with the Marxist idea of the class society but goes beyond this, when considering everyday action and social practice, by linking class position with the conduct of everyday life (Eder 2013). The double function of habitus conceived by Bourdieu, as a structuring and structured structure, can thus be understood both as a theory of action and as a theory of structure or society. The concept of habitus can be formulated as a dispositional theory of action, which posits that early agents of socialization and specific conditions of existence mould an individual’s schemata of perception, thought and action from earliest childhood. It follows that individuals, based on these primary experiences, have an underlying sense of security (practical knowledge, practical sense) in certain social spaces (Bourdieu 1980, pp. 87–110). This allows them to operate comfortably in these spaces, but not to the same extent in social spaces that are less close to the social environment of their early socialization. In terms of structural and social theory, the concept of habitus has a function insofar as it serves the reproduction of material and social living conditions: the historical conditions in which social structures have been generated are embedded in the psychological dispositions of subjects. In Bourdieu’s argument, social fields of action are based on societal structures and frame the individual actions of subjects (Bauer and Bittlingmayer 2014, pp. 63–64). At the centre of his analyses are social differences based on the unequal distribution of economic, cultural and social capital. Individuals differ both in the absolute quantity and in the combination of these types of capital; furthermore, the position of the subjects in relation to each other is important for their positioning in social space. Bourdieu imagines social space as a system of coordinates, based on the differing distribution of the individual types of capital (Bourdieu 2010, pp. 93–119, 223–254),1 that is, he expands the sociological gaze from a purely vertical perspective to a multidimensional one. Thus he sees class affiliation not as an external characteristic but as a sum of dispositions embodied in the heads and bodies of subjects and expressed in their social actions (Bremer 2008, p. 1532). Proximity to and distance from different social situations result in similar living conditions, leading in turn to similar dispositions, interests and social practices or to a similar habitus (Carnicer 2017, p. 30).

1

Original: La Distinction (1979, pp. 109–138, 249–287).

3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

65

Bourdieu introduces the concept of the social field to describe relationships between the positions of individuals and institutions within social space. He sees social fields such as art or academia as relatively autonomous areas in which specific rules and laws apply. He describes the resulting internal dynamic of social fields as a struggle or a game between individual actors competing for the best possible positions. This is about the deployment of different forms of capital, whose value varies depending on the social field (Carnicer 2017, pp. 31–32). Within a social field, various forces are at work, which can be described in terms of different poles. For the ‘dynamics of the game’, what matters on the horizontal level is the mixture of different types of capital available to an actor, whereas on the vertical level, what counts is the total sum of accumulated capital, which enables actors to exercise power and domination (Beck et al. 2013, p. 236). The advantage of introducing the field concept is that social relationships and potential options for practical everyday action are conceived of as relational (Park 2014, p. 7). Individuals are continuously operating within various social fields, in which they occupy different social positions. Bourdieu uses the term illusio to refer to the internalized belief in the relevant game and its rules within a social field. Bourdieu, however, is not only interested in the current positioning of individuals in social space but also in their social trajectory (trajectoire; e.g. in Bourdieu 1980, p. 101, 331; 1984c, pp. 14–15; Bourdieu and Passeron 1968, p. 247) and the question of upward or downward social mobility. Lastly he focuses his attention, both theoretically and empirically, on the extent to which different positions in social space and their relations to each other are manifested as differences in the conduct of everyday life: differences in taste (Bourdieu and De Saint Martin 1976) and in perceptions of the social world thus acquire their meaning in social practice; it is only in practice that social distinctions are made and evaluated (Bourdieu 2010, pp. 257–397, 487–502):2 The practical world that is constituted in the relationship with the habitus, acting as a system of cognitive and motivating structures, is a world of already realized ends—procedures to follow, paths to take—and of objects endowed with a ‘permanent teleological character’, in Husserl’s phrase, tools or institutions. This is because the regularities inherent in an arbitrary condition (‘arbitrary’ in Saussure’s and Mauss’s sense) tend to appear as necessary, even natural, since they are the basis of the schemes of perception and appreciation through which they are apprehended. (Bourdieu 1990b, pp. 53–54)

Principles of classification, differentiation, evaluation and ultimately thought and action are acquired by socialization and internalized through the habitus; they then manifest themselves in the conduct of everyday life and—by way of possessions, status symbols, qualifications, preferences, attitudes and the like—indicate membership of one social group or another (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 35–37; Bourdieu 2010, pp. xxviii–xxx):3

2 3

Original: La Distinction (1979, pp. 293–461, 565–585). There is no introduction in the original French version of La Distinction.

66

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

In short, being the product of a particular class of objective regularities, the habitus tends to generate all the ‘reasonable’, ‘common-sense’, behaviours (and only these) which are possible within the limits of these regularities, and which are likely to be positively sanctioned because they are objectively adjusted to the logic characteristic of a particular field, whose objective future they anticipate. At the same time, ‘without violence, art or argument’, it tends to exclude all ‘extravagances’ (‘not for the likes of us’), that is, all the behaviours that would be negatively sanctioned because they are incompatible with the objective conditions. (Bourdieu 1990b, pp. 55–56)

What Bourdieu is showing here is how cultural needs and practices are to be viewed in conjunction with social origin and with formal, non-formal and informal education and upbringing. With regard to art, for example, he distinguishes legitimate from popular taste: the latter remains rooted in elementary economic constraints and necessities and (in contrast to legitimate taste) is incapable of taking a distanced approach, learnt as a social practice and focused on the aesthetic character of an artwork (Bourdieu 2010, pp. 257–317).4 One of the examples he uses to illustrate this is the social definition of photography (Bourdieu 1983a, pp. 85–109; see also P. Bourdieu and M.C. Bourdieu 1965). Similar material conditions of existence and contexts of social environment lead to similar forms of conduct of everyday life or lifestyle; the latter manifests itself in outward appearance, moral ideas, aesthetic sensitivity and cultural practices (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 35–37). Social differences are thus symbolically marked in the striving for distinction. Bourdieu describes this as class habitus, taking class to mean a group of actors who have a similar position in social space (Carnicer 2017, p. 33). Conceived of in this way, class habitus thus functions as a link between class position and its objective conditions of existence and the class-specific conduct of life: The individual’s past, which has shaped and formed the habitus, continues to take effect in the habitus; the habitus thus brings forth orientations, attitudes and ways of acting which lead individuals back to the social place assigned to their class—they remain rooted in their class and reproduce it in their practices. (Krais and Gebauer 2013, p. 43, tr. N.B.)

So the habitus of an individual is always in part a specific variation on the habitus of a particular social group (Lenger et al. 2013, p. 22). Against the background of macrosocial and historical circumstances, this group habitus brings forth the modes of behaviour and perception which correspond to the milieu in question and are regarded as appropriate from its perspective (in terms of distinguishing it from other milieus): The same goes for the relationship between the representatives of the different social classes and this or that ‘cultural asset’, and for the significance which they attribute to this or that activity, which is seen as ‘vulgar’ or ‘distinguished’, ‘genteel’ or ‘unusual’. (Bourdieu 1974, p. 20, tr. N.B.)

Thus the current actions of an individual (as a member of a particular social group) reproduce those social conditions in which the habitus of the class or social

4

Original: La Distinction (1979, pp. 293–364).

3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

67

milieu in question was acquired. In other words, habitus, conditioned by social structures, deploys different sorts of capital to generate social practices; these reflect the original social structures determining the habitus. This dialectic between habitus and social field, as a correspondence between social structures, mental schemata (as the internalization of social conditions) and individual action, constitutes the core of Bourdieu’s ideas (Carnicer 2017, p. 34). Bourdieu’s theory can be corroborated throughout with empirical findings from contemporary social psychology. For example, Chen et al. (2015) also explore the connection between culture and socialization, not so much from the perspective of social milieus within a society but from that of the differences between the culture of the Global North (economically prosperous states in Europe and North America) and cultures of the Global South in Africa, Asia and Central and South America, with regard to the connection between cultural or societal influences and personal development. In Bourdieu’s words, this is about the relationships between social structures and individual actions, which lead to different forms of habitus in different cultures: Based on socioecological and sociocultural theories, X. Chen (2012) proposed a contextualdevelopmental perspective that stresses social interaction as a context for human development. This perspective indicates that parents and other socialization agents, particularly peers from middle childhood onward, evaluate and respond to children’s behaviors in interactions according to culturally based social expectations and standards. Adults’ and peers’ evaluations and responses during interaction in turn serve to regulate the development of behaviors. The valuation and regulation processes during social interaction constitute a major mechanism of cultural influence on development. (Chen et al. 2015, p. 454)

3.1.1

On the Relationship Between Different Forms of Capital

Bourdieu (1983b)5 understands capital as a form of social energy ‘which follows its own principle of preservation’ (Carnicer 2017, p. 28, tr. N.B.), and he sees economic forces as the main driver of societal power relations and social order. In addition to economic capital, however, he distinguishes between cultural and social capital; he considers the sum and differing distribution of these types of capital as the basis for the formation of milieu-specific features and of related social distinctions. Cultural capital can be roughly equated with the German concept of Bildung (usually translated as ‘education’ but also including the notion of personal

5 If not otherwise stated, the remarks on the relationship between different types of capital are based on Bourdieu’s original article ‘Ökonomisches Kapital—Kulturelles Kapital—Soziales Kapital’, published in 1983 in ‘Soziale Ungleichheiten’, a special issue of the journal Soziale Welt, edited by Kreckel. The article was translated into English by Nice and published in 1986 under the title ‘The Forms of Capital’, in the Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (ed. Richardson 1986).

68

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

development and culture; Bourdieu suggests the translation ‘cultivation’). Bourdieu points explicitly to the German term, in order to underline the transmission of cultural capital within the family and the associated unequal distribution of educational opportunities and the reproduction of social inequality by the school system. He analyses cultural capital on three levels: embodied cultural capital manifests itself in the form of durable dispositions of the organism as accumulated culture, while objectified cultural capital becomes visible in cultural assets such as books, pictures and musical instruments. It acquires particular importance in its institutionalized form as school-leaving qualifications and university degrees or diplomas, which certify the possession of embodied cultural capital and attribute special qualities to the subjects who have them. The acquisition of cultural capital is fundamentally body-bound; it requires a process of internalization in the sense of Bildungsarbeit (work of education or cultivation), which must be invested personally in the form of time spent and hardship endured. This turns the internalized cultural capital into a component of an individual, fixed in his or her habitus.6 Embodied cultural capital is characterized by the fact that it is not acquired in the short term (e.g. in exchange for economic capital) but can (to a certain degree) be handed down socially, in the form of family upbringing and socialization. This means that children begin their school careers in unequal starting conditions, leading to an inequitable distribution of educational/ cultural opportunities; this is Bourdieu’s central argument with regard to the reproduction of social inequality by the school system (Bourdieu 2010, pp. xxv–xxvii): [A]llowance [must be] made for early domestic education by giving it a positive value (a gain in time, a head start) or a negative value (wasted time, and doubly so because more time must be spent correcting its effects), according to its distance from the demands of the scholastic market. (Bourdieu 1986, p. 244)

The significance of cultural capital in this respect is reinforced by the fact that, in addition to the differing capacity of families to hand down this kind of capital, not every family has the economic capital to allow children an education beyond the minimum period of schooling. Unequal educational opportunities are based not only on different starting conditions or the effort required to compensate for these but also on the ability, acquired through family socialization and embodied as a disposition of the habitus, to meet the cultural demands of a long-lasting process of appropriating cultural capital. In contrast to its embodied form, objectified cultural capital can be transferred in the form of material media (e.g. books, paintings, etc.) and can also be acquired in exchange for economic capital. What this kind of acquisition of cultural assets does not bring, however, is the art of appropriating them (e.g. reading and understanding books and contemplating or interpreting paintings), which is again part of embodied cultural capital. For example, owning a piano as a decorative piece of furniture does

Bourdieu (1974, p. 41) notes that the concept of Bildung in the sense of ‘culture’ would be preferable to that of habitus but at the same time points out that the latter has already been used on multiple occasions elsewhere, so equating Bildung and habitus would lead to confusion. 6

3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

69

not give one the ability to master this instrument and elicit music from it. Cultural capital is objectified in its institutionalization into school-leaving certificates and degrees or diplomas: This objectification is what makes the difference between the capital of the autodidact, which may be called into question at any time, [. . .] and the cultural capital academically sanctioned by legally guaranteed qualifications [. . .]. With the academic qualification, a certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture, social alchemy produces a form of cultural capital which has a relative autonomy vis-à-vis [. . .] the cultural capital he effectively possesses at a given moment in time. (Bourdieu 1986, p. 248)

Social capital has to do with the network of social relationships which an individual possesses in the form of membership of particular social groups. These relationships are based on mutual recognition and can be more or less institutionalized. The key to the value of social capital, however, is the extent to which symbolic and material profits—in the sense of durable, useful connections, obligations and favours—can be derived from these relationships and group affiliations (e.g. political party, club, alumni association of a school or university). Here the density of the network of relationships is important, as is the economic, cultural and social capital of the people with whom one is connected in this way. Membership of a social group requires a minimum level of homogeneity in terms of the capital of its members and at the same time allows them a kind of social creditworthiness as members of the group in question. To build up and preserve social capital, relationship work is needed: time must be spent (e.g. for a meeting) and economic capital invested (e.g. for restaurants, birthday presents, etc.). Both cultural and social capital can be handed down from one generation to the next. Unlike the handing down of economic capital, however, this cannot be done instantaneously; instead it usually requires a long process of appropriating cultural abilities or consolidating social relationships. As the passing on of cultural and social capital usually takes place covertly, and the nature of cultural abilities or social relationships as capital often remains concealed, Bourdieu also refers to this as symbolic capital or symbolic power. This becomes especially significant in those social fields in which economic capital is of less importance. A type of capital is transformed into symbolic capital if it acquires (symbolic) power within a social field; this occurs if its legitimacy or the contingent nature of its acquisition is taken for granted, that is, in Bourdieu’s words, it is ‘disguised’ and no longer called into question (Beck et al. 2013, p. 238). Furthermore, Bourdieu assumes that economic capital underlies cultural and social capital yet can never be converted one-to-one; this requires transformation work, which must often be invested in the form of time spent (on relationship work or the appropriation of cultural capital) or of a loss in value. According to Bourdieu, this transformation work serves to disguise the dominance of economic capital in the context of these processes of conversion, which serve the meritocratic legitimation of economic differences and social inequalities. One way this can occur is if ‘the cultural capital available, which differs according to social stratum, is neutralized as talent and competence’ (Carnicer 2017, p. 29, tr. N.B.).

70

3

3.1.2

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

Education as a Social Field

As already mentioned, Bourdieu understands social fields as subdivisions of society shaped by power structures, in which the competition between different social actors becomes apparent. He describes this as a game in which the stakes are power and influence. The requirements for participation are identification with the game and an understanding of its rules and logic (Bourdieu 1980). Experience of the game and internalized rules of play are in turn expressed as part of the habitus (Krais and Gebauer 2013, pp. 58–60). In the field of education too, an understanding of the rules of play constitutes internalized cultural capital, and an insight into the logic of the game (e.g. into the institutionalization of education through the awarding of certificates, school-leaving qualifications and degrees) offers a strategic advantage in the ongoing competition for power and influence (e.g. in the successful pursuit of legitimate educational goals). This is at the centre of Bourdieu’s sociology of education, in which he shows that the education system does not help to compensate for social inequality but instead contributes to the reproduction of unequal social relations. At the same time, he uses this to criticize other approaches in sociology and education studies: Such theories which, as is seen with Durkheim, simply transpose to the case of class societies the representation of culture and cultural transmission most widespread among anthropologists, rely on the implicit premiss that the different PAs [pedagogic actions, CTW] at work in a social formation collaborate harmoniously in reproducing a cultural capital conceived of as the jointly owned property of the whole ‘society’. In reality, because they correspond to the material and symbolic interests of groups or classes differently situated within the power relations, these PAs always tend to reproduce the structure of the distribution of cultural capital among these groups or classes, thereby contributing to the reproduction of the social structure. The laws of the market which fixes the economic or symbolic value, i.e. the value qua cultural capital, of the cultural arbitraries produced by the different PAs and thus of the products of those PAs (educated individuals), are one of the mechanisms—more or less determinant according to the type of social formation—through which social reproduction, defined as the reproduction of the structure of relations of force between the classes, is accomplished. (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, p. 11)

The description of this reproduction of social and cultural inequalities takes up considerable space in Bourdieu’s writings, leading some critics to dismiss it as a mere sociology of reproduction. He, however, vigorously resists such a simplification of his sociological theory, in which—precisely by focusing on the hidden mechanisms by which social structures are reproduced—he seeks to show possible ways to create equal opportunities. Here he goes beyond ostensible equality, which only considers economic differences (equal access to educational institutions), and ‘ideologies of giftedness’, which reduce scholastic achievement to differences in talent and willingness to learn and ignore different milieu-specific conditions (Bremer 2008, pp. 1528–1530; Bauer et al. 2014, pp. 13–14). In Les héritiers: Les étudiants et la culture (Bourdieu and Passeron 1964) and La reproduction: Élements pour une theorie du système d’enseignement (Bourdieu and Passeron 1970), Bourdieu and Passeron analyse how social inequalities are

3.1 Social Space, Habitus and Distinction in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu

71

perpetuated in the school system, resulting in greater scholastic success and more advanced school careers for those who have a higher level of cultural capital or cultural heritage due to their social origin. The central starting point is the assumption that the embodiment of social practices does not primarily occur via school education but mainly by means of socialization and processes of education and upbringing in the family; habitualized dispositions thus become the foundation for the reception of the school ‘message’ (Bourdieu 2010, pp. 318–372):7 All teaching, and more especially the teaching of culture (even scientific culture), implicitly presupposes a body of knowledge, skills, and, above all, modes of expression which constitute the heritage of the cultivated classes. Classical secondary schooling, an education ad usum delphini, conveys second-degree significations, taking for granted a whole treasury of first-degree experiences–books found in the family library, ‘choice’ entertainments chosen by others, holidays organized as cultural pilgrimages, allusive conversations which only enlighten those already enlightened. [. . .]. If children from the disadvantaged classes often perceive scholastic initiation as an apprenticeship in artifice and in ‘language for teacher’, is this not precisely because, for them, abstract reflexion has to precede direct experience? (Bourdieu and Passeron 1979, pp. 21–22)

At school, children and adolescents with different cultural habits and resources meet. Bourdieu and Passeron (1990, pp. 45–56) therefore stress on multiple occasions that the appropriation of school education is, for middle and lower social milieus, always linked with a more or less high degree of acculturation. As the above quote shows, socialization in the family, involving the transmission not only of a variety of knowledge but also of different attitudes (as a system of implicit and embodied norms and values with regard to education), is particularly important (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). This leads to different approaches to school and university education. Bourdieu and Passeron (1964, 1979) illustrate this in a description of how privileged living conditions release people from practical constraints and allow them to develop a certain detachment from the educational system, encouraging a free, relaxed, reflective and cognitive attitude to learning. In less privileged milieus, on the other hand, the pressure of necessity makes people focus on the acquisition of practical knowledge and context-related learning. Independent of Bourdieu, this is also discussed in terms of the primary and secondary effects of social origin on educational opportunities and educational success, with reference to Boudon’s (1974) analyses of Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality (Becker and Lauterbach 2007; Mandl 2012; see also Vester 2006). Becker (2007, 2011) uses the term ‘primary effects of origin’ to describe the transfer of cultural capital within families and the amount of economic capital they have, as well as their willingness and ability to invest this in the acquisition of cultural capital in the form of schooling. This is linked with a fundamental cultural proximity to or distance from the institution of school, or the education system, which has an impact on scholastic achievement. Children and adolescents who have a certain amount of embodied cultural capital in the form of habitualized behaviour (e.g. motivation to learn, learning habits), and who experience an implicit 7

Original: La Distinction (1979, pp. 365–431).

72

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

conformity (fit) between their family upbringing (e.g. language) and the demands of school, thus prove to have an advantage, right from the start, over children from less educated families (Bourdieu et al. 1990). The term ‘secondary effects of origin’ is used to refer to further educational disadvantages arising from parental decisions about their children’s post-compulsory schooling. Cultural and economic capital, habitus and social distinction play a part here, insofar as the choice of educational path depends on the social position of the parents and their cultural proximity to the education system. The more cultural capital the family has, the greater the proximity to legitimate school education and the greater the likelihood that the children will attend upper secondary school and university. Parents’ deliberations on different educational options are based partly on the desire to maintain their status but also partly on their assessment of the capital that will be required, both economic (long courses, possibly extra tuition) and cultural (already existing or needing to be caught up on). They must also weigh up the potential benefits of this investment of capital (e.g. short, goal-oriented vocational training vs. higher secondary education or tertiary education and training at a university of applied science vs. study at a university). In view of these sociocultural factors influencing educational success and the perception of educational opportunities, Bourdieu resolutely rejects a hierarchization of knowledge, which rates theoretical knowledge more highly than practical and applied knowledge (Bremer 2008, pp. 1533–1534): Thus a practical mastery oriented towards the manipulation of things, with the correlative relation to words, is less favourable to theoretic mastery of the rules of literate verbalization than a practical mastery directed towards the manipulation of words and towards the relation to words and things which is fostered by the primacy of word manipulation. [. . .] In secondary PW [pedagogic work, CTW] which has the declared function of inculcating practical mastery of manual techniques (e.g. the teaching of technology in institutions of technical education), the mere fact of using theoretic discourse to make explicit the principles of techniques of which working-class children have technical mastery is sufficient to cast the knacks and tricks of the trade into the illegitimacy of makeshift approximation, just as ‘general education’ reduces their language to jargon, slang or jibberish. This is one of the most potent effects of the theoretic discourse which sets an unbridgeable gulf between the holder of the principles (e.g. the engineer) and the mere practitioner (e.g. the technician). (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, pp. 50)

In his analyses, Bourdieu (1974, p. 111) describes the primary goal of the traditional school system as the canonization and handing down of a society’s culture, which helps to legitimize the monopolization of symbolic violence in the upper social milieus (Bourdieu and Passeron 1970, p. 14; Bourdieu 1973, p. 103). The school is in fact the institution which, through its outwardly irreproachable verdicts, transforms socially conditioned differences [. . .] into inequalities of success, interpreted as inequalities of gifts which are also inequalities of merit. (Bourdieu 1984a, pp. 23–24)

This is because the habitus of the teachers more closely resembles that of the learners from higher social milieus than that of learners from lower social milieus, who have less embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu 1973, pp. 101–102). One indication of this is the teachers’ assumption that they share a common language and

3.2 Bourdieu’s Contribution to the Explanation of Media Activity

73

culture with all learners. This leads to an unreflecting ‘ideology of giftedness’, which defines scholastic success as the result of merit and talent but attributes a lack of success to personal failure, unwillingness to learn or a lack of talent: It cannot be ruled out that the teacher who contrasts the ‘brilliant’ or ‘gifted’ pupil with the ‘earnest’ or ‘hardworking’ pupil is, in a good many cases, judging nothing other than the relation to culture to which each is socially assigned by birth. (Bourdieu and Passeron 1979, p. 24)

This does not mean, however, that Bourdieu regards scholastic success solely as the result of a person’s familial and cultural heritage and believes that children and adolescents from less educated milieus have few educational opportunities. On the contrary, he advocates a rational and reflective pedagogy, focusing not on equal treatment for everyone but on appropriate differentiation and individualization, to encourage the attainment of equal educational outcomes. The foundation for this, as Bourdieu sees it, is the facilitation of systematic teaching and learning, which offers everyone the same educational opportunities and, in particular, allows young people from lower social milieus educational upward mobility (Bremer 2008, pp. 1530–1536; see also Bohlmann 2015, pp. 88–89).

3.2

Bourdieu’s Contribution to the Explanation of Media Activity

The multilayered theoretical corpus left by Bourdieu offers various points of reference for a discussion and analysis of media and non-media communication. Park (2014) has presented an extensive analysis and transposition of Bourdieu’s theory for the field of communication studies. Among other things, he shows how field theory can be transferred to media production, media economy and journalism research and how practical sense can be fruitfully applied to audience research and studies on media use. Park also shows the value of Bourdieu’s discussions of symbolic power and the power of language (e.g. Bourdieu and Boltanski 1975; Bourdieu and De Saint Martin 1978; Bourdieu 1990a) for the analysis of public communication (e.g. in relation to strategic communication, mediatization, gender studies, etc.) and for the critical examination of the history and future of media and communication studies as a subject. Similarly, Wiedemann and Meyen (2013) demonstrate the possibilities and limitations of Bourdieu’s theory for research perspectives in communication studies. In the context of this book, it is mainly Bourdieu’s potential usefulness for exploring the social and individual contexts of media activity which is of interest. The concept of habitus as a structured and structuring structure is especially promising here. It simultaneously draws attention to the subjective perspective of audiences as active individuals and considers external structuring factors such as social milieu, gender or age, which shape and influence the process of media use:

74

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

Habitus offers to the communication scholar a way to get beyond the now well-worn conflict between subjectivist and objectivist approaches to communication, between those attempting to understand human communication in terms of what goes on ‘inside’ people’s heads (subjective modes of understanding) and those who attempt to do the same thing through reference to ‘external’ forces (objective forces of our lives). [. . .] Bourdieu’s idea of habitus offers us in communication an opportunity to bridge the agency/structure divide, to understand communication in terms of the intertwining of agency and structure, the elements of practice that bind agency and structure together. (Park 2014, pp. 6–7)

With the concept of habitus, the focus shifts to habitualized and ritualized forms of media activity (Beck et al. 2013, pp. 253–254) and their practical sense (Bourdieu 1980, pp. 87–110). Studies on evaluations of media (personal relevance, preferences, attributions of function, assumptions about effect and expectations of benefit), media repertoires (see Sect. 2.2.1), media generations (see Sect. 2.2.2) or media styles (Best and Engel 2011, p. 532), as the description of spatio-temporal and receptive qualities of media use (e.g. integration into everyday life, parallel use of several kinds of media, personal and social norms/restrictions, etc.), thus gain importance both theoretically and empirically. Furthermore, Bourdieu’s theory highlights how the social field in which the individual operates influences the importance and relevance of specific structuring factors in different contexts. This relationship constitutes a challenge to both the positivist approaches of media effects research and the radical-individualist approaches of audience and reception studies, since both these perspectives only take into account a subsection of the complex process of media activity (Park 2014, p. 11). From a communications studies perspective, approaching Bourdieu means analysing media activity not just as a performative outcome but also as a social practice. This means that the way an individual deals with media depends on the options that are potentially available to him or her within the field of media or media communication. And these options (for action) which determine social practice are not equally accessible to everyone. The (different) prior understanding embodied in the habitus causes the individual to behave in a way that seems natural to him or her: For our purposes here, however, the key is that without le sens practique [sic!, CTW] as a backdrop, without a sense of the factors that make communication possible, without an emic sense of the precise nature of the situation, we will have relatively little to say about what audiences do, what their practices are. (Park 2014, p. 57)

Beck et al. (2013, p. 235) make a similar criticism of audience research in the field of media psychology: that media activity cannot be analysed solely on the basis of psychological factors and that motives for use and selection which—in keeping with rational choice theory—work solely on the assumption of rational, benefitmaximizing action are insufficient to explain how individuals use and deal with media. They refer here to symbolic interactionism as developed by Mead (1934/ 2015) and Blumer (1973, 1986/1969) and social constructivism as propounded by Schütz (1932; Schütz and Luckmann 2003/1973) or Berger and Luckmann (2004/ 1966). They also emphasize concepts from network theory and the theory of structuration (Giddens 1984) as theoretical starting points and options for elucidating the practical sense of media activity from the perspective of the sociology of

3.2 Bourdieu’s Contribution to the Explanation of Media Activity

75

communication. Michel identifies a further advantage of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus from the perspective of media and education studies: that it neither restricts media activity to a rationalist perspective (Michel 2006, pp. 96–103) nor overemphasizes the individualist perspective (ibid., pp. 121–124), but rather sees media activity as, in part, a collective process (ibid., pp. 127–139), in the sense of a joint negotiation of meaning within a certain social group. Beck et al. (2013, pp. 239–244; see also Bennett et al. 2009, pp. 132–151, and Couldry 2003, pp. 657–658) also attempt to transpose Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and of social fields to the field of media. Their definition of the field of media includes both the area of media production and that of reception and, on a horizontal level, ranges between the two extremes of commercialism and journalism. Since this field, like others, is not a power-free space, a distinction is made on the vertical level between a high and a low degree of ‘communicative representation’ (i.e. the extent to which one’s interests are represented in public communication) or publishing power. In the media field, symbolic power is held by professional ‘quality journalism’, educational media and highbrow entertainment, which is distinguished by an accumulation of cultural capital. As in other fields, the individual actors are divided according to their different capital resources. As examples, Beck et al. place media producers and professional journalists in the top area; community media, the social web and amateur journalists in the middle area; and media users on a lower level. Beck et al. (2013, pp. 245–246) complete their reflections on the field of the media by introducing the concept of media capital (also a reference to Bourdieu). By this they mean a specific sort of capital, which is made up of economic, cultural and social capital and assumes particular importance through its transformation into symbolic power in the field of the media. In objectified form, it is expressed in the ownership of media (e.g. devices or books) or access to media (pay television, Internet connection, newspaper subscription, etc.) but also in the form of shares in a media company. In institutionalized form, it appears in the area of media production as media-related educational qualifications (e.g. traineeship, university of applied science) and in the area of media use in the form of specific certificates such as the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) or the European Pedagogical ICT Licence (EPICT). In embodied form, media capital comprises knowledge about media and practical skills in dealing with media, as prerequisites for everyday activity in the field of media. Embodied media capital also appears in the form of a media habitus (see Sect. 3.2.2). This discussion of the media field and media capital shows similarities with the media theory of Couldry, who stresses that ‘the key is to understand the many ways in which power is embedded, and so effectively enacted and installed, in practice’ (Couldry 2016, p. 65; emphasis in original). In his social theory of digital media practice, however, Couldry takes his bearings more from Schatzki than from Bourdieu and explores power relations in mediated societies in a somewhat different manner. Figure 3.1 gives visual form to Beck et al.’s description, as inspired by Bourdieu. The actual classification of media users or audiences is, however, dependent on their media capital and therefore variable. This also corresponds to the highly dynamic nature of the field of media: in the area of journalism, audiences and users can

76

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

Fig. 3.1 Media field

quickly become ‘produsers’; in the commercial area, they can also attain a higher degree of ‘communicative representation’ by taking part in reality TV formats and other television shows. From Bourdieu’s perspective, it can also be argued that the media activities of audiences or users are based not so much on explicit goals as on unspoken, practical habits. For a study of media reception and use, or of approaches to media, this means focusing not so much on the process of decoding media messages and the production of meaning, or on the media text in itself, but on habitualized forms of media use. This is not intended as a criticism of cultural studies, however; instead the aim is to expand the perspective from a mere ‘reading [of] the social world as if it were ready for interpretation’ (Couldry 2016, p. 39) to an examination of the conditions of media activity as a social practice. Bourdieu’s theory highlights the fact that the construction of the significance attributed to media content or a media product is dependent on various contextual factors. This significance arises on three levels: firstly on the level of production, as a social field of cultural production; secondly on

3.2 Bourdieu’s Contribution to the Explanation of Media Activity

77

the level of the materiality of the content, the (media) images and their underlying grammar; and lastly on the level of reception, as a social practice for dealing with cultural products (Park 2014, p. 54). Conversely, Bourdieu’s arguments can also be viewed critically from the perspective of cultural studies. One point of criticism is that Bourdieu did examine popular culture, but ultimately always accorded it less value than bourgeois culture (as the legitimate taste), and therefore paid less attention to it in his studies. This can be countered with the argument that Bourdieu was always concerned with the reproduction of social inequality and that he paid more attention to legitimate culture in order to expose the hidden mechanisms of power (Bourdieu 2005). His political commitment to fighting social inequality, which becomes especially obvious in his analyses of the education system, clearly shows that he does acknowledge popular taste, for example, when he advocates the equal treatment of theoretical and practical knowledge (Bourdieu and Passeron 1973, pp. 66–67). Bourdieu’s assumption that the way people respond to cultural assets (such as media content) is dependent on their social milieu can be substantiated by empirical findings from audience research (e.g. Nikken and Opree 2018). From the perspective of cultural studies, references to Bourdieu are sometimes criticized with the argument that other factors which also influence the reception or interpretation of media content, such as social gender or ethnic background, should be taken into account as well as social milieu (Bennett et al. 2009, p. 22). This argument, however, is not incompatible with the conception of habitus as a structured and structuring structure: habitus develops in socialization processes and is formed by various social factors (which naturally include gender, ethnic origin, experiences of migration, etc.). The actions of an individual are shaped by this habitus, but they are also determined by other factors, for example, psychological ones. Furthermore, Bourdieu sees habitus as slow to change but not unchangeable, which is also important if we are considering media activity from a biographical or generational perspective. The concept of habitus and of social distinction, then, certainly proves helpful when it comes to analysing internalized patterns of reception and audience experiences. It also seems profitable to examine the strategy underlying social practice, which arises as the intersection between field, social position and capital and has a socially distinctive character. One way in which the practical sense of media activity manifests itself is in the media repertoire of users. Here distinction is attained by the use of media and media content with differing levels of symbolic and cultural capital (e.g. high-quality, prestigious and educational media vs. tabloid, entertainment and popular media). But social distinction can be identified in relation not only to the media product and the media content itself but also the manner of its reception or use (e.g. parallel use of several media), since habitus determines both the content of social practice and the manner of its execution. It is closely linked with an individual’s capital resources; this means that, conversely, it is possible to draw conclusions about a person’s lifestyle and the underlying habitus from the specific capital that he or she has. Judgements of taste are therefore not subjective but are a ‘socio-structurally determined form of aesthetic evaluation and an unconscious strategic means of

78

3

‘Distinctions’ in Media Activity

differentiation from other (>lower [03 May 2018] Bennett, T 2008, ‘Sociology and culture’ in The Sage handbook of cultural analysis, eds T Bennett & J Frow, Sage, London, pp. 86-106. Bennett, T, Savage, M, Silva, E, Warde, A, Gayo-Cal, M & Wright, D 2009, Culture, Class, Distinction, Routledge, London & New York. Benson, R & Neveu, E 2005, Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Polity Press, Cambridge. Berg, A 2017, Kinder und Jugend in einer digitalen Welt: bitkom 2017. Available from: [03 May 2018] Berger, PL & Luckmann, T 2004, Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit, Fischer, Frankfurt am M (Original 1966: The Social Construction of Reality, Random House). Best, S & Engel, B 2011, ‘Alter und Generation als Einflussfaktoren der Mediennutzung: Kohortenanalysen auf Basis der ARD/ZDF-Langzeitstudie Massenkommunikation’, Media Perspektiven, vol 11/2011, pp. 525-545. Beth, H & Pross, H 1976, Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. Biermann, R 2009a, Der mediale Habitus von Lehramtsstudierenden: Eine quantitative Studie zum Medienhandeln angehender Lehrpersonen, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Biermann, R 2009b, ‘Die Bedeutung des Habitus-Konzepts für die Erforschung soziokultureller Unterschiede im Bereich der Medienpädagogik’, MedienPädagogik, vol 17. Available from: http://www.medienpaed.com/article/viewFile/112/112 [03 May 2018] Biermann, R 2013, ‘Medienkompetenz - Medienbildung - Medialer Habitus: Genese und Transformation des medialen Habitus vor dem Hintergrund von Medienkompetenz und Medienbildung’, Medienimpulse, vol 4/2013. Available from: [03 May 2018] Bilandzic, H 2002, ‘Situative Frames in der Dynamik der Fernsehrezeption: Eine Inhaltsanalyse von Gedankenprotokollen zur selektiven Fernsehnutzung’ in Empirische Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung, eds P Rössler, V Gehrau & S Kubisch, Fischer, Munich, pp. 75-95. Bilandzic, H, Schramm, H & Matthes, J 2015, Medienrezeptionsforschung, UVK, Konstanz & Munich. bitkom 2013, Soziale Netzwerke: dritte, erweiterte Studie. Available from: [03 May 2018]

344

References

Bittlingmayer, UH & Sahrai, D 2014, ‘Kritikinstrument oder perfiede Herrschaftsverlängerung? Differenzen und Gemeinsamkeiten im Bildungsverständnis zwischen Bourdieu und der Frankfurter Schule’ in Bourdieu und die Frankfurter Schule: Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie im Zeitalter des Neoliberalismus, eds U Bauer, UH Bittlingmayer, C Keller & F Schultheis, transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 215-250. Bjur, J, Schrøder, KC, Hasebrink, U, Courtois, C, Adoni, H & Nossek, H 2014, ‘Cross-Media Use: Unfoldung Complexities in Contemporary Audiencehood’ in Audience Transformations: Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, eds N Carpentier, KC Schrøder & L Hallett, Routledge, New York, pp. 15-29. Blumer, H 1973, ‘Der methodologische Standort des Symbolischen Interaktionismus’ in Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit, eds Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen, Rowohlt, Reinbek, pp. 80-146. Blumer, H 1986, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method; University of California Press (Original 1969). Böck, M & Pachler, N (eds) 2013, Multimodality and Social Semiosis. Communication, MeaningMaking, and Learning in the Work of Gunther Kress, Routledge, London & New York. Bohle, U & König, E 2001, ‘Zum Begriff des Performativen in der Sprachwissenschaft’, Paragana (Theorien des Performativen), vol. 10, pp. 13-34. Bohlmann, N 2015, Impliziertheit und Expliziertheit: Praxeologische und institutionskritische Analysen zum Mathematikunterricht, Springer VS. Wiesbaden. Böhm, A 2005, ‘Theoretisches Codieren: Textanalyse in der Grounded Theory’ in Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch, eds U Flick, E von Kardorff & I Steinke, Rowohlt, Reinbek, pp. 475-485. Bolin, G 2014, ‘Media Generations: Objective and subjective media landscapes and nostalgia among generations of media users’, Participations, vol 11, no 2, pp. 108-131. Bolin, G 2016a, ‘Passion and nostalgia in generational media experiences’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 250-264. Bolin, G 2016b, ‘The Rhythm of Ages: Analyzing Mediatization Through the Lens of Generations Across Cultures’, International Journal of Communication, no 10/2016, pp. 5252–5269. Bolin, G 2017, Media Generations: Experience, Identity and Mediatised Social Change, Routledge, London & New York. Bollig, S & Kelle, H 2016, ‘Children as participants in practices: the challenges of practice theories to an actor-centred sociology of childhood’ in Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New perspectives in Childhood Studies, eds F Esser, MS Baader, T Betz & B Hungerland, Routledge, New York, pp, 34-47. Bonfadelli, H & Friemel, TN 2014, Medienwirkungsforschung, UVK, Konstanz & Munich. Borda, OF 2002, ‘Participatory (Action) Research in Social Theory: Origins and Challenges’ in Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, eds P Reason & H Bradbury, Sage, London, pp. 27-37. Boudon, R 1974, Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality: Changing Prospects in Western Society, Wiley & Sons, New York. Bourdieu P & Boltanski, L 1975, ‘Le fétichisme de la langue’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 2-32. Bourdieu P & Bourdieu MC 1965, ‘Le paysan et la photographie’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164-174. Bourdieu, P & De Saint Martin, M 1976, ‘Anatomie du gout’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 2-81. Bourdieu, P & De Saint Martin, M 1978, ‘Le patronat’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 20-21, pp. 3-82. Bourdieu, P & Passeron JC 1968, ‘L’examen d’une illusion’, Revue française de sociologie, numéro special Sociologie de l’éducation, pp. 227-253. Available from: [03 May 2018].

References

345

Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1964, Les hériters: Les édtudiants et la culture, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1970, La reproduction: Élements pour une theorie dy système d’enseignement, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1971, ‘Die verstimmten Partner: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung von pädagogischer Kommunikation und Sprache’ in Die Illusion der Chancengleichheit: Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Bildungswesen am Beispiel Frankreichs, ed P Bourdieu & JC Passeron, Klett, Stuttgart, pp. 129-160 (Original: Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1971, Les partenaires désaccordés, Editions de Minuit, Paris) Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1979, The Inheritors: French students and their relation to culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Original: Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1964, Les Héritiers: Les Etudiants et la Culture, Editions de Minuit, Paris). Bourdieu, P & Passeron, JC 1990, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, trans. by R Nice, Sage, London. Bourdieu, P & Wacquant, L 1996, Reflexive Anthropologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (Original: Bourdieu, P & Wacquant, L 1992, Réponses: Pour une anthropologie réflexive. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.) Bourdieu, P & Wacquant, LJD 1992, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge. Bourdieu, P (ed) 1983a, Eine illegitime Kunst: Die sozialen Gebrauchsweisen der Photographie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (Original: Bourdieu, P (ed) 1965, Un art moyen: Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris). Bourdieu, P 1965, Un art moyen: essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie, Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P 1972, Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précedé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle, Librairie Droz, Genève. Bourdieu, P 1973, ‘Kulturelle Reproduktion und soziale Reproduktion’ in Grundlagen einer Theorie der symbolischen Gewalt, ed P Bourdieu & JC Passeron, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 88-139. Bourdieu, P 1974, Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (Original 1970). Bourdieu, P 1977, Algérie 60. Structures économiques et structures temporelles, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P 1979, La distinction: critique sociale du jugement, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P 1980, Le sens pratique, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P 1982, Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (Original: Bourdieu, P 1979, La distinction: critique sociale du jugement, Éditions de Minuit, Paris) Bourdieu, P 1983b, ‘Ökonomisches Kapital – Kulturelles Kapital – Soziales Kapital’, Soziale Welt, pp. 183-198. Bourdieu, P 1984a, ‘Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception’ in The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed P Bourdieu, Columbia University Press, New York. Bourdieu, P 1984b, Homo Academicus, Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Bourdieu, P 1984c, ‘La représentation de la position sociale’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 52-53 (special issue: Le travail politique), pp. 14-15. Bourdieu, P 1986, ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed J Richardson, Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp. 241-58. (English translation of Bourdieu 1983, ‘Ökonomisches Kapital – Kulturelles Kapital – Soziales Kapital’). Bourdieu, P 1987, Sozialer Sinn: Kritik der Theoretischen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Bourdieu, P 1990a, ‘La domination masculine’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 84, pp. 2-31. Bourdieu, P 1990b, The Logic of Practice, trans. by R Nice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

346

References

Bourdieu, P 2002, Ein soziologischer Selbstversuch, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (trans. by Stephan Egger) Bourdieu, P 2004, Esquisse pour une auto-analyse, Liber, Paris. Bourdieu, P 2005, Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht. Schriften zu Politik & Kultur, ed M Steinrücke, VSA-Verlag, Hamburg. Bourdieu, P 2010, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. by R Nice, Routledge, London. (English translation first published 1984) Bourdieu, P, Boltanski, L, Castel, R, Chamboredon, JC & Schnapper, D 1990, Photography: A Middle-brow Art, Standford University Press, Stanford, CA. Bourdieu, P, Chamboredon, JC & Passeron, JC 2005, Le metier de sociologue: préleables épistémologique, de Gruyter, Berlin. Bowman, H & van de Wijngaert, L 2002, ‘Content and Context: An Exploration of the Basic Characteristics of Information Needs’, New Media & Society, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 329-353. Boyd, D & Ellison, NB 2007, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, no. 1, vol. 13, pp. 210–230. Boyd, D & Marwick, A 2011, ‘Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies’, Presented at A decade in internet time: Symposium on the dynamics of the internet and society, Oxford Internet Institute. Available from: [03 May 2019] Boyd, D 2006. ‘Friends, friendsters, and top 8: writing community into being on social network sites’, First Monday, no. 11, vol. 12. Available from: [03 May 2019] Boz, N, Uhls, YT & Greenfield, PM 2016, ‘Cross-Cultural Comparison of Adolescents’ Online Self-Presentation Strategies: Turkey and the United States’, International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning archive, no. 3, vol. 6, pp. 1-16. Brake, A. 2013, ‘Bourdieu und die Photographie: Übungen zur Konversion des Blicks’ in Empirisch arbeiten mit Bourdieu: Theoretische und methodische Überlegungen, Konzeptionen und Erfahrungen, eds A Brake, H Bremer & A Lange-Vester, Beltz Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 5992. Brečko, B & Ferrari, A 2016, The Digital Competence Framework for Consumers, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Breivi, PS & Senn, JA 1998, Information literacy: Educating children for the 21stcentury, National Education Association, Washington. Bremer, H & Teiwes-Kügler, C 2007, ‘Die Muster des Habitus und ihre Entschlüsselung: Mit Transkripten und Collagen zur vertiefenden Analyse von Habitus und sozialen Milieus’ in Bild und Text – Methoden und Methodologien visueller Sozialforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft, eds B Friebertshäuser, H von Felden & B Schäffer, Budrich, Opladen, pp. 81-104. Bremer, H & Teiwes-Kügler, C 2013a, ‘Habitusanalyse als Habitus-Hermeneutik’, Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 199-219. Bremer, H & Teiwes-Kügler, C 2013b, ‘Zur Theorie und Praxis der ‘Habitus-Hermeneutik” in Empirisch arbeiten mit Bourdieu. Theoretische und methodische Überlegungen, Konzeptionen und Erfahrungen, eds A Brake, H Bremer & A Lange-Vester, Beltz Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 93-129. Bremer, H 2008, ‘Die Möglichkeit von Chancengleichheit: Pierre Bourdieus Entzauberung der Natürlichkeit von Bildung und Erziehung – und deren ungebrochene Aktualität’ in Die Natur der Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen des 33. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Kassel 2006, ed KS Rehberg, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 1528-1539. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Brikse, I, Freibergs, C & Spurava, G 2014, Media and Information Policies in Latvia, TRANSLIT, Paris. Britannica Academic 2016. Available from: [03 May 2019].

References

347

Bronfenbrenner, U 1979, The Ecology of Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bronfenbrenner, U & Ceci, SJ 1994, ‘Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bio-ecological mode’, Psychological Review, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 568–586. Brüggen, N & Wagner, U 2017, ‘Medienaneignung und sozialraumbezogenes Medienhandeln von Jugendlichen’ in Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, eds D Hoffmann, F Krotz & W Reißmann, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 211-228. Brunazzi, R, Raab, M & Willenegger, M 2011, ‘Bravo Gala! Users and Their Private Pictures on the Horizon of International Star Culture’ in The Visual Worlds of Social Network Sites: Images and image-based communication on Facebook and Co, eds UP Autenrieth & K Neumann-Braun, Nomos. Baden-Baden, pp. 121-137. Buckingham, D (ed) 1993, Reading Audiences: Young People and the Media, Manchester University Press, New York. Buckingham, D (ed) 1998, Teaching popular culture: Beyond radical pedagogy, UCL Press, London. Buckingham, D 1989, ‘Television literacy: A critique’, Radical Philosophy, vol. 51, pp. 12-25. Buckingham, D 2000, After the death of childhood: growing up in the age of electronic media, Polity Press, Cambridge. Buckingham, D 2003, Media Education. Litracy, learning and contemporary culture, Polity Press, Cambridge. Buckingham, D 2005a, ‘Constructing the Child. Media Literacy and Regulatory Policy in the UK’, MedienPädagogik. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Buckingham, D 2005b, The media litercy of children and young people: A review of the research literature, Ofcom, London. Buckingham, D 2007, Beyond Technology: Children’s Learning in the age of digital culture, Polity Press, Cambridge. Buckingham, D 2008, ‘Defining Literacy: What Do Young People Need to Know About Digital Media?’ in Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, eds C Lankshear & M Knobel, Peter Lang, New York, pp. 73-89. Buckingham, D 2009, ‘The future of media literacy in the digital age: some challenges for policy and practice’ in EuroMeduc. Media Literacy in Europe. Controversies, Challenges and Perspectives, ed P Vernier, EuroMeduc, Brussels, pp. 13-24. Buckingham, D 2011, The Material Child: Growing Up in the Consumer Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge. Buckingham, D 2013, ‘Making Sense of the ‘Digital Generation’: Growing Up with Digital Media’, Self & Society, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 7-15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03060497.2013.11084274 Buckley, RP 1992, Husserl, Heidegger and the Crisis of Philosophical Responsibility, Springer, Dordrecht. Bühler-Niederberger, D 2010, ‘Soziologie der Kindheit’ in Handbuch Spezielle Soziologien, eds G Kneer & M Schroer, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 437-456. Bulger, ME 2012, ‘Measuring Media Literacy in a National Context: Challenges of Definition, Method and Implementation’, Media Studies, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 83-103. Burn, A 2009, ‘The Case of Rebellion: Researching Multimodal Texts’ in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & DJ Leu, Routledge, London, pp. 151-178. Busemann, K & Gscheidle, C 2010, ‘Web 2.0: Aktive Mitwirkung verbleibt auf niedrigem Niveau. Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2011’, Media Perspekiven no. 7-8 (2011), pp. 360-369. Butler, JP 1979, Körper von Gewicht. Die diskursiven Grenzen des Geschlechts, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Butler, JP 1993, Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of ‘sex’, Routledge, London. Butler, J 1997, The Psychic Life of Power. Theories in Subjection, Stanford University Press, Standford.

348

References

Byrne, J, Kardefelt Winther, D, Livingstone, S & Stoilova, M 2016, Global Kids Online Research Synthesis 2015-2016: Innocenti Research Report 2016-03, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. Available from: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/869-global-kids-online-researchsynthesis-2015-2016.html [03 May 2019]. CAHENF 2018, List of decisions. 4thmeeting. Available from: [03 May 2018] Callow, J & Zammit, K 2002, ‘Visual literacy: From picture books to electronic texts’ in Teaching primary literacy with ICT, ed M Monteith, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 188-201. Car, V, Kanižaj, I & Kralj, L 2014, Media and Information Policies in Croatia, TRANSLIT, Paris. Carey, JW 2009, Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society, revised edition, Routledge, New York & London. Carnicer, JA 2017, Bildungsaufstiege mit Migrationshintergrund, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Carpendale, J 1997, ‘An explanation of Piaget’s constructivism: implications for social cognitive development’ in The Development of Social Cognition, ed S Hala, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 35-60. Carretero, S, Vuorikari, R & Punie, Y 2017, The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens: With eight proficiency levels and examples of use, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Case, DO 2002, Looking for Information: A Study on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Celot, P & Tornero Pérez, JM 2009, Study on Assessment Criteria for Media Literacy Levels. A comprehensive view of the concept of media literacy and an understanding of how media literacy levels in Europe should be assessed. Final Report. Available from: [03 May 2018]. Celot, P 2012, ‘EAVI Studies on Media Literacy in Europe’, Media Studies, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 76-81. Celot, P 2015, Assessing Media Literacy Levels and the European Commiccion. Pilot Initiative. Available from: [03 May 2018]. Charlton, M, & Neumann, K 1990, Medienrezeption und Identitätsbildung: Kulturpsychologische und kultursoziologische Befunde zum Gebrauch von Massenmedien im Vorschulalter, Gunter Narr, Tübingen. Charmaz, K, Scott, RH & Irvine, L 2019, Understanding the World Through Symbolic Interactionism, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford. Chaudron, S 2015, Young Children (0-8) and Digital Technology: A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Available from: [03 May 2019] Chaudron, S, Di Gioia, R & Gemo, M 2018, Young children (0-8) and digital technology, a qualitative study across Europe, Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Chen, X 2012, ‘Culture, peer interaction and socio-emotional development’, Child Development Perspectives, no 6, pp. 27-34. Chen, X, Fu, R & Zhao, S 2015, ‘Culture and Socialization’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 451-471. Chomsky, N 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge. Christ, WG 2013, Assessing Media Education: A Ressource Handbook for Educators and Administrators, Routledge, New York & London. Christensen, PH & Prout, A 2002, ‘Working with Ethical Symmetry in Social Research with Children’, Childhood, no. 9, pp. 477-497. Christensen, PH 2004, ‘Children’s Participation in Ethnographic Research: Issues of Power and Representation’, Childhood and Society, vol. 18, pp. 165–76.

References

349

Cocks, AJ 2006, ‘The Ethical Maze: Finding an Inclusive Path Towards Gaining Children’s Agreement to Research Participation’, Childhood, vol 13, no 2, pp. 247–66. Coiro, J, Knobel, M, Lankshear, C, & Leu, DJ 2008, Handbook of research on new literacies, Routedge, London & New York. Colombo, F 2011, ‘The Long Wave of Generations’ in Broadband Society and Generational Chances, eds F Colombo & L Fortunati. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 19-35. Cope, C & Kalantzis, M (eds.) 2000a, Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, Macmillan, Melbourne. Cope, C. & Kalantzis, M 2000b, ‘Introduction: Multiliteracies: the beginnings of an idea’ in Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, eds. C Cope & M Kalantzis, Macmillan, Melbourne, pp. 3-8. Corbin, J & Strauss, A 2008, Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Corsten, M 1999, ‘The Times of Generations’, Time & Society, vol 8, no 2, pp. 249-272. Corsten, M 2011, ‘Media as the ‘Historical New’ for Young Generations’ in Broadband Society and Generational Chances, eds F Colombo & L Fortunati, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 37-49. Costa, C, Jorge, A & Pereira, L 2014, Media and Information Policies in Portugal, TRANSLIT, Paris. Couldry, N & Hepp, A 2017, The Mediated Construction of Reality. Polity Press, Cambridge. Couldry, N 2003, ‘Media Meta-Capital: Extending the Range of Bourdieu’s Field Theory’, Theory and Society, vol. 32, pp. 653-657. Couldry, N 2016, Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice, Polity, Cambridge. Couldry, N, Livingstone, S & Markham, T 2010, Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention, Pallgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Courtois, C, Schrøder, KC & Kobbernagel, C 2015, ‘Exploring landscapes of news consumption cross-nationally: The use of Q methodology to fuse quantitative and qualitative approaches for increased explanatory power in comparative research’ in Revitalising audience research: Innovations in European audience research, eds F Zeller, C Ponte & B O’Neill, Routledge, New York and London, pp. 123-142. Dallmann, C, Vollbrecht, R & Wegener, C 2017, ‘Mediensozialisation in sozialökologischer Perspektive: Ansatzpunkte einer theoretischen Neujustierung’ in Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, eds D Hoffmann, F Krotz & W Reißmann, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 197-210. Davidson, JE & Sternberg, RJ 1984, ‘Competence and Performance in Intellectual Development’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds E Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 43-76. Davidson, JE & Sternberg, RJ 1985, ‘Competence and Performance in Intellectual Development’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds. E Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 43-76. Davis, JM 1998, ‘Understanding the Meanings of Children: A Reflexive Process’, Children and Society, vol. 12, no. 5pp. 325–35. de Witt, C 2000, ‘Medienbildung für die Netz-Generation’, MedienPädagogik, no 1/2000. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Decherney, P & Sender, K 2018, Stuart Hall Lives: Cultural Studies in an Age of Digital Media, Routledge, New York. Deci, EL & Ryan, RM 2000, ‘The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuit: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 195-218. Deinet, U 2014, Vom Aneignungskonzept zur Activity Theory: Transfer des tätigkeitsorientierten Aneignungskonzepts der kulturhistorischen Schule auf heutige Lebenswelten von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Available from: [03 May 2019]

350

References

del Mar Grandio, M, Vicente, M, García Matila, A, Gutiérrez Martín, A & Marta Lazo, C 2014, Media and Information Policies in Spain, TRANSLIT, Paris. Delamare Le Deist, F & Winterton, J 2007, ‘What Is Competence?’, Human Ressource Development International, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 27-46. Descartes, R 1637, ‘Discours de la méthode’ in Collection ‘Les classiques des sciences sociales’. Available from: [03 May 2019]. DeSeCo 2005, The Defenition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, Welche Kinderrechte gibt es in der UN-Kinderrechtskonvention?. Available from: [03 May 2019]. DeWalt, K & DeWalt, B 2011, Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers, AltaMira, Lanham, MD. Dey, R, Jelveh, Z & Ross, K 2012, ‘Facebook Users Have Become Much More Private: A LargeScale Study’. Paper presentet at the Fouth International Workshop on Security and Social Networking, Lugano. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Diezinger A 2008, ‘Alltägliche Lebensführung: Die Eigenlogik alltäglichen Handelns’ Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, eds R Becker & B Kortendiek, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 221-226. Dimitrova, V & Lüdmann, M 2014, Sozial-emotionale Kompetenzentwicklung: Leitlinien der Entfaltung der emotionalen Welt, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Dittmar, N 2009, Transkription: Ein Leitfaden mit Aufgaben für Studenten, Forscher und Laien, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Doelker, C 2016, Der Medien-Code: Marylin Monroe, Berthe Morisot, Charles Darwin, Comenius und Platon im Gespräch über die digitale Gesellschaft, hep, Bern. Donath, J & Boyd, D 2004, ‘Public displays of connection’, BT Technology Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 71. Available from: [03 May 2019] Drotner, K & Erstad, O 2014, ‘Inclusive Media Literacies: Interlacing Media Studies and Education Studies’, International Journal of Learning and Media, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 19-34. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Drotner, K 2008, ‘Informal Learning and Digital media. Perceptions, Practices and Perspectives’ in Informal Learning and Digital Media, eds. K Drotner, HJ Jensen & KC Schrøder, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 10-28. Drotner, K 2014, Media and Information Literacy Policies in Denmark. TRANSLIT, Paris. du Gay, P, Hall, S, Jandes, L, Mackay, H & Negus, K 1997, Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman, Sage, London. Dubow, EF, Huesmann, LR & Greenwood, D 2007, ‘Media and Youth Socialization: Underlying Processes and Moderators of Effects’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 404-430. Dubow, EF, Rowell Huesmann, L & Greenwood, D 2008, ‘Media and Youth Socialization: Underlying Processes and Moderators of Effects’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 382-430. Dudenredaktion 2017, Duden. Die deutsche Rechtschreibung, 27. ed., Bibliographisches Institut GmbH, Berlin. Austin, JL 1975, How To Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford (Original 1962) During, S 2007, The Cultural Studies Reader, Routledge, New York.

References

351

Durkheim, É 2013a, The Division of Labour in Society, ed S Lukes & trans. by WD Halls, Palgrave Macmillan, London (Original in French 1893: De la division du traivail social: Étude sur l’organisation des sociétés supérieures, Paris). Durkheim, É 2013b, The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method, ed S Lukes & trans. by WD Halls, Palgrave Macmillan, London (Original in French 1895: Les règles de la méthode sociologique, Paris). Durrant, C & Green, B 2000, ‘Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l (IT)eracy challenge?’, Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 89-108. Eberle, T 2012, ‘Phenomenological Life-World Analysis and Ethnomethodology’s Program’, Human Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 279-304. EC 2006, Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning: a European Reference Framework: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Available from: [03 May 2019] EC 2007, A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee and the Committee of the Regions. Available from: [03 May 2019]. EC 2012, Commission Staff Working Document Assessment of Key Competences in initial education and training: Policy Guidance Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes. A v a i l a b l e f r o m : [03 May 2019] EC 2016, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing. Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Available from: [03 May 2019]. EC 2018a, Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. Available from: [03 May 2019] EC 2018b, Commission Staff Working Dokument Acompanying the Document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. Available from: [03 May 2019] EC/EACEA/Eurydice 2012, Developing Key Competences at School in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy – 2011/12, Eurydice Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available from: http://keyconet.eun.org/c/document_library/get_file? uuid¼d21d041b-ea4e-448e-954b-58e4272b194c&groupId¼11028 [03 May 2019]. Eco, U 1972, Einführung in die Semiotik, Fink, Munich. Eder, K 2013, ‘Der Klassenhabitus in Abgrenzung zum Klassenbewusstsein bei Karl Marx’ in Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus, ed A Lenger, C Schneickert & F Schumacher, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp.57-73. Education Group 2017, Medienverhalten der Jugendlichen aus dem Blickwinkel der Jugendlichen. Available from: [03 May 2019] Education Group 2018, Medienverhalten bei Kindern – Zielgruppe Kinder. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Einspänner-Pflock, J 2017, Privatheit im Netz: Konstruktions- und Gestaltungsprozesse von Online-Privatheit bei Jugendlichen, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Ellison, N, Lampe, C & Steinfield, C 2007 ‘The benefits of Facebook ‚friends’: Exploring the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capital’, Journal

352

References

of Computer-mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1143-1168. Available from: [3 May 2019] Ellison, NB, Heino, R & Gibbs, J 2006, ‘Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol 11, no 2, pp. 415-441. Available from: [03 May 2019] Ellison, NB, Vitak, J, Gray, R & Lampe, C 2014, ‘Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol 19, pp. 855–870. Available from: [03 May 2019] Ellison, NB, Vitak, J, Steinfeld, C, Gray, R & Lampe, C 2011, ‘Negotiating Privacy Concerns and Social Capital Needs in a Social Media Environment’ in Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, eds S Trepte & L Reinecke, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 19-32. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2002, Standard Edition CD-ROM. Combining updated text from Encyclopaedia Britannica 15thedition with multimedia information, London. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2016, School and Library Subscribers. Online Edition. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Engeström, Y 1987, Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki. Enzensberger, HM 1997, Baukasten zu einer Theorie der Medien. Kritische Diskurse zur Pressefreiheit, Fischer, Frankfurt am Main. (Original 1970) Eppstein, S 1973, ‘The Self-Concept Revisited. Or a Theory of a Theory’, American Psychologist, vol. 28, pp. 404-414. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Erikson, EH 1968, Identity, Youth and Crisis, Norton & Company, New York & London. Erikson, R & Goldthorpe, JH 1992, The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies, Clarendon, Oxford. Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, JH & Portocarero, L 1979, ‘Intergenerational Class Mobility in Three Western European Societies: England, France and Sweden’, British Journal of Sociology, vol 34, pp. 303-343. Erstad, O & Amdam, S 2013, ‘From Protection to Public Participation’, Javnost - The Public, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 83-98. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Erstad, O 2010, ‘Educating the Digital Generation: Exploring Media Literacy for the 21st Century’, Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, vol. 5, nr. 1, pp. 56-72. Eshet-Alkalai, Y 2004, ‘Digital literacy. A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era’, Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 93–106. EU 2016, General Data Protection Regulation: EU Regulation 2016/679. Available from: [03 May 2019] EU Kids Online 2014a, EU Kids Online: findings, methods, recommendations, EU Kids Online, LSE. Available from: [03 May 2019]. EU Kids Online 2014b, Written Submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child 2014 Day of General Discussion. Digital Media and Children’s Rights. Available from: [03 May 2019] EU Kids Online II 2010 Child Questionnaire. Availavle from: [03 May 2019] European Commission 2006, Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (Official Journal L

References

353

394 of 30.12.2006). Available from: [03 May 2019]. Eurostat 2016, Archive:Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals. Available from: [03 May 2019] Everett, TE 2006, Multiliteracies in early childhood education: the modes and media of communication by first grade students, Dissertation Univesity of Iowa. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Fairclough, N 2000, ‘Multiliteracies and language: orders of discourse and intertextuality’ in Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, eds. C Cope & M Kalantzis, Macmillan, Melbourne, pp. 162-181. Farquhar, L 2013, ‘Performing and interpreting identity through Facebook imagery’, Convergence, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 446-471. Available from: [03 May 2019] Ferguson, D & Melkote, S 1997, ‘Leisure time and channel repertoire in a multichannel environment’, Communication Research Reports, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 189–194. Ferguson, D & Perse, E 1993, ‘Media audience influences on channel repertoire’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol 37, no 1, pp. 31–47. Ferguson, D & Perse, E 2000, ‘The world wide web as a functional alternative to television’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 155–174. Ferguson, D 1992, ‘Profile: Channel repertoire in the presence of remote control devices, VCRs and cable television’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 83-91. Ferrari, A 2013, DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Fessler, C & Swertz, C 2010, Lessons learned: Entwicklung eines Konzepts für die Förderung multimodaler Lesekompetenz in Österreich auf Grundlage einer Analyse internationaler Erfahrungen. Bericht an das Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur, unpublished research paper, University of Vienna. Fielder, A, Vuorikari, R, Rodríguez-Priego, N & Punie, Y 2016, Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Fink, D 2003, Informelles Lernen am Arbeitsplatz und Kompetenzentwicklung. Möglichkeiten zur Anpassung von formalen Bildungsangeboten am Beispiel eines Unternehmens. unpublished Master Thesis (Magisterarbeit), Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich. Fischer-Lichte, E 2002, ‘Grenzgänge und Tauschhandel. Auf dem Weg zu einer performativen Kultur’ in Performanz – Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften, ed U Wirth, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 277-300. Fischer-Lichte, E 1998, ‘Grenzgänge und Tauschhandel. Auf dem Weg zu einer performativen Kultur/Verwandlung einer ästhetischen Kategorie. Zur Entwicklung einer neuen Ästhetik des Performativen’ in Theater seit den 60er Jahren, eds E Fischer-Lichte et al., Franke, Tübingen, pp. 1-92 Fischer-Lichte, E 2012, Performativität: Eine Einführung, transcript, Bielefeld. Fischer-Lichte, E and Roselt J 2001, ‘Attraktion des Augenblicks — Aufführung, Performance, performativ und Performativität als theaterwissenschaftliche Begriffe’, Paragrana, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 237-253. Flammer, A & Alsaker, F 2002, Entwicklungspsychologie der Adoleszenz. Die Erschließung innerer und äußerer Welten im Jugendalter, Huber, Bern. Føllesdal, D 2014, ‘The Lebenswelt in Husserl’ in Science and the Life-World, ed DJ Hyder & HJ Rheinberger, Stanford University Press, pp. 27-45. Foot, KA 2001, ‘Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as Practical Theory: Illuminating the Development of a Conflict Monitoring Network’, Communication Theory, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 56-83.

354

References

Available from: [03 May 2019] Forsman, M 2014, Media and Information Policies in Sweden, TRANSLIT, Paris. Fraillon, J, Schulz, W & Ainley, J 2013, Information Literacy Study: Assessment Framework, Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA, Amsterdam. Available from: [03 May 2019] Frau-Meigs, D & Torrent, J 2009, Mapping Media Literacy Policies in the World. Visions, Programmes and Challenges, UN/ UNESCO, New York. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Frau-Meigs, D 2008a, ‘Media literacy and human rights: education for sustainable societies’, Croatian Journal of Communication and Psychology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 145-157. Frau-Meigs, D 2008b, ‘Media Literacy and Human Rights: Education for Sustainable Societies’, Media Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 51-82. Frau-Meigs, D 2011a, Media matters in the cultural contradictions of the ‘information society’ – Towards a human-rights-based governance, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Frau-Meigs, D 2011b, ‘Introduction – The cultural contradictions of the ‘Information Society’ in Media matters in the cultural contradictions of the ‘information society’:Towards a human rights-based governance, ed D Frau-Meigs, Council of Europe Strasbourg, pp. 9-22. Frau-Meigs, D 2012, ‘Transliteracy as the New Research Horizon for Media and Information Literacy’, Media Studies, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 14-26. Frau-Meigs, D, Arnoldi, P, Berger, G, Bevort, E, Bruillard, E, Celot, P, del Mar Grandío Pérez, M, Delamotte, E, Drotner, K, Gautellier, C, Hamilton, S, Huber, J, Kanizaj, I, Kasinskaite, I, Liquete, V, McDougall, J, Schleicher, N, O’Neill, B, Thumerelle, P, Torras, MC, TrültzschWijnen, CW & Zacchetti, M 2014a, UNESCO Paris Declaration of Media and Information Literacy. Available from: [03 May 2019] Frau-Meigs, D, Loicq, M & Boutin, P 2014b, Media and information literacy policies in France: TRANSLIT, Paris. Frau-Meigs, D, Loicq, M & Boutin, P 2014c, Media and Information Policies in the France, TRANSLIT, Paris. Frau-Meigs, D, Velez, I & Flores Michel, J (eds) 2017, Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe: Cross-Country Comparisons, Routledge, London. Freund AM & Nikitin J 2012, ‘Junges und mittleres Erwachsenenalter’ in Entwicklungspsychologie, eds W Schneider & U Lindenberger, Beltz PVU, Weinheim, pp. 259-282. Freytag, T 2014, ‘Distinktion, Heteronomie und Eindimensionalität im Denken von Bourdieu und der Kritischen Theorie’ in Bourdieu und die Frankfurter Schule: Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie im Zeitalter des Neoliberalismus, eds U Bauer, UH Bittlingmayer, C Keller & F Schultheis, transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 107-119. Friemel, T & Signer, S 2010, ‘Web 2.0 literacy: Four aspects of the second-level digital divide’, Studies in Communication Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 143-166. Fromme, J 2006, ‘Socialisation in the Age of New Media’, MedienPädagogik. Available from: [03.May 2019]. Frønes, I 2016. The Autonomous Child. Theorizing Socialization. Springer Fuller, M 2007, Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture, MIT Pres, Cambridge & London. Gal-Ezer, M 2014, ‘Forty Years: From ‘Silent Generation’ to ‘Homeland’ Awards’, Participations, vol, 11, no, 2, pp. 274-319. Ganguin, S & Sander, U 2005, ‘Medienökologie’ in Qualitative Medienforschung, eds L Mikos & C Wegener, UVK, Konstanz, pp. 130-139. Gapski, H (ed.) 2006b, Medienkompetenz messen?: Verfahren und Reflexionen zur Erfassung von Schlüsselkompetenzen, kopaed, Munich.

References

355

Gapski, H 2001, Medienkompetenz. Eine Bestandsaufnahme und Vorüberlegungen zu einem systemtheoretischen Rahmenkonzept, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden. Gapski, H 2004, ‘Zu den Fragen, auf die ‘Medienkompetenz’ die Antwort ist. Ein Aufruf zum interdiskursiven und interdisziplinären Dialog’ in Medienkompetenz und Medienleistungen in der Informationsgesellschaft. Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung, eds. H Bonfadelli, P Buchner, I Paus-Hasebrink & D Süss, Verlag Pestalozzianum, Zurich, pp. 22-34. Gapski, H 2006a, ‘Medienkompetenz messen?. Eine Annäherung über verwandte Kompetenzfelder’ in Medienkompetenz messen?: Verfahren und Reflexionen zur Erfassung von Schlüsselkompetenzen, ed. H Gapski, kopaed, Munich, pp. 13-27. Gauntlett, D 2005, Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond, John Libbey Publishing, Eastleigh. Gee, J.2003, What computer games have to teach us about learning and literacy, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Gee, JP 2008, Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, Routledge, London. Geiling, H & Müller, D 1990, ‘Qualitative Inhaltsanalysen von Dokumenten der Alltagskultur’ in Projekt Sozialstrukturwandel und neue soziale Milieus: Arbeitsheft Nr. 2, Hannover. Gelman, R & Greeno, JG 1989, ‘On the nature of competence. Principles for understanding in a domain’ in Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser, ed LS Resnick, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale. Gencarelli, TF 2006a, ‘Neil Postman and the Rise of Media Ecology’ in Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication: The Media Ecology Tradition, ed CMK Lum, Hampton, Cresskill, pp. 201-253. Gencarelli, TF 2006b, Perspectives on culture, technology, and communication: The media ecology tradition, Hampton Press, New York. Genner, S & Süss, D 2017, ‘Socialization as Media Effect’ in The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, Available from: [3 May 2019] Genner, S, Suttter, L, Wallter, G, Schoch, P, Willemse, I, Süss, D 2017, MIKE – Medien, Interaktion, Kinder, Eltern: Ergebnisbericht zur MIKE-Studie 2017. ZHAW, Zurich. Georgalou, M 2016. ‘I make the rules on my Wall: Privacy and identity management practices on Facebook’, Discourse & Communication, vol. 10, no 1, pp. 40-64. Available from: [05 Mail 2019] Geulen, D 2004, ‘Ungelöste Probleme im sozialisationstheoretischen Diskurs’ in Sozialisationstheorie interdisziplinär. Aktuelle Perspektiven, eds D Geulen & H Veith, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart, pp. 3-20. Giannatello, R & Weyland, B 2008, ‘Media Education in Italien, merz, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 34-40. Giddens, A & Pierson, C 1998. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A 1984, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity, Cambridge. Gillespie, M 2005, Media audiences, Open University Press, London. Gilomen, H 2003, ‘Desired outcomes: A successful life and a well-functioning society’ in Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society, eds. DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 109-134. Gilster, P 1997, Digital literacy, Wiley, New York. Glaser, B & Strauss, S 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Goffman, E 2009, Wir alle spielen Theater: Die Selbstdarstellung im Alltag, Piper, Munich (Original: Goffman, E 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York). Goffmann, E 1981, Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Goffmann, E 1993, Rahmen-Analyse: Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Goldberg, R 1988, Performance – Live Art Since The 60s, Thames & Hudson, London.

356

References

Goodnow, J & Cashmore, J 1985, ‘Culture and Performance’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds ED Neimark, R De Lisi & Newman, JL, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 77-98. Grassian, ES & Kaplowitz, JR 2001, Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice, NealSchuman Publishers, New York. Greene, S & Hogan, Diane 2005, Researching Children’s Experience, Sage, London & Thousand Oaks. Groeben, N 2002, ‘Dimensionen der Medienkompetenz. Deskriptive und normative Aspekte’ in Medienkompetenz. Voraussetzungen, Dimensionen, Funktionen, eds. N Groeben & B Hurrelmann, Juventa, Weinheim & Munich, pp. 160-101. Gronbeck, B 2006, ‘The Orality-Literacy Theorems and Media Ecology’ in Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication: The Media Ecology Tradition, ed CMK Lum, Hampton, Cresskill, pp. 335-365. Groß, M 2015. Klassen, Schichten, Mobilität: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Grossberg, L, Wartella, E & Whitney, DC 1998, Media Making: Mass Media in a Popular Culture, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Grundmann, M 2004, ‘Intersubjektivität und Sozialisation: Zur theoretischen und empirischen Bestimmung von Sozialisationspraktiken’ in Sozialisationstheorie interdisziplinär. Aktuelle Perspektiven, eds D Geulen & H Veith, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart, pp. 317-343. Grunert, C 2012, Bildung und Kompetenz, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Grusec, JE & Davidov, M 2010, ‘Integrating Different Perspectives on Socialization Theory and Research: A Domain-Specific Approach’, Child Development, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 687-709. Grusec, JE & Hastings, PD (eds.) 2015b, Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, The Guilford Press, New York & London. Grusec, JE & Hastings, PD 2015a, ‘Preface’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London. Habermas, J 1971, ‘Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz’ in Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung?, eds J Habermas & N Luhmann, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 101-141. Habermas, J 1979, Communicative Action and the Evolution of Society, Beacon, Boston (trans. by McCarthy) Habermas, J 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Beacon, Boston (trans. by T McCarthy) Habermas, J 1990, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (Original 1962) Habermas, J 1995a, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, vol. 1, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (Original 1981) Habermas, J 1995b, Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, vol. 2, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (Original 1981) Habermas, J 1995c, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (Original 1984) Hall, S 1980, ‘Encoding/decoding’ in Culture, media, language, eds S Hall, D Hobson, A Lowe & P Willis, Hutchinson, London, pp. 128–138. Hall, S 2007, ‘Encoding, decoding’ in The Cultural Studies Reader, ed S During, Routledge, London, pp. 477-487. Halliday, MAK 1999, An introduction into functional grammar, Edward Arnold, London. (Original 1985) Harmon-Jones, C, Schmeichel, BJ, Harmon-Jones, E 2009, ‘Symbolic self-completion in academia: Evidence from department web pages and email signature files’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 39, pp. 311–316. Available from: [03 May 2019] Harras, G 1983, Handlungssprache und Sprechhandlung. Eine Einführung in die handlungstheoretischen Grundlagen, de Gruyter, Berlin & New York.

References

357

Hartai, L 2013, EMEDUS Final Report on Formal Media Education in Europe (WP 3), Hungarian Institute for Education Research and Development & Universitat Autonoma Barcelona. Available from: [03 May 2019] Hasebrink, U & Domeyer, H 2012, ‘Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments’, Participations, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 757-779. Hasebrink, U & Hölig, S 2013, ‘Conceptualizing Audiences in Convergent Media Environments’ in Media and Convergence Management, eds S Diehl & M Karmasin, Springer, Berlin, pp. 189-202. Hasebrink, U & Hölig, S 2017, ‘Deconstructing Audiences in Converging Media Environments’ in Media Convergence and Deconvergence, eds S Sparviero, C Peil & G Balbi, Palgrave McMillan, pp. 113-133. Hasebrink, U & Popp, J 2006, ‘Media repertoires as a result of selective media use: A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure’, Communications, vol. 3, no. 31, pp. 369-387. Hasebrink, U & Rohde, W 2011, ‘Die Social Web Nutzung Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener: Nutzungsmuster, Vorlieben, Einstellungen’ in Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web: Zur Rolle von Web 2.0-Angeboten im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Ereachsenen, eds JH Schmidt, I Paus-Hasebrink & U Hasebrink, Vistas, Berlin, pp. 83-120. Hasebrink, U & Schmidt, JH 2013, ‘Medienübergreifende Informationsrepertoires: Zur Rolle der Mediengattungen und einzelner Angebote für Information und Meinungsbildung’, Media Perspektiven, no. 1/2013, pp. 2-12. Hasebrink, U 2004, ‘Konvergenz aus Nutzerperspektive: Das Konzept der Kommunikationsmodi’ in Mediennutzung in konvergierenden Medienumgebungen, eds U Hasebrink, L Mikos & E Prommer, Fischer, Munich. Hasebrink, U 2010, ‘Quality Assessments and Patterns of Use: Conceptual and Empirical Approaches to the Audiences of Public Service Media’ in The Public in Public Service Media, ed GF Lowe, Nordicom, Gothenburg, pp. 135-149. Hasebrink, U 2014a, ‘Medienrepertoires: Ein analytischer Rahmen zur Untersuchung des ‘Nebeneinander’ verschiedener Medien’ in Medienkonvergenz und Medienkomplementarität aus Rezeptions- und Wirkungsperspektive, eds K Kleinen-von Königslöw & K Förster, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 15-36. Hasebrink, U 2014b, Children’s changing online experiences in a longitudinal perspective, EU Kids Online, London. Hasebrink, U 2017, ‘Audiences and information repertoires’ in The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies, eds B Franklin & SA Eldridge, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 364-374. Hasgood, MC 2003, ‘New media and online literacies: No age left behind’, Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 387-391. Haste, H 2001, ‘Ambiguity, Autonomy, and Agency: Psychological Challenges to New Competence’ in Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 93-120. Hatherley, P 2014, Developmental Tasks For Children, Adolescents & Adults: A Full Picture of Internal Development From Self-worth & Emotional Safety to Integrating Love; Truth, Beauty & Wisdom, Balboa, Bloomington. Havighurst, RJ 1972, Developmental Tasks and Education, Longman, New York & London (Original 1948). Heeter, C 1985, ‘Program selection with abundance of choice’, Human Communication Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp.126–152. Heeter, C, D’Alessio, D, Greenberg, B, et al. 1983, ‘Cableviewing’. Paper presented at the ICA conference, Dallas. Held, K (ed) 1986, Edmund Husserl: Phänomenologie der Lebenswelt. Ausgewählte Texte II, Reclam, Stuttgart.

358

References

Helsper, E 2012, ‘A Corresponding Fields Model for the Links Between Social and Digital Exclusion’, Communication Theory, vol. 22, pp. 403–426 Henrichwark, C 2009, Der bildungsbezogene mediale Habitus von Grundschulkindern –Eine empirische Studie zur Reproduktion sozialer Ungleichheit in Schule und Familie, Dissetation Bergische Universität Wuppertal. Available from: [03 May 2019] Hensge, K, Lorig, B & Schreiber, D 2011, ‘Kompetenzverständnis und -modelle in der beruflichen Bildung’ in Kompetenzorientierung in der beruflichen Bildung, eds M Bethschneider, G Höhns & G Münchhausen, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp. 133-157. Hepp, A 2010, Cultural Studies und Medienanalyse: Eine Einführung, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Hepp, A 2012, Cultures of Mediatization, Polity Press, Cambridge. Hepp, A, Berg, M & Roitsch, C 2017a, ‘Mediengeneration als Prozess: Zur Mediatisierung der Vergemeinschaftungshorizonte von jüngeren, mittelalten und älteren Menschen’, in Mediatisierung als Metaprozess: Medien • Kultur • Kommunikation, ed F Krotz, C Despotović, Cathrin & M Kruse, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 81-111. Hepp, A, Berg, M & Roitsch, C 2017b, ‘A Processual Concept of Media Generation: The MediaGenerational Positioning of Elderly People, Nordicom Review, vol. 38, Special Issue 1, pp. 109-122. Herzig, B & Grafe, S 2009, ‘Entwicklung von Bildungsstandards für Medienbildung: Grundlagen und Beispiele’ in Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 8. Medienkompetenz und Web 2.0, eds B Herzig, D Meister, H Moser & H Niesyto, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 103-120. Hesmondhalgh, D 2006, Media Production, Open University Press, Maidenhead & New York. Hesmondhalgh, D 2012, The Cultural Industries, Sage, London. Heursen, G 1993, ‘Kompetenz’ in Pädagogische Grundbegriffe, ed D Lenzen, Rowohlt, Reinbek, pp. 877-885. Heymans, PG 1994, ‘Developmental Tasks: A cultural analysis of human development’ in Developmental Tasks: Towards A cultural analysis of human development, eds JJF ter Laak, PG Heymans & AI Podol’skij, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht & London, pp. 3-33. Hobbs, R & Frost, R 1999, ‘Instructional Practices in Media Literacy Education and Their Impact on Student’s Learning’, New Jersey Journal of Communication, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 123-148. Hobbs, R 1994, ‘Teaching media literacy. Yo! Are you hip to this?’, Media Studies Journal, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 135-145. Available fom: [03 May 2019]. Hobbs, R 1996, Media Literacy and the ‘Big Tent’. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Hobbs, R 1998a, ‘The seven great debates in the media literacy movement’, Journal of Communication, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 6-32. Hobbs, R 1998b, ‘Building Citizenship Skills through Media Literacy Education’ in The Public Voice in a Democracy at Risk, eds M Salvador & P Sias, P, Praeger Press, Westport, pp. 57-76. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Hobbs, R 2006, ‘Multiple Visions of Multimedia Literacy. Emerging Areas of Synthesis’ in Handbook of literacy and technology, vol II, eds M McKenna, L Labbo, R Kieffer & D Reinking, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 15-28. Hofer, S 2004, Internationale Kompetenzzertifizierung. Vergleichende Analysen und Rückschlüsse für ein deutsches System, Waxmann, Münster. Hoffmann, B, Hoffmann, D, Hugger, KU, Meister, D, Neuß, N, Pöttinger, I, Röll, FJ, Schorb, B, Tillmann, A & Wabner, U 2012, Medienkompetenzförderung für Kinder und Jugendliche. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Berlin.

References

359

Hoffmann, D & Mikos, L 2007, ‘Warum dieses Buch? Einige einführende Anmerkungen’ in Mediensozialisationstheorien: Neue Modelle und Ansätze in der Diskussion, eds D Hoffmann & L Mikos, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden pp. 7-10. Hoffmann, D 2007, ‘Plädoyer für eine integrative Mediensozialisationstheorie’ in Mediensozialisationstheorien: Neue Modelle und Ansätze in der Diskussion, eds D Hoffmann & L Mikos, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 11-26. Hoffmann, D 2013, ‘Das Sozialisationsprimat und der Identity Turn. Mediales Handeln und Subjektentwicklung’ in Das handelnde Subjekt und die Medienpädagogik: Festschrift für Bernd Schorb, eds A Hartung, A Lauber & W Reißmann, koepaed, Munich, pp. 41-56. Hoffmann, D, Krotz, F & Reißmann, W (eds) 2017a, Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Hoffmann, D, Krotz, F & Reißmann, W 2017b, ‘Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Problemstellung und Einführung’ in Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, eds D Hoffmann, F Krotz & W Reißmann, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-18. Højholt, C & Kousholt, D 2014, ‘Participant Observations of Children’s Communities - Exploring Subjective Aspects of Social Practice’, Qualitative Research in Psychology vol. 11, nr. 3. pp. 316-334. Hölig, S 2014, Informationsorientierte Kommunikationsmodi zwischen Massen- und interpersonaler Kommunikation, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Hölig, S, Domeyer, H & Hasebrink, U 2011, ‘Souveräne Bindungen: Zeitliche Bezüge in Medienreptertoires und Kommunikationsmodi’ in Rezeption und Wirkung in Zeitlicher Perspektive, eds M Suckfüll, H Schramm & C Wünsch, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp.71-88. Hönisch, L & Stark, M 2017, ‘My Brand and I – Facebook Brand Pages and Self-Completion’, Journal of Business and Media Psychology, no. 1/2017. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Howe, N & Strauss, W 2000, Millenials Rising, Vintage Books, New York. Hoyer, M, Huth, N & Spahr C 2011, Jugend 2.0: Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zum Internetverhalten von 10- bis 18-Jährigen, bitkom, Berlin. Hradil, S 2000. ‘Soziale Ungleichheit, soziale Schichtung, Mobilität’ in Einführungskurs Soziologie. Band I: Einführung in Hauptbegriffe der Soziologie, eds H Korte & B Schäfers. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 193-216. Hug, T 2011, ‘Von der Medienkompetenz-Diskussion zu den ‘neuen Literalitäten’ – Kritische Reflexionen in einer pluralen Diskurslandschaft’ in Medienbildung und Medienkompetenz. Beiträge zu Schlüsselbegriffen der Medienpädagogik, eds H Moser, P Grell & H Niesyto, kopaed, Munich, pp. 159-174. Hugger, KU (ed) 2013, Digitale Jugendkulturen, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Institut für Jugendkulturforschung 2009, Freizeit, Kultur, Medien und Sport im jugendlichen Alltag: Expertise im Rahmen des 6. Berichtes zur Lage der Jugend in Österreich, Institut für Jugendkulturforschung, Vienna. Institut für Jugendkulturforschung 2010a, Safer Internet: Qualitative Studie über Chancen und Gefahren von Social Communities, Vienna. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Institut für Jugendkulturforschung 2010b, Jugend in der Mediengesellschaft: Sozialisiert im Zeitalter des dynamischen technologischen Wandels, Vienna. [03 May 2019]. Institut für Jugendkulturforschung 2016, Jugendliche Bilderwelten und Kreativität. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Intrator, S 2001, ‘Teaching the Media Child in the Digital Swarm’, Arts Education Policy Review, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 25-27.

360

References

Iser, W 1978, The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Iser, W 1990, Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung, Fink, München. (Original 1976). Iser, W 1993, The Fictive and the Imaginary. Charting Literary Antropology, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press. Iser, W 2002a, ‚Das Modell der Sprechakte‘ in Performanz – Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. U Wirth, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 129-139. Iser, W 2002b, ‚Mimesis und Performanz‘ in Performanz – Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. U Wirth, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 243-261. Jaeger, S & Willer, S 2000, ‘Einleitung. Das Denken der Sprache und die Performanz des Literarischen um 1800’ in Das Denken der Sprache und die Performanz des Literarischen um 1800, eds S Jaeger & S Willer, Königshausen und Neumann, Wuerzburg, pp. 7-30. Jäger, W & Baltes-Schmitt, M 2003, Jürgen Habermas: Einführung in die Theorie der Gesellschaft, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden. James, A & Prout, A 1997, Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood, Routledge, London. Janssen, J, Stoyanov, S, Ferrari, A, Punie, Y, Pannekeet, K & Sloep, P 2013, ‘Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences’, Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 473-481. Jasmontaite, L & De Hert, P 2015, ‘The EU, children under 13 years, and parental consent: a human rights analysis of a new, age-based bright-line for the protection of children on the Internet’, International Data Privacy Law, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 20–33. Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York University Press, New York & London. Jenkins, H 2009, Conftonting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. Media Education for the 21stCentury, MIT Press, London & Cambridge, MA. Jenkins, H, Ito, M, Boyd, D 2016, Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning, Commerce, and Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge & Malden. Jewitt, C & Kress, G 2003a, Multimodal literacy, Peter Lang, New York. Jewitt, C & Kress, G 2003b, ‘Introduction’ in Multimodal literacy, eds. C Jewitt & G Kress, Peter Lang, New York, pp.1-18. Johnson, R 1986, ‘What is Cultural Studies Anyway?’ in Social Text No. 16, Duke University Press. A v a i l a b l e f r o m : [03 May 2019]. Johnson, R 1996, ‘What is Cultural Studies Anyway?’ in What is Cultural Studies? A Reader, ed J Storey, Arnold, London & New York, pp. 75-114. Johnson, R, Chambers, D, Raghuram, P & Tinknell, E 2004, The Practice of Cultural Studies, Sage, London. Jones, H & Soltren, JH 2005, Facebook: Threats to privacy. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Jones, S & Swertz, C 2008, FWF Antrag auf Förderung des Einzelprojekts ‘Medienbildung im Volksschulalter/Media Literacy at the Primary Age’, unpublished research paper, University of Vienna. Jorgensen, DL 2015, Participant observation: A methodology for human studies, Willey (Original 1989). Jugend-Internet-Monitor 2018, Available from: [03 May 2019]. Jung, J, Kim, Y & Chan-Olmsted, S 2014, ‘Measuring usage concentration of smartphone applications: Selective repertoire in a marketplace of choices’, Mobile Media & Communication, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 352-368.

References

361

Jung, Y & Rader, E 2016, ‘The Imagined Audience and Privacy Concern on Facebook: Differences Between Producers and Consumers’, Social Media + Society, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-15. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Jurczyk, K & Rerrich MS 1993, ‘Einführung: Alltägliche Lebensführung: Der Ort, wo alles zusammenkommt’ in Die Arbeit des Alltags. Beiträge zur einer Soziologie der alltäglichen Lebensführung, eds K Jurczyk & MS Rerrich, Lambertus, Freiburg, pp. 11-45. Jureit, U 2011, Einleitung: Karl Mannheim, Das Problem der Generationen. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Kampylis, P, Punie, Y & Devine, J 2015, Promoting Effective Digital-Age Learning: A European Framework for Digitally-Competent Educational Organisations, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Kasinskaite-Buddeberg, I. Boade, G. & Grizzle, A 2013, Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies, UNESCO, Paris. Kaslow, NJ, Rubin, NJ, Bebeau, MJ, Leigh, IW, Lichtenberg, JW, Nelson, PD, Portnoy, SM, & Smith, IL 2007, ‘Guiding principles and recommendations for the assessment of competence’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 441–451. Katz, E, Blumler, JG & Gurevitch, M 1973, ‘Uses and Gratifications Research’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 509–523. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Keating, DP 2003, ‘Definition and Selection of Competencies from a Human Development Perspective’ in Contributions to the 2nd DeSeCo Symposium. 11-13. February in Geneva, eds DS Rychen, LH Salganik & ME McLaughlin, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchatel, pp. 143-168. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Kelle, U 2007, Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung: theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte, VS Verlag für Sozialforschung, Wiesbaden. Kelle, U & Kluge, S 2010, Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden. Kellner, D & Share, J 2005, ‘Media Literacy in the US’, MedienPädagogik, vol. 11. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Kellner, D 1995, Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern, Routledge, New York & London. Kellner, D 2011, ‘Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism, and Media Culture’ in Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Critical Reader, Sage, Los Angeles & London, pp. 7-19. Kelly, K & Donohew, L 1999, ‘Media and Primary Socialization Theory’, Substance Use & Misuse, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1033-1045. Kenner, C 2005, ‘Bilingual families as literacy eco-systems’, Early Years, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2 8 3 - 2 8 9 . A v a i l a b l e f r o m : [03 May 2019]. Kim, SJ 2016, ‘A repertoire approach to cross-platform media use behavior’, new media & society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 353-372. King, N, Horrocks, C & Brooks, J 2019, Interviews in Qualitative Research, Sage, Los Angeles & London. Knautz, K & Baran, K (eds) 2016, Facets of Facebook: Use and Users. De Gryter, Berlin & Boston. Kobbernagel, C & Schrøder, KC 2016, ‘From everyday communicative figurations to rigorous audience news repertoires: A mixed method approach to cross-media news consumption’, MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research, vol. 32, no. 60, pp. 6-31. Koch, W & Frees, B 2017. ‘ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2017: Neun von zehn Deutschen online’, Media Perspektiven, no. 9/2017, pp. 434-446. Kochinka, A 2010, ‘Beobachtung’ in Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, eds G Mey & K Mruck, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 449-461.

362

References

Kofoed, J & Larsen, MC 2016. ‘A snap of intimacy: Photo-sharing practices among young people onsocial media’, First Monday, vol. 21, no. 11. Available from: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/ index.php/fm/article/view/6905 [03 May 2019]. Kohlberg, L 1981, The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice, Harper & Row, New York. Kohlberg, L 1984, The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages, Harper & Row, New York. Kolle, C & Zens, M. 2008, ‘Generation Online: Medienkompetenz und Mediennutzung von Kindern und Jugendlichen: Ein Überblick über aktuelle sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung’, Recherche Spezial, no. 04/2008, Bonn: GESIS-IZ. Kommer S & Biermann, R 2012, ‘Der mediale Habitus von (angehenden) LehrerInnen. Medienbezogene Dispositionen und Medienhandeln von Lehramtsstudierenden’ in Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9, eds R Schulz-Zander, B Eickelmann, H Moser, H Niesyto & P Grell, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschften, Wiesbaden, pp. 81-108. Kommer, S & Biermann, R 2007 ‘Zwischen Erinnerung und Inszenierung – Medienbiografien medial’, Freiburger FrauenStudien, vol. 13, no. 20, pp. 195-220. Kommer, S 2010a, Kompetenter Medienumgang? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zum medialen Habitus und zur Medienkompetenz von SchülerInnen und Lehramtsstudierenden, Budrich UniPress, Opladen. Kommer, S 2010b, Anhang zum Buch: Kompetenter Medienumgang? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zum medialen Habitus und zur Medienkompetenz von SchülerInnen und Lehramtsstudierenden, Budrich UniPress, Available from: http://www.budrich.de/BUP-39Kommer/39_Kommer_Anhang_WWW.pdf [03 May 2019]. Kommer, S 2013, ‘Das Konzept des ‘Medialen Habitus’: Ausgehend von Bourdieus Habitustheorie Varianten des Medienumgangs analysieren’, Medienimpulse, no. 4/2013. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Komulainen, S 2007, ‘The Ambiguity of the Child’s “Voice” in Social Research’, Childhood, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11–28. Kontovourki, S,Garoufallou, E, Ivarsson, L, Klein, M, Korkeamaki, RL, Koutsomiha, D, MarciBoehncke, G, Tafa, E & Virkus, S 2017, Digital Literacy in the Early Years:Practices in Formal Settings, TeacherEducation, and the Role of Informal Learning Spaces: A Reviewof the Literature, COST ACTION IS1410. Available from [12 Dec 2019]. Kortti, J 2011, ‘The Problem of Generations and Media History’ in Broadband Society and Generational Chances, eds F Colombo & L Fortunati. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 69-93. Kotilainen, S & Kupiainein, R 2014, Media and Information Policies in Finland, TRANSLIT, Paris. Krais, B & Gebauer, G 2013, Habitus, transcript, Bielefeld. Krämer, NC & Winter, S 2008, ‘Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficiacy and self-presentation within social networking sites’, Journal of Media Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 106-116. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Krämer, S & Stahlhut, M 2001, ‘Das ‘Performative’ als Thema der Sprach- und Kulturphilosophie’, Paragana: Theorien des Performativen, vol. 10, pp. 35-64. Krämer, S 2001, Sprache, Sprechakt, Kommunikation. Sprachtheoretische Positionen des 20. Jahrhunderts, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Krämer, S 2002 ‘Sprache – Stimme – Schrift: Sieben Gedanken über Performativität als Medialität’ in Performanz – Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. U Wirth, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. pp. 323-346. Kray, J & Schaefer, S 2012, ‘Mittlere und späte Kindheit (6 – 11 Jahre)’ in Entwicklungspsychologie, eds W Schneider & U Lindenberger, Beltz, Weinheim, pp. 211-233. Kress, G & Van Leeuwen, T 1992, ‘Trampling all over our unspoiled spot: Barthes’ ‘Punctum’ and the politics of the extra-semiotic’, Southern Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 27-28.

References

363

Kress, G & Van Leeuwen, T 2000, Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication, Arnold, London. Kress, G 2000, ‘Multimodality’ in Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, eds. C Cope & M Kalantzis, Macmillan, Melbourne, pp. 182-202. Kress, G 2003, Literacy in the new media age, Routledge, London. Kreutzmann, J 2011, ‘Preisgabe des Privaten? Nutzerbefragung: ›Privacy‹ und ›Self-Disclosure‹ im StudiVZ’ in StudiVZ: Diffusion, Nutzung und Wirkung eines sozialen Netzwerks im Internet, eds C Neuberger & V Gehrau, Springer VS. Wiesbaden, pp. 33-96. Krotz, F 2008, ‘M wie Mediatisierung’, Aviso, No. 47, p. 13. Krotz, F 2017, ‘Sozialisation in mediatisierten Welten: Mediensozialisation in der Perspektive des Mediatisierungsansatzes’ in Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, eds D Hoffmann, F Krotz & W Reißmann, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 21-40. Krumsvik, RJ 2008, ‘Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence’, Education and Information Technologies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 279–290. Kubey, R (ed.) 1997, Media literacy in the information age: current perspectives, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. Kübler, HD 1996, ‘Kompetenz der Kompetenz der Kompetenz... Anmerkungen zur Lieblingsmetapher der Medienpädagogik’, medien praktisch, no. 2/1996, pp. 11-15. Kübler, HD 1999, ‘Medienkompetenz – Dimensionen eines Schlagworts’ in Medienkompetenz: Grundlagen und pädagogisches Handeln, eds F Schell, E Stolzenberg & H Theunert, kopaed, Munich, pp. 25-47. Kübler, HD 2002, ‘Medienpädagogik in der ‘Informationsgesellschaft’: Theoretische und empirische Sondierungen’ in Medienpädagogik in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Positionen, Perspektiven, Potentiale, eds I Paus-Haase, C Lampert, Claudia & D Süss, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 191-167. Kuckartz, U 2010, ‘Typenbildung’ in Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, eds G Mey & K Mruck, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 553-568. Kuiper, E, Volman, M & Terwel, J 2005, ‘The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 285-328. Kurz, P & Filipp, G 2013, Bevölkerung Land Salzburg: Stand & Entwicklung 2013, Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung, Salzburg. Available from: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/statistik_ daten_bevoelkerung_2013.pdf [03 May 2019]. Kvale, S 2007, Doing interviews, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. La Guardia, JG & Ryan, RM 2008, ‘Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships’, Canadian Psychology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 201-209. Lai, CY & Yang, HL 2015, ‘Determinants of individuals’ selfdisclosure and instant information sharing behavior in microblogging’, New Media & Society, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1454-1472. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Lakoff, G 1987, ‘Cognitive models and prototype theory’ in Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, ed U Neisser, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 63–100. Lamnek, S 2010, Qualitative Sozialforschung: Lehrbuch, Beltz, Weinheim & Basel. Lampe, C, Ellison, N & Steinfield, C 2006, ‘A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing’, Proceedings of the 2006 Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press, New York, pp. 167-170. Lampe, C, Ellison, N & Steinfield, C 2007, ‘A Familiar Face(book): ‚Profile Elements as Signals in an Online Social Network’, CHI 2007 Proceedings Online Representation of Self. Available from: [03 May 2019] Lampert, C, Schmidt, JH & Schulz, W 2011, ‘Jugendliche und Social Web – Fazit und Handlungsberiche’ in Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web: Zur Rolle von Web 2.0-Angeboten

364

References

im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen, eds JH Schmidt, I Paus-Hasebrink, U Hasebrink, Vistas, Berlin, pp. 275-297. Landabidea Urresti, X 2014, ‘Television as an intergenerational leisure artefact: An interdisciplinary dialogue’, Participations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 132-155. Lange, A 1997, ‘Lebensführung als Sozialisationskonzept: Theoretische Überlegungen und Illustrationen’, Diskurs, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16-23. Lange, A 2002, ‘‘Lebensführung’ als eine integrative Perspektive für die Jugendforschung’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 422-435. Lange, A 2003, ‘Theorieentwicklung in der Jugendforschung durch Konzeptimport: Heuristische Perspektiven des Ansatzes ‘Alltägliche Lebensführung” in Theoriedefizite der Jugendforschung: Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven, eds J Mansel, H Griese & A Scherr, Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 102-118. Lanham, RA 1995, ‘Digital Literacy’, Scientific American, vol. 273, no. 3, pp. 160-161. Lankshear, C & Knobel, M 2003, New literacies, changing knowledge and classroom learning, Open University Press, Buckingham. Lapenta, G & Jørgensen, R 2015, ‘Youth, privacy and online media: Framing the right to privacy in public policy-making’, First Monday, vol. 20, no. 3. Available from: [03 May 2019]. LaRose, R & Eastin, MS 2004, ‘A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications: toward a new model of media attendance’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 358-377. LaRose, R, Mastro, D & Eastin, MS 2001, ‘Understanding Internet Usage: A Social-Cognitive Approach to Uses and Gratifications’, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 395-413. Lasswell, H 1948, ‘The structure and function of communications in society’ in The communication of ideas, ed L Bryson, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 37-51. Lazarsfeld, PF, Berelson, B & Gaudet, H 1944, The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, Columbia University Press. Lefebvre-Pinard, M & Pinard, A 1985, ‘Taking Charge of One’s Cognitive Activity: A Moderator of Competence’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds. ED Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London. Lehmann, AJ, Mattenklott, G & Woltersdorff, V 2001, ‘Cross-Overs – Performativität im Kontext genderspezifischer und medientheoretischer Fragestellungen’, Paragana: Theorien des Performativen, vol. 10, pp. 137-154. Lemke, J 2000, ‘Multimedia demands of the scientific curriculum’, Linguistics and Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 247-271. Lenger, A., Schneickert, C & Schumacher, F 2013, ‘Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus’, in Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus, ed A Lenger, C Schneickert & F Schumacher, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, S. 13-41. Leonard, M 2016, The Sociology of Children, Childhood and Generation, Sage, London. Lepa, S & Hoklas, A-K 2015, ‘How do people really listen to music today? Conventionalities and major turnovers in German audio repertoires’, Information, Communication & Society, vol 18, no 10, pp. 1253-1268. Lepa, S, Hoklas, A-K & Weinzierl, S 2014, ‘Discovering and interpreting audio media generation units: A typological-praxeological approach to the mediatization of everyday music listening’, Participations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 207-238. Leu, D, Kinzer, C, Coiro, J & Cammack, D 2004, ‘Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies’ in Theoratical models and processes of reading, vol. 5, eds. R Ruddell & N Unrau, International Reading Association, Newark, pp. 1570-1613. Leveranz, D & Tyner, K 1993, ‘An Overview Inquiring Minds Want to Know: What is Media Literacy?’, The Independent, August & September 1993. Available from: [03 May 2019].

References

365

Lewin, K 2009, ‘Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the Problem of Permanent Change’ in Lewin, K 2010‚ Group Decision and Social Change’. In Fundamentals of Organization Development. Volume 1: Understanding and Researching Organization Development, eds D Coghlan & AB Shani, Sage, London, pp. 3-24 (Originally published in Maccoby, EE, Newcomb, TM & Hartley, EL (eds.) 1958, Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York). Lewis, K, Kaufman, J & Christakis, N 2008, ‘The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 79-100. [03 May 2019]. Lewis, L & Jhally, S 1998, ‘The Struggle Over Media Literacy’, Journal of Communication, vol. 48, no. 1. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Lievens E, Livingstone S, McLaughlin S, O’Neill B, Verdoodt V 2018, ‘Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies’ in International Human Rights of Children. International Human Rights, eds U Kilkelly & T Liefaard, Springer, Singapore, pp. 1-27. Lin, TB, Li, JY, Feng, D & Lee, L 2013, ‘Understanding New Media Literacy: An Explorative Theoretical Framework’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 160-170. Livingstone, S & Bulger, M 2013, A Global Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age. Recommendations for Developing UNICEF’s Research Strategy, Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S & Bulger, M. 2014, ‘A Global Research Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age’, Journal of Children and Media, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 317-335. Livingstone, S & Das, R 2013, ‘The End of Audiences? Theoretical Echoes of Reception Amid the Uncertainties of Use’ in A Companion to New Media Dynamics, eds J Hartley, J Burgess & A Bruns, Willey-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 104-121. Livingstone, S & O’Neill, B 2014, ‘Children’s Rights Online: Challenges Dilemmas and Emerging Directions’ in Minding Minors Wandering in the Web. Regulating Online Child Safety, eds S van der Hof, B van den Berg & B Schermer, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 19-38. Livingstone, S & Third, A 2017, ‘Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda’, Media & Society, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 657-670 Livingstone, S (ed.) 2011, Media literacy. Ambitions, policies and measures. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S 2004, ‘Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies’, Communication Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3-14. Livingstone, S 2009a, ‘On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008’, Journal of Communication, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1-18. Livingstone, S 2009b, Children and the internet, Polity Press, Cambridge. Livingstone, S 2012, ‘Exiting Moments in Audience Research: Past, Present and Future’ in The Social Use of Media: Cultural and Social Scientific Perspectives on Audience Research, eds H Bilandzic, G Patriarche & PJ Traudt, intellect, Bristol, pp. 258-274. Livingstone, S 2013, Media literacy and policy in Europe - A review of recent, current and planned activities. Report of a meeting of the COST Action ‘Transforming Audiences. Transforming Societies’ held in Brussels on 12 September 2013. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S 2014, ‘Children’s digital rights: a priority’, Intermedia, vol. 42, no. 4/5, pp. 20-24. Livingstone, S 2016, ‘Reframing media effects in terms of children’s rights in the digital age’, Journal of Children and Media, vol. 10, no. 1. pp. 4-1 Livingstone, S 2017, ‘Children’s and Young People’s Lives Online’ in Online risk to children: Impact, protection and prevention, ed J Brown, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 23-36. Livingstone und Sefton-Green 2016: The Class: Living and Learning in the Digital Age, New York: NYU Press

366

References

Livingstone, S, Haddon, L, Görzig, A, Olafsson, K, EU Kids Online Network 2011, Risks and safety on the internet. The perspective of European children. Full findings, EU Kids Online, LSE. London. Available from: [03 May 2019] Livingstone, S, Byrne, J & Bulger, M 2015, Researching children’s rights globally in the digital age. Report of a seminar held on 12-14 February 2015. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S, Carr, J & Byrne, J 2016, One inThree: Internet Governance and Children’s Rights. Innocenti Discussion Paper No.2016-01, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S, Haddon, L & Görzig, A (eds) 2012, Children, risk and safety on the internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective, Policy Press, Bristol. Livingstone, S, Haddon, L, Görzig, A, Olafsson, K, EU Kids Online Network 2011, Risks and safety on the internet. The perspective of European children. Full findings, EU Kids Online, LSE. London. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S, Mascheroni, G, Olafsson, K & Haddon, L 2014a, Children’s online risks and opportunities: comparative findings from EU Kids Online and Net Children Go Mobile, EU Kids Online, LSE. London. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S, Wijnen, CW, Papaioannou, T, Costa, C & Grandío, M 2014b, ‘Situating Media Literacy in the Changing Media Environment: Critical Insights from European Research on Audiences’ in Audience Transformations. Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, eds N Carpentier, KC Schroder, L Hallett, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 210-227. Livingstone, S, Van Couvering, E & Thumim, N 2005, Adult Media Literacy: A review of the research literature on behalf of Ofcom. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/ 4155054.pdf [03 May 2019]. Livingstone, S, Van Couvering, N & Thumin, N 2008, ‘Converging Traditions of Research on Media and Information Literacies. Disciplinary, Critical, and Methodological Issues’ in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & DJ Leu, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 103-132. Lobe, B & Òlafsson K 2012, ‘Similarities and differences across Europe’ in Children, risk and safety in the Internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective, eds S Livingstone, L Haddon & A Görzig, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 273-284. Lochte, R & Warren, J 1989, ‘A channel repertoire for TVRO satellite viewers’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 91–95. Luhmann, N 1984, Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Luhmann, N 2005, Soziologische Aufklärung. Aufsätze zur Theorie sozialer Systeme. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (Original 1970). Luke, C 1989, Pedagogy, printing and protestantism: The discourse of childhood, State University of New York, Albany. Luke, C 2000, ‘Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteracies for new times’ in Multiliteracies – Literacy learning and the design of social futures, eds B Cope & M Kalantzis, Routledge, London, pp. 69-92. Luke, C 2003, ‘Pedagogy, connectivity, multimodality, and interdisciplinarity’, Reading Research Quaterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 397-403. Lum, CMK 2006, ‘Notes Toward an Intellectual History of Media Ecology in Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication: The Media Ecology Tradition, ed CMK Lum, Hampton, Cresskill, pp. 1-60. Lunt, P & Livingstone, S 2012, Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers, Sage, London.

References

367

Maccoby, EE 2015, ‘Historical Overview of Socialization Research and Theory’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 3-33. Mandl, M 2012, Habitus, Herkunft und Bildungserfolg: (Re-)Produktion und Legitimation sozialer Ungleichheit durch das Bildungssystem, Master thesis, TU Darmstadt. Mannheim, K 1928, ‘Das Problem der Generationen’, Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie, no. 7, pp. 157-185. Mannheim, K 1952, ‘The Problem of Generations’ in Karl Mannheim: Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, ed P Kecskemeti, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 276-320. Marci-Boehncke, G & Rath, M 2013, Kinder – Medien – Bildung. Eine Studie zur Medienkompetenz und vernetzter Educational Governance in der Frühen Bildung, kopaed, Munich. Marcum, JW 2002, ‘Rethinking information literacy’, Library Quaterly, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1-26. Marsh, J, Mascheroni, G, Carrington, V, Árnadóttir, H, Brito, R, Dias, P, Kupiainen R & TrültzschWijnen, CW 2017, The Online and Offline Digital Literacy Practices of Young Children. A Review of the Literature. Available from: [04 December 2019]. Marwick, A & Boyd, D 2014, ‘Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media’, New Media & Society, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1051-1067. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Marx, K. & Engels, F 2006, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei, Reclam, Stuttgart. (Original 1848). Mascheroni, G & Cuman, A 2014, Net Children Go Mobile: Final Report. Deliverables D6.4 & D5.2, Educatt, Milano. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Mascheroni, G & Holloway, D (eds) 2019, The Internet of Toys: Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play, Palgrave Mcmillan, London. Matthews S 2007, ‘A Window on the ‘New’ Sociology of Childhood’, Sociology Compass, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 322–334. Mayall, B 2000, ‘The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s rights’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol. 8, pp. 243–259. Mayer, RE 2000, ‘The challenge of multimedia learning’ in Reconceptualizing literacy in the age of media, multimedia and hypermedia, eds AW Pailliotet & PB Mosenthal, JAI/ Ablex, Noorwood, pp. 363-376. Mayer, RE 2009, ‘Multimedia Literacy’ in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & DJ Leu, Routledge, London, pp. 359-376. McClure, CR 1994, ‘Network literacy: a role for libraries?’, Information technology and libraries, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 115-125. McCormick, CM, Kuo, SI-C & Masten, AS 2011, ‘Developmental tasks across the life span’ in Handbook of life-span development, eds KL Fingerman, CA Berg, J Smith & TC Antonucci (eds.), Springer, pp. 117–139. McGonagle, T & Schumacher, N 2014, Media and Information Policies in the Netherlands, TRANSLIT, Paris. McLuhan, HM 1964, Understanding media: The extensions of man, Toronto Press, New York. McQuail, D 2010: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. New York: Sage. Mead, GH 2015, Mind, Self and Society: The Definitive Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Original 1934: Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, ed CW Morris, Chicago). Meijer, PC, Verloop, N & Beijaard, D 2002, ‘Multi-Method Triangulation in a Qualitative Study on Teachers’ Practical Knowledge: An Attempt to Increase Internal Validity’, Quality & Quantity, vol. 36, pp. 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014984232147 Messaris, P 1998, ‘Visual Aspects of Media Literacy’, Journal of Communication, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 70-80.

368

References

Meyen, M 2007, ‘Medienwissen und Medienmenüs als kulturelles Kapital und als Distinktionsmerkmale: Eine Typologie der Mediennutzer in Deutschland’, M&K, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 333-354. Meyrowitz, J 1998, ‘Multiple Media Literacies’, Journal of Communication, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 96-108. Michel, B 2006, Bild und Habitus: Sinnbildungsprozesse bei der Rezeption von Fotografien, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Miguel, C 2016, ‘Visual Intimacy on Social Media: From Selfies to the Co-Construction of Intimacies Through Shared Pictures’, Social Media + Society, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-10. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Mikos, L 2000, ‘Ästhetische Erfahrung und visuelle Kompetenz. Zur Erweiterung der diskursiven Medienkompetenz um präsentative Elemente’, MedienPädagogik, no. 1/ 2000. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Mikos, L 2007, ‘Mediensozialisation als Irrweg – Zur Integration von medialer und sozialer Kommunikation aus der Sozialisationsperspektive’ in Mediensozialisationstheorien: Neue Modelle und Ansätze in der Diskussion, eds D Hoffmann & L Mikos, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 27-46. Mikos, L, Hoffmann, D & Winter, R 2007, ‘Einleitung: Medien – Identität – Identifikationen’ in Mediennutzung, Identität und Identifikationen: Die Sozialisationsrelevanz der Medien im Selbstfindungsprozess von Jugendlichen, eds L Mikos, D Hoffmann & R Winter, Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 7-20 Milberry, K 2012, ‘Media Ecology’, Oxford Bibliographies. Available from: http://www. oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0054. xml [03 May 2019]. Mills, K 2009, ‘Multiliteracies: interrogating competing discourses’, Language and Education, vol. 23 no. 2, pp. 103-116. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Mitgutsch, K 2009, ‘Medienkompetenz weitergedacht: Über die Responsivität medialen Erfahrens’ in Weitermachen?. Einsätze theoretischer Erziehungswissenschaft, eds R Kubac, C Rabl & E Sattler, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp. 194-207. Moran-Ellis, J 2010, ‘Reflections on the Sociology of Childhood in the UK’, Current Sociology, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 186-205. Morley D & Chen, K-H 1996, Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, Routledge, London & New York. Moser, H 2004, ‘Von der Medienkompetenz zur Medienbildung; Diskurstheoretische Überlegungen’ in Medienkompetenz und Medienleistungen in der Informationsgesellschaft: Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung, eds H Bonfadelli, P Buchner, I Paus-Hasebrink & D Süss, Verlag Pestalozzianum, Zurich, pp. 53-70. mpfs 2014, miniKIM: Kleinkinder und Medienumgang. Basisdatenuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 2- bis 5-Jähriger, mpfs, Stuttgart. Available from: < https://www.mpfs.de/ fileadmin/files/Studien/miniKIM/2014/Studie/miniKIM_Studie_2014.pdf> [03 May 2019]. mpfs 2016a, KIM: Kindheit, Internet, Medien. Basisdatenuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 6- bis 13-Jähriger, mpfs, Stuttgart. Available from: [03 May 2019]. mpfs 2016b, FIM: Familie, Interaktion, Medien: Untersuchung zur Kommunikation und Mediennutzung in Familien, mpfs, Stuttgart. Available from: [03 May 2019]. mpfs 2017, JIM: Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. Basisdatenuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger, mpfs, Stuttgart. Available from: < https://www.mpfs.de/ fileadmin/files/Studien/JIM/2017/JIM_2017.pdf> [03 May 2019]. Müller, K 2008, Schlüsselkompetenzen und beruflicher Verbleib, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld. Müller-Jentsch, W 2014, ‘Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns’ in Wörterbuch der Soziologie, eds G Endruweit, G Trommsdorf & N Burzan, UVK, Koblenz, pp. 551-557.

References

369

Müller-Ruckwitt, A 2008, ‘Kompetenz’ – Bildungstheoretische Untersuchungen zu einem aktuellen Begriff, Ergon, Würzburg. Mutsch, U 2012, Der mediale Habitus von Volksschulkindern und ihren Lehrerinnen und Lehrern: Eine empirische Studie zur Genese schulischer Medienkultur als Aushandlungsprozess habituellen Medienhandelns. Dissertation University of Vienna. Napoli, A 2014. ‘Social media use and generational identity: Issues and consequences on peer-topeer and cross-generational relationships – an empirical study’, Participations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 182-206. Narey, M (ed) 2008, Making Meaning: Constructing Multimodal Perspectives of Language, Literacy, and Learning through Arts-Based Early Childhood Education, Springer, New York. Neimark, ED 1985a, ‘Preface’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds ED Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. ix-x. Neimark, ED 1985b, ‘Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds ED Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 1-14. Nelson, TO & Narens, L 1990, ‘Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings’ in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 26, ed GH Bower, Academic Press, New York, pp. 125-173. Nestler, S 2011, Performative Kritik. Eine philosophische Intervention in den Begriffsapparat der Cultural Studies, Transcript, Bielefeld. Neuberger, C 2011, ‘Soziale Netzwerke im Internet: Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Einordnung und Forschungsüberblick’, in StudiVZ: Diffusion, Nutzung und Wirkung eines sozialen Netzwerks im Internet, eds C Neuberger & V Gehrau, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 33-96. Neumann-Braun, K & Autenrieth, UP 2011, The Visual Worlds of Social Network Sites: Images and image-based communication on Facebook and Co, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Neveu, E 2013, ‘Pierre Bourdieu und die Analyse von Mediendiskursen: Rezeptionsschwierigkeiten und Umsetzung eines theoretischen Programms’ in Pierre Bourdieu und die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Internationale Perspektiven, eds T Wiedemann & M Meyen, Herbert von Halem, Köln, pp. 74-99. New London Group 1996, ‘A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 66, no.1, pp. 60-92. New London Group 2000, ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures’ in Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, eds B Cope & M Kalantzis, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 9-37. Newman, BM & Newman, PR 2018, Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach, Cengage Learning, Boston. Nieding, G & Ohler, P 2006, ‘Der Erwerb von Medienkompetenz zwischen 3 und 7 Jahren’, tv diskurs, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 46-51. Niemann, J & Schenk, M 2012, ‘Privatsphäre und Selbstoffenbarung auf Sozialen Netzwerkplattformen: Eine Einführung’ in Digitale Privatsphäre: Heranwachsende und Datenschutz auf Sozialen Netzwerkplattformen, eds M Schenk, J Niemann, G Reinmann & A Roßnagel, Vistas, Berlin, pp. 15-68. Niemann, J 2016, Risiken und Nutzen der Kommunikation auf Social Networking Sites, von Halem, Köln. Niesyto, H 2009, ‘Digitale Medien, soziale Benachteiligung und soziale Distinktion’, MedienPädagogik, vol. 17. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Nikken, P & Opree, SJ 2018, ‘Guiding Young Children’s Digital Media Use: SES-Differences in Mediation Concerns and Competence’, Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 27, no. 6, pp 1844–1857.

370

References

Nilan, P, Burgess, H, Hobbs, M, Threadgold, S & Alexander, W 2015, ‘Youth, Social Media, and Cyberbullying Among Australian Youth: ‚Sick Friends”, Social Media + Society, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-12. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Norbert, Faculty of Mass Media Communication, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Trnava Dana Petranova Norris, S 2004, Analyzing multimodal interaction, Routledge, London. Nosko, A, Wood, E & Molema, S 2010, ‘All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of Facebook’, Computers in Human Behavior, no. 26/2010, pp. 406-418. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Nyst, C 2017, Privacy, protection of personal information and reputation rights: Children’s Rights and Business in a Digital World Discussion Paper Series, United Nations Children’s Fund. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/csr/files/UNICEF_CRB_Digital_World_Series_PRI VACY.pdf [03 May 2019]. Nystrom, CL 1973, Toward a science of media ecology: The formulation of integrated conceptual paradigms for the study of human communication systems, PhD dissertation, New York University. O’Neill, B 2014, Media and Information Policies in Ireland, TRANSLIT, Paris. O’Halloran, KL (ed) 2004, Multimodal discourse analysis, Continuum, London. O’Halloran, KL, Tan, S, Smith BA & Podlasov, A 2009, Multimodal Discourse: Critical Analysis within an Interactive Software Environment. Available from: [03 May 2019]. O’Keefe, GJ, Boyd, HH & Brown, MR 1998, ‘Who learns preventive health care information from where: cross-channel and repertoire comparisons’, Health Communication, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 25–36. O’Neill, B & Hagen, I 2009, ‘Media Literacy’ in Kids Online: Opportunities and Risks for Children, eds S Livingstone & L Haddon, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 229-239. O’Neill, B & Staksrud, E 2014. Final recommendations for policy EU Kids Online London. Available from: [03 May 2019]. O’Neill, B 2010, ‘Current policy developments in European media literacy’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 235-241. O’Neill, B 2015, ‘Ecological perspectives and children’s use of the Internet: exploring micro to macro level analysis’, Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 32–53. Available from: [03 May 2019]. O’Neill, B, Livingstone, S & McLaughlin, S 2011, Final recommendations for policy, methodology and research, EU Kids Online, LSE:. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Oats, T 2003, ‘Key skills/key competencies: Avoiding the pitfalls of current initiatives’ in Selected contributions to the 2ndDeSeCo symposium, eds DS Rychen, LH Salganik, & ME McLaughlin, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchatel. Oberlinner, A, Eggert, S, Schubert, S. Jochim, V & Brüggen, N 2018, MoFam – Mobile Medien in der Familie. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Oblinger, DG & Oblinger, JL 2005, ‘Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation’, in Educating the Net Generation, eds DG Oblinger & JL Oblinger. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Opaschowski, HW 1999, Generation @. Die Medienrevolution entläßt ihre Kinder: Leben im Informationszeitalter, Germa-Press Verlag, Hamburg.

References

371

Opree, S 2007, Aanbevelingen voor het Rijksoverheidsbeleid met betrekking tot mediawijsheid, Master thesis University of Tilburg. Available from: [3 May 2019]. Overton, WF & Newman, JL 1982, ‘Cognitive Development. A Competence-Activation/Utilization Approach’ in Review of human development, eds T Field, A Houston, H Quay, H, L Troll & G Finley, Wiley, pp. 217-240. Overton, WF 1985, ‘Scientific methodologies and the competence – moderator – performance issue’ in Moderators of Competence: Challenges to the Universality of Piagetian Theory, eds ED Neimark, R De Lisi & JL Newman, Lawrence Erlbaum, London. pp. 15-41. Paff-Rüdiger, S 2011, Lesemotivation und Lesestrategien: Der subjektive Sinn des Bücherlesens für 10- bis 14-Jährige, Lit, Berlin. Palfrey J & Gasser U 2008, Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives, Basic Books, New York. Palmgreen, PC, Wenner LA & Rayburn JD 1980, ‘Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news’ in Communication Research, vol. 7, pp. 161-192. Palmgreen, PC, Wenner LA & Rayburn JD 1981, ‘Gratification discrepancies and news program choice’ in Communication Research, vol. 8, pp. 451-478. Panofky, E 1952, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, Meridian Books, New York. (trans. by P Bourdieu 1967: Architecture gothique et pensée scolastique). Panofsky, E 1967, Architecture gothique et pensée scolastique: “Gothic architecture and scholasticism”. Précédé de l’Abbé Suger de Saint-Denis, Traduction et postface de Pierre Bourdieu. Éditions de Minuit. Paris. Papacharissi, Z & Easton, E 2013, ‘In the Habitus of the New: Structure, Agency and the Social Media Habitus’ in A Companion to New Media Dynamics, eds J Hartley, J Burgess & A Bruns, Willey-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 172-184. Papacharissi, Z & Mendelson, A 2011, ‘Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook, in Media perspectives for the 21st century, ed S Papathanassopoulos, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 212–230. Papacharissi, Z & Rubin, A 2000, ‘Predictors of Internet use’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 175–196 Papacharissi, Z 2013, ‘Uses and Gratifications’ in Mass Media Socialization Research, ed Q Dong, Cognella, San Diego, pp. 99-120. Papaioannou, T 2011, ‘Assessing digital media literacy among young people through their use of social networking sites’, Journal of Social Informatics, vol. 15, no. 88, pp. 36-48. Papaioannou, T, Christophorou, C & Bondeau, B 2014, Media and Information Policies in Cyprus, TRANSLIT, Paris. Park, DW 2014, Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction to Media and Communication Theory, Peter Lang, New York et al. Parkin, F 1979, Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, Travistok, London. Parsons, T 1949, The structure of social action: a study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers, Free Press, New York. Available from: https://archive.org/ details/structureofsocia00pars [03 May 2019]. (Original 1937). Parsons, T 1991, The social system, Routledge & Kegan, London. Parycek, P, Maier-Rabler, U & Diendorfer, G (eds) 2010, Internetkompetenz von SchülerInnen: Aktivitätstypen, Themeninteressen und Rechercheverhalten in der 8. Schulstufe in Österreich, research report. Vienna. Pasuchin, I (ed) 2006, Intermediale künstlerische Bildung: Kunst-, Musik und Medienpädagogik im Dialog, kopaed, Munich. Pasuchin, I 2005, Künstlerische Medienbildung: Ansätze zu einer Didaktik der Künste und ihrer Medien, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. Patriarche, G, Bilandzic, H, Jensen, JL & Jurišic, J 2014, Audience Research Methodologies: Between Innovation and Consolidation, Routledge, New York & London.

372

References

Paus-Haase, I 1998, Heldenbilder im Fernsehen: Eine Untersuchung zur Symbolik von Serienfavoriten in Kindergarten, Peer-Group und Kinderfreundschaften, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden. Paus-Hasebrink, I & Bichler, M 2008, Mediensozialisationsforschung: Theoretische Fundierung und Fallbeispiel sozial benachteiligte Kinder, Studienverlag, Vienna. Paus-Hasebrink, I 2017, ‘Praxeologische (Medien-)Sozialisationsforschung’ in Mediatisierung und Mediensozialisation: Prozesse – Räume – Praktiken, eds D Hoffmann, F Krotz & W Reißmann, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 103-118. Paus-Hasebrink, I, Kulterer, J & Sinner, P 2019, Social Inequality, Childhood and the Media, Palgrave Mcmillan, London. Paus-Hasebrink, I, Wijnen, CW, Brüssel, T 2011 ‘Social Web im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen: Soziale Kontexte und Handlungstypen’ in Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web: Zur Rolle von Web 2.0-Angeboten im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen, eds JH Schmidt, I Paus-Hasebrink & U Hasebrink, Vistas, Berlin. Pérez Tornero, JM & Varis, T 2010, Media Literacy and New Humanism, UNESCO, Moskau, Available from: [03 May 2019]. Pérez Tornero, JM 2013, ABC. . . Media Literacy White Paper. European Media Literacy. Selected Texts from Studies. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Pérez Tornero, JM, Celot, P & Varis, T 2007, Study on the Current Trends and Approaches to Media Literacy in Europe, European Commission, Brussels. Available from: < https://publica tions.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4815621e-3057-4be5-96a4-cfd013d879a5/ language-en/format-PDF/source-77154575> [03 May 2019]. Perrenoud, P 2001, ‘“Questioning the Question” of How to Resist the Temtation of the “Politically Correct”?’ in Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 122-149. Peters, C & Schrøder, KC 2017, ‘Journalism’s New Audiences: The emergence, disappearance and (re)formation of digital news repertoires’, Paper presented at Nordmedia 2017, Tampere, Finland. Pfaff-Rüdiger, S & Riesmeyer, C 2016, ‘Moved into action. Media literacy as social process’, Journal of Children and Media, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 164-172. Pfaff-Rüdiger, S 2011, Lesemotivation und Lesestrategien: Der subjektive Sinn des Bücherlesens für 10- bis 14-Jährige, LIT, Münster. Pfaff-Rüdiger, S, Riesmeyer, C & Kümpel, A 2012, ‘Media literacy and developmental tasks: A case study in Germany’, Media Studies, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 42-56. Piaget, J 1932, The moral judgment of the child, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, London. Piaget, J 1967, La psychologie de l’intelligence, Armand Colin, Paris. Piaget, J 1986, Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart (Original 1932). Piaget, J 2002, Das Erwachen der Intelligenz beim Kinde: Gesammelte Werke Band 1, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart (Original 1936). Pietraß, M 2004, ‘Medienkompetenz als ‘Framing’. Grundlagen einer rahmenanalytischen Bestimmung von Medienkompetenz’ in Medienkompetenz und Medienleistungen in der Informationsgesellschaft: Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung, eds H Bonfadelli, P Buchner, I Paus-Hasebrink & D Süss, Verlag Pestalozzianum, Zurich, pp. 10-21. Pietraß, M 2011, ‘Medienkompetenz oder Medienbildung? Zwei unterschiedliche theoretische Positionen und ihre Deutungskraft’ in Medienbildung und Medienkompetenz: Beiträge zu Schlüsselbegriffen der Medienpädagogik, eds H Moser, P Grell & H Niesyto, kopaed, Munich, pp. 121-135. Pietraß, M 2015, ‘Digital Literacy als Ausdifferenzierung von Medienkompetenz. Ein 3-PhasenModell’, medien+erziehung, no. 5/2015, pp. 28-34. Platon 1993, Phaidros. Platon Werke III/ 4, trans. by E Heitsch, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Goettingen, pp. 60-65.

References

373

Plodeck, J 2010, Bruce Nauman und Olafur Eliasson: Strategien performativer Installationen, dissertation, University of Potsdam. Postman, N 1970, ‘The reformed English curriculum’ in High school 1980: The shape of the future in American secondary education, ed AC Eurich, Pitman, New York, pp. 160-168. Potolea, D & Toma, S 2019, ‘Competence” concept and its implications on teacher education’, Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-9. Potter, WJ 2004, Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach, Sage, London. Potter, WJ 2010, ‘The state of media literacy’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 675-696. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Potter, WJ 2014, Media Literacy, 7.ed, Sage, London. Prensky, M 2001a, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5., pp. 1-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 [03 May 2019]. Prensky, M 2001b, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Do They Really Think Differently?’, On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1-6. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Prot, S, Anderson, CA, Gentile, DA et al. 2015a, ‘Media as Agents of Socialization’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 276-300. Prot, S, Anderson, CA, Gentile, DA, Warburton, W, Saleem, M, Groves, CL & Brown, SC 2015b, ‘Media as Agents of Socialization’ in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, eds JE Grusec & PD Hastings, The Guilford Press, New York & London, pp. 276-300. Prout, A 2004, ‘Herausforderungen für die neue Kindheitssoziologie’, Sozialwissenschaftliche Literaturrundschau, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 57-72. Pscheida, D & Trültzsch, S 2009, ‘Veröffentlichte Privatheit im Bild: Zur neuen Kultur der Freizügigkeit in internetbasierten sozialen Kontaktnetzwerken’, SPIEL, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 245-270. Pscheida, D & Trültzsch, S 2011, ‘Aufmerksamkeit, Authentizität, Kommunikativität: Überlegungen zur Analyse veröffentlichter Privatheit im Bild’ in Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Sociel Web: Bildbezogenes Handeln und Peergroup-Kommunikation auf Facebook & Co, eds K Neumann-Braun & UP Autenrieth, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 163-176. Punch, S 2002, ‘Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults?’, Childhood, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 321–41. Qvortrup, J 1993a, ‘Nine Theses about ‘Childhood as a Social Phenomenon” in Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from an International Project, ed J Qvortrup, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna, pp. 11-18. Qvortrup, J 1993b, ‘Societal position of childhood: the international project, childhood as a social phenomenon’, Childhood, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 119-124. Raad voor Cultuur 2005, Mediawijsheid. De ontwikkeling van nieuw burgerschap (Recommendation of the Dutch Council for Culture,12 July 2005, med-2005.02498/1). Raitelhuber, E 2016, ‘Extending agency: the merit of relational approaches for Childhood Studies’ in Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New perspectives in Childhood Studies, eds F Esser, MS Baader, T Betz & B Hungerland, Routledge, New York, pp, 89-101. Ramos, L 2000, ‘Understanding literacy: Theoretical foundations for research in media ecology’, New Jersey Journal of Communication, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 46-55. Reagan, J 1996, ‘The ‘repertoire’ of information sources’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol 40, no 1, pp. 112–121. Reagan, J., Pinkleton, B., Chen C., and Aaronson, D. (1995). ‘How do Technologies Relate to the ‘Repertoire’ of Information Sources?’, Telematics and Informatics, vol. 12, no.1, pp. 21-27 Regenbogen, A & Meyer, U 2013, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, Meiner, Hamburg. Reich, K 2009, Die Ordnung der Blicke: Perspektiven des interaktionistischen Konstruktivismus, Luchterhand, Berlin.

374

References

Reinmann, G 2013, ‘Lehrkompetenz von Hochschullehrern. Kritik des Kompetenzbegriffs in fünf Thesen’ in Hochschuldidaktik im Zeichen von Heterogenität und Vielfalt. Doppelfestschrift für Peter Baumgartner und Rolf Schulmeister, eds G Reinmann, M Ebner & S Schön, Books on Demand, Norderstedt, pp. 215–234. Riesmeyer, C, Pfaff-Rüdiger, S & Kümpel, A 2016, ‘Wenn Wissen zu Handeln wird: Medienkompetenz aus motivationaler Perspektive’, M&K, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 36-55. Richardson, J 1986, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, Westport, CT Ritchie, L 2001, ‘Key Competencies for Whom? A Labor Perspective’ in Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Göttingen, pp. 236-240. Robinson, S 2014, ‘The Active Citizen’s Information Media Repertoire: An Exploration of Community News Habits During the Digital Age’, Mass Communication and Society, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 509-530. Rosen, D 2014, Cultural Literacy Assimilation: The Literacy Experiences of Children of Immigrants, dissertation Rutgers State University of New Jersey. Available from: [3 May 2019] Rosengren, KE (ed) 1994, Media Effects and Beyond: Culture, socialization and lifestyles, Routledge, New York. Röser, J, Thomas, T & Peil, C (eds) 2009, Alltag in den Medien – Medien im Alltag, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Roth, H 1971, Pädagogische Anthropologie: Entwicklung und Erziehung, Schroedel, Hannover. Rozendaal, E, Buijzen, M & Valkenburg, PM 2012, ‘Think-Aloud Process Superior to ThoughtListing in Increasing Children’s Critical Processing of Advertising’ in Human Communication Research, vol.38, no. 2, pp. 199-221. Rubin, AM & Windahl, S 1986, ‘The uses and dependency model of mass communication’ in Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 3, pp. 184-199. Rubin, AM 2002, ‘The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects’ in Media effects: Advances in theory and research, eds J Bryant & D Zillmann, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 525-548. Ruggerio, TE 2000, ‘Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century’, Mass Communication & Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3–37. Ryan, PJ 2008, ‘How New Is the “New” Social Study of Childhood? The Myth of a Paradigm Shift’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 553–576. Rychen, DS 2003, ‘Key competencies: Meeting important challenges in life’ in Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 63-107. Rychen, DS, Salganik, LH (eds) 2003, Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a WellFunctioning Society, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen. Salganik, LH & Stephens, M 2003, ‘Competence priorities in policy and practice’ in Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 13-40. Schaper, N 2009, ‘(Arbeits-) Psychologische Kompetenzforschung’ in Forschungsperspektiven in Facharbeit und Berufsbildung. Strategien und Methoden der Berufsbildungsforschung, eds M Fischer & G Spöttl, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 91–115. Scherer, H 2013, ‘Mediennutzung und soziale Distinktion’ in Pierre Bourdieu und die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Internationale Perspektiven, eds T Wiedemann & M Meyen, Herbert von Halem, Köln, pp. 100-116. Schiefner-Rohs, M 2012, Kritische Informations- und Medienkompetenz. Theoretischkonzeptionelle Herleitung und empirische Betrachtungen am Beispiel der Lehrerausbildung, Waxmann, Munster. Schleicher, N & Rétfalvi, G 2014, Media and Information Policies in Hungary, TRANSLIT, Paris. Schleicher, N & Rétflavi, G 2014, Media and Information Policies in Hungary, TRANSLIT, Paris.

References

375

Schmidt SJ & Weischenberg, S 1994, ‘Mediengattungen, Berichterstattungsmuster, Darstellungsformen’ in Die Wirklichkeit der Medien, eds K Merten Schmidt, SJ & Weischenberg, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 212-236. Schmidt, JH, Paus-Hasebrink, I & Hasebrink, U (eds) 2011, Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web: Zur Rolle von Web 2.0-Angeboten im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen, Vistas, Berlin. Schmidt, SJ 2004, ‘We can never start from scratch: Siegfried J. Schmidt on individuals and society, on the reality of the media, and on the constructivist conception of empirical knowledge’ in The Certainty of Uncertainty. Dialogues Introducing Constructivism, ed B Pörksen, Imprint Academic, Charlotteville, pp. 133-152. Schmidt, SJ 2008, ‘Memory and Remembrance: A Constructivist Approach’ in Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, eds A Erll & A Nünning, de Gruyter, New York, pp. 191-201. Schneider, W & Lindenberger, U (eds) 2012, Entwicklungspsychologie, Beltz, Weinheim. Schorb, B 1997, ‘Vermittlung von Medienkompetenz als Aufgabe der Medienpädagogik’ in Medienkompetenz im Informationszeitalter, ed Enquete-Kommission ‘Zukunft der Medien in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Deutschlands Weg in die Informationsgesellschaft’, ZV ZeitungsVerlag Service, Bonn, pp. 63-75. Schorb, B 2010, ‘Sozialisation’ in Grundbegriffe der Medienpädagogik, eds J Hüther & B Schorb, kopaed, Munich, pp. 381-389. Schrøder, KC & Kobbernagel, C 2010, ‘Towards a Typology of Cross-Media News Consumption: A Qualitative-Quantitative Synthesis’, Northern Lights, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 115-138. Schrøder, KC & Larsen, BS 2010, ‘The Shifting Cross-Media News Landscape: Challenges for News Producers’, Journalism Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 524-534. Schrøder, KC 2011, ‘Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge’, Communication Management Quaterly, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 5-27. Schrøder, KC 2016a, ‘Gamle og nye nyhedsplatforme - og brugere i bevægelse’ in Den fælles dagsorden og alle de andre: En nyhedsugeanalyse af medieindhold, mediebrug og medieforventninger, eds M Blach-Ørsten & I Willig, Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, pp. 61-82. Schrøder, KC 2016b, ‘Q-Method and News Audience Research’ in The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism, eds T Witschge, CW Anderson, D Domingo & A Hermida, Sage Los Angeles, pp. 528-545. Schulmeister, R 2009, Gibt es eine ‘Net Generation’?: Erweiterte Version 3.0. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Schultheis, F 2013, ‘Habitus in der kabylischen Gesellschaft und Max Webers protestantische Ethik’ in Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus, ed A Lenger, C Schneickert & F Schumacher, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, S. 45-55. Schumacher, F 2013, ‘Bourdieus Adaption von Erwin Panofskys kunsttheoretischem Entwurf epochaler ‘Mental Habits” in Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus, eds A Lenger, C Schneickert & F Schumacher, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, S. 109-122. Schumacher, N & McGonagle, T 2014, Media and Information Literacy Policies in the Netherlands. TRANSLIT, Paris. Schütz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press Schütz A & Luckmann T 1989, The Structures of the Life World, vol. 2, trans. by R Zaner & D Parent, Northwestern University Press, Evanston. Schütz, A & Luckmann, T 1973, The Structures of the Life World, vol. 1, trans. by R Zaner & T Engelhardt, Jr., Northwestern University Press, Evanston. Schütz, A 1932, Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die Verstehende Soziologie, Verlag Julius Springer. Schweizer, K 2006, Leistung und Leistungsdiagnostik, Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg.

376

References

Scollon, R &Wong Scollon, S 2003, Discourses in place, Routledge, London. Searle, JR 1969, Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Searle, JR 1991, ‘What Is a Speech Act?’ in Pragmatics. A Reader, ed S Davis, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, pp. 121-135. Sefton-Green, J, Marsh, J, Erstad, O & Flewitt, R 2017, Establishing a Research Agenda for the Digital Literacy Practices of Young Children: AWhite Paper for COST Action IS1410. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Seidman, I 2006, Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences, Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Selfe, CL & Hawisher, GE 2004, Literate Lifes in the Information Age: Narratives of Literacy from the United States, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mawah and London. Selman, R 1971, ‘The Relation of Role Taking to the Development of Moral Judgment in Children’, Child Development, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 79-91. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Selman, R 1984. Die Entwicklung des sozialen Verstehens. Entwicklungspsychologische und klinische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Surkamp (Original: Selman R 1980. The growth of interpersonal understanding. Developmental and Clinical Analyses. Orlando: Academic Press.) Semali, L 2001, ‘Defining new literacies in curricular practice’, Reading Online, vol. 5, no. 4. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Sesink, W 2011, ‘Kompetenz in Technik’ in Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum technologiegestützten Lernen, eds M Mühlhäuser, W Sesink, A Kaminski & J Steimle, Waxmann, Munster, pp. 439–466. Seufert, S 2007, ‘Ne(x)t Generation Learning - Was gibt es Neues über das Lernen?’, in Ne(x)t Generation Learning: Wikis, Blogs, Mediacasts & Co. - Social Software und Personal Broadcasting auf der Spur, eds S Seufert & T Brahm. SCIL, University of St. Gallen, pp. 2-19. Šģastná, L, Wolak, R & Jirák, J 2014, Media and Information Policies in the Czech Republic, TRANSLIT, Paris. Shala, A & Grajcevci, A 2018, ‘Digital competencies among student populations in Kosovo: the impact of inclusion, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and type of residence’ in Education and Information Technologies 3 (23), pp 1203–1218. Shapiro, H. & Celot, P 2011, Testing and Refining Criteria to Assess Media Literacy Levels in Europe. Final Report. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Shavelson, RJ 2013, ‘On an Approach to Testing and Modeling Competence’, Educational Psychologist, vol, 48, no. 2, pp. 73-86. Shetzer, H & Warschauer, M 2000, ‘An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching’ in Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, eds M Warschauer & R Kern, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 171-185. Shin, W & Kang, H 2016, ‘Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the Internet’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 114-123. Short, EC 1985, ‘The Concept of Competence: Its Use and Misuse in Education’, Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 2-6. Siegler, R, DeLoache, J & Eisenberg, N 2011, Entwicklungspsychologie im Kindes- und Jugendalter, Heidelberg, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Siibak, A 2009, ‘Constructing the Self through the Photo selection - Visual Impression Management on Social Networking Websites’, Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace (Cyberpsychology), vol. 3, no. 1. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Silbereisen, RK & Weichold, K 2012, Jugend (12 – 19 Jahre)’ in Entwicklungspsychologie, eds W Schneider & U Lindenberger, Beltz, Weinheim & Basel, pp. 235-258.

References

377

Silverstone, R & Haddon, L 1996, Television, cable and AB households: A report for Telewest, University of Sussex Press. Silverstone, R 2006, ‘Domesticating domestication: Reflections on the life of a concept’ in Domestication of media and technologies, eds T Berker, M Hartmann, Y Punie & K Ward, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 229-248. Silverstone, R, Hirsch, E & Morley, D 1992, ‘Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household’, in Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces, eds R Silverstone & E Hirsch, Routledge, London pp. 15-31. Simonson, MR, Maurer, M., Montag-Torardi, M. & Whitaker, M 1987, ‘Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 231–247. Sin, SCJ & Vakkari, P 2017, ‘Information repertoires: media use patterns in various gratification contexts’, Journal of Documentation, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1102-1118. Snyder, I 2007, ‘Literacy, Learning and Technology Studies’ in The Sage Handbook of E-Learning Research, eds R Andrews & C Haythornthwaite, Sage, London, pp. 394-415. Søby, M 2008, ‘Digital Competence – From Education Policy to Pedagogy: The Norwegian Context’ in Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, eds C Lankshear & M Knobel, Peter Lang, New York, pp. 119-150. Sonk, N, Livingstone, S, Kuiper, E & de Haan, J 2011, Digital Literacy and Safety Skills. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Sowka, A, Klimmt, C, Hefner, D, Mergel, F & Possler, D 2015, ‘Die Messung von Medienkompetenz: Ein Testverfahren für die Dimension ‘Medienkritikfähigkeit’ und die Zielgruppe ‘Jugendliche”, M&K, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 62-82. Spalter, AM, van Dam, A, Sheoran, P & Friesen, O 2005, ‘Digital Visual Literacy: A White Paper’ in Readings: A collection of articles and chapters submitted by the participants of the 21stCentury Literacy Summit in San José, pp. 83-91. Spanhel, D 2002, ‘Bedeutung der Medienpädagogik aus Sicht der Erziehungswissenschaft’ in Medienpädagogik in der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Positionen, Perspektiven, Potentiale, eds I Paus-Haase, C Lampert & D Süss, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 59-74. Spelsberg, K 2013, Diversität als Leitmotiv. Handlungsempfehlungen für eine Diversitäts- und Kompetenzorientierte Didaktik. Eine Explorative Studie im Kontext einer Kunst- und Musikhochschule, Waxmann, Münster. Spradley, JP 2016, Participant observation, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL. Spyrou, S 2016, ‘Troubling children’s voices in research’ in Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New perspectives in Childhood Studies, eds F Esser, MS Baader, T Betz & B Hungerland, Routledge, New York, pp, 105-118. Stanila, C & Fotiade, N 2014, Media and Information Policies in Romania, TRANSLIT, Paris. Šťastná, L, Wolák, R & Jirák, J 2014, Media and Information Policies in the Czech Republic, TRANSLIT, Paris. Statistik Austria 2013, Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund nach Bundesländern (Jahresdurchschnitt 2013). Available from: [03 May 2019]. Stein, P 2009, ‘Multimodal Instructional Practices’ in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & DJ Leu, Routledge, London, pp. 871-898. Steinberg, L, Bornstein, MH, Vandell, DL & Rook, KS 2011, Lifespan Development: Infancy Through Adulthood, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont. Steiner, O 2013, ‘Pflegen medienkompetente Eltern eine gute Medienerziehung? Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativbefragung von Eltern 10- bis 17-jähriger Kinder’ in Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, no. 4/2013, pp. 471-484. Steinmaurer, T 2016, Permanent vernetzt: Zur Theorie und Geschichte der Mediatisierung, Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

378

References

Stöber, R 2008, ‘M wie Medialisierung’, Aviso, no. 47, pp. 13-14. Storm, P & Storm, RD 2009, Adolescents in the Internet Age, Information Age Publishing. Strate, L 2008, ‘Studying Media as Media: McLuhan and the Media Ecology Approach’, MediaTropes, vol 1. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, London. Street, B & Lefstein, A 2007, Literacy: an advanced resource book, Routledge, London. Street, B 1984, Literacy in Theory and Practice, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Street, B 1995, Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, enthnography and education, Longman, London. Street, B 2001, ‘Contexts for literacy work: The ‚new orders’ and the ‚new literacy studies’ in Powerful literacies, eds J Crowther, M Hamilton & L Tett, NIACE, London, pp. 13-22. Street, B 2003, ‘What’s ‘new’ in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice’, Current Issues in Comparative Education, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 77-91. Available from: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/pdf/25734_5_2_Street.pdf [03 May 2019]. Street, B 2011, ‘Literacy inequalities in theory and practice: The power to name and define’, International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 31, pp. 580–586. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Street, B 2013, ‘Literacy in Theory and Practice: Challenges and Debates Over 50 Years’, Theory Into Practice, vol. 52, pp. 52-62. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Subrahmanyam, K, Reich, SM, Waechter, N & Espinoza, G 2008, ‘Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29, pp. 420-433. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Suderland, M 2014, “Worldmaking oder “die Durchsetzung der legitimen Weltsicht”. Symbolische Herrschaft, symbolische Macht und symbolische Gewalt als Schlüsselkonzepte der Soziologie Pierre Bourdieus” in Bourdieu und die Frankfurter Schule: Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie im Zeitalter des Neoliberalismus, eds U Bauer, UH Bittlingmayer, C Keller & F Schultheis, transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 121-162. Sugarman, L 2001, Life-Span Development: Frameworks, accounts and strategies, Routledge, New York & London. Suh, JJ & Hargittai, E 2015, ‘Privacy Management on Facebook: Do Device Type and Location of Posting Matter?’, Social Media + Society, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-11. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Sundar SS & Limperos AM 2013, ‘Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol 57, no 4, pp 504-525. Süss, D 2004, Mediensozialisation von Heranwachsenden. Dimensionen – Konstanten – Wandel, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Süss, D, Lampert, C, Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2018, Medienpädagogik: Ein Studienbuch zur Einführung, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Suter, L, Waller, G, Bernath, J, Külling, C, Willemse, I & Süss, D 2018, JAMES – Jugend, Aktivitäten, Medien: Erhebung Schweiz. Zurich. ZHAW. Sutter, T 2004, ‘Sozialisation als Konstruktion subjektiver und sozialer Strukturen: Aktualität und künftige Perspektiven strukturgenetischer Sozialisationsforschungen’ in Sozialisationstheorie interdisziplinär: Aktuelle Perspektiven, eds D Geulen & H Veith, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart, pp. 93-115. Sutter, T 2007, ‘Zur Bedeutung kommunikativer Aneignungsprozesse in der Mediensozialisation’ in Mediensozialisationstheorien: Neue Modelle und Ansätze in der Diskussion, eds D Hoffmann & L Mikos, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 131-145.

References

379

Sutter, T 2010, ‘Medienkompetenz und Selbstsozialisation im Kontext Web 2.0’ in Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 8: Medienkompetenz und Web 2.0, eds B Herzig, DM Meister, H Moser & H Niesyto, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 41-58. Sutton, SA 1994, Information literacy initiative. Part I: Problem analyses and statement of purpose, The San Jose State University Library, San Jose, CA. Swertz, C & Fessler, C 2010, ‘Literacy. Facetten eines heterongenen Begriffs’, Medieninmpulse, no. 4/2010. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Swertz, C 2003, ‘Vorüberlegungen zu einer transzendentalkritischen Medienpädagogik’, Spektrum Freizeit, no. 2/2013, pp. 81-88. Available from: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/christian.swertz/ t e x t e / t r a n s z e n d e n t _ m ed i e n p a e d / c h s w _ a u f _ s p e k t r u m _ t r a n z e n d e n t a l k r i t i s c h e _ medienpaedagogik.html [03 May 2019]. Swertz, C 2012a, ‘Medialer Habitus’ in Mit Medien bewusst umgehen: Förderung von Medienkompetenz im Kindergartenalter, ed C Swertz, Verlag Unsere Kinder, Linz, pp. 156-157. Swertz, C 2012b, Mit Medien bewusst umgehen – Förderung von Medienkompetenz im Kindergartenalter, Verlag Unsere Kinder, Linz. Tambiah, SJ 1979, ‘A Performative Approach To Ritual’, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. LXV, Oxford University Press, pp. 166-169. Taneja, H, Webster, JG, Malthouse, EC & Ksiazek, TB 2012, ‘Media consumption across platforms: Identifying userdefined repertoires’, new media & society, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 951-968. Tapscott, D 1997, Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, McGraw-Hill, New York. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (ed) 2004, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 3, Chicago. Therborn, G 1993, ‘Children’s Rights since the Constitution of Modern Childhood’ in Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from an International Project, ed J Qvortrup, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna, p. 105-138. Thesen, L 2001, ‘Modes, literacies, and power: A university case study’, Language and Education, vol. 15, no. 2-3, pp. 132-145. Thieme, F 2000, ‘Kaste, Stand, Klasse’ in Einführungskurs Soziologie. Band I: Einführung in Hauptbegriffe der Soziologie, eds H Korte & B Schäfers, Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp. 171-192. Thompson, JB 1995, The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media, Polity Press, Cambridge. Thompson, JB 2012, ‘The Media and Politics’ in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, ed E Amenta, K Nash & A Scott, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp. 263-272. Tippelt, F & Kupferschmitt, T 2015 ‘Social Web: Ausdifferenzierung der Nutzung – Potentiale für Medienanbieter: Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF Onlinestudie 2015’, Media Perspektiven, no. 10/2015, pp. 425-452. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Tisdall, EKM & Punch, S 2012, ‘Not So ‘New’?: Looking Critically at Childhood Studies’, Children’s Geographies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 249-264. Trepte, S & Reinecke, L 2013. ‘The reciprocal effects of social networke site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1102-1112. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Treumann, KP, Baacke, D, Haacke, K, Hugger, KU & Vollbrecht, R 2002, Medienkompetenz im digitalen Zeitalter: Wie die neuen Medien das Leben und Lernen Erwachsener verändern, Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden. Treumann, KP, Burkatzki, E, Strotmann, M, Wegener, C 2004, ‘Das Bielefelder Medienkompetenz-Modell. Clusteranalytische Untersuchungen zum Medienhandeln Jugendlicher’ in Medienkompetenz und Medienleistungen in der Informationsgesellschaft. Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung, eds H Bonfadelli, P Buchner, I Paus-Hasebrink & D Süss, Verlag Pestalozzianum, Zurich, pp. 35-52.

380

References

Treumann, KP, Meister, DM, Sander, U, Burkatzki, E, Hagedorn, J, Kämmerer, M, Strotmann, M & Wegener, C 2007, Medienhandeln Jugendlicher, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschften, Wiesbaden. Trültzsch, S & Wijnen, CW 2012, Social web use of children, youth and young adults in Austria. unpublished research paper. Trültzsch, S 2009, Kontextualisierte Medieninhaltsanalyse: Mit einem Beispiel zum Frauenbild in DDR-Familienserien, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Trültzsch, S 2012, Privacy, photographs and SNS, unpublished research paper. Trültzsch, S, Kõuts-Klemm, R & Aroldi, PM 2014, ‘Transforming digital divides in different national contexts’ in Audience Transformations: Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, eds N Carpentier, KM Schroder & L Hallett, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 191-209. Trültzsch, S, Wijnen, CW, Dürager, A 2013, ‘Methodenvielfalt in der Forschung zu Audiobisueller und Online-Kommunikation’ in Integrative AV- und Online-Kommunikationsforschung. Perspektiven – Positionen – Projekte, eds I Paus-Hasebrink, S Trültzsch, A Pluschkowitz & CW Wijnen, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 100-147. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2014, Media and Information Literaciy Policies in Austria, TRANSLIT, Paris. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2015, ‘Young People’s Media and Information Literacy: Challenges for Future Research’, Conference ‘Comparing Children’s Media Around The World: Policies, Texts and Audiences’, London. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2016a, ‘Medienpädagogik als Querschnittsmaterie’ in Diversitätskategorien in der Lehramtsausbildung, eds. S Kronberger, C Kühberger & M Oberlechner, Studienverlag, Innsbruck, pp. 167-177. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2016b, ‘Researching Media Literacy Levels of Young Audiences: A Case of Social Desirability?’. Paper presented at the European Communication Conference 2016, ECREA, Prague. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2017a, ‘Ein Recht auf Medienkompetenz?’, Medienimpulse, vol. 1/2017. Available from [03 May 2019]. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2017b, ‘Media Literacy: Exploring the Need for Social and Intercultural Awareness’ in Migration bildet. Migration educates, eds M Oberlechner, CW TrültzschWijnen, P Duval, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 387-400. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2017c, ‘Über das Primat der (Medien)Kompetenz’ in Medienpädagogik: Eine Standortbestimmung, ed CW Trültzsch-Wijnen, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 161-180. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW 2020, Medienhandeln zwischen Kompetenz, Performanz und Literacy, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, forthcoming. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW, Murru, MF, Papaioannou, T 2017, ‘Definitions and values in a historical context’ in Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe: cross-country comparisons, eds D Frau-Meigs, J Flores & I Velez, pp. 91-115. Trültzsch-Wijnen, CW, Trültzsch-Wijnen, S, Siibak, A 2015, ‘Using and not using social media: what triggers young people’s SNS practices?’ in Revitalising Audience Research: Innovations in European Audience Research, eds F Zeller, C Ponte & B O’Neill, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 176-194. Trültzsch-Wijnen, S & Pscheida, D 2013, ‘Privatheit – Privatsphäre: Normative Konzepte im Wandel’, Medienimpulse, no. 1/2013. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Trültzsch-Wijnen, S 2018, Identität, Orientierung und Lebenswelt: Ein mehrdimensionaler Blick auf situatives Aushandeln von Privatheit im Social Web, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Truschkat, I 2010, ‘Kompetenz – Eine neue Rationalität sozialer Differenzierung?’ in Soziologie der Kompetenz, eds T Kurtz & M Pfadenhauer, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 69-84. Turcilo, L & Tajic, L 2014, Media and Information Policies in Bosnia-Herzegovina, TRANSLIT, Paris.

References

381

Türkoğlu, N & Ayyildiz, E 2014, Media and Information Policies in Turkey, TRANSLIT, Paris. Tyner, K 1998, Literacy in a Digital World. Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London & Mahwah, NJ. Tyner, K 2004, ‘Beyond Boxes and Wires: Literacy in Transition’, Television and New Media, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 371-388. UNESCO 2003, The Prague declaration: Towards an information literate society, Information Literacy Meeting of Experts. Available from: [03 May 2019]. UNESCO 2013, Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework. Country Readiness and Competencies, UNESCO, Paris. Available from: [03 May 2019]. United Nations 1989, Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Unsworth, L 2009, ‘Multiliteracies and Metalanguage: Describing Image/Text Relations as a Resource for Negotiating Multimodal Texts’ in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & DJ Leu, Routledge, London, pp. 377-405. Urbančíková, N, Manakova, N & Bielcheva, G 2017, ‘Socio-Economic and Regional Factors of Digital Literacy Related to Prosperity’ in Quality Innovation Prosperity / Kvalita Inovácia Prosperita, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 124-141. Urista, MA, Dong, Q & Day KD 2009, ‘Explaining Why Young Adults Use MySpace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Theory’, Human Communication, vol. 12, no. 2, pp.215 - 229. Uski, S & Lampinen, A 2016, ‘Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action’, New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 447-464. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Uusitalo, N 2010, ‘Constructing Media Literacy as a Civic Competence’ in Media Literacy Education. Nordic Perspectives, eds S Kotilainen & SB Arnolgs-Garnlund, Nordicom, Gothenburg, pp. 69-67. Valkenburg, PM, Peter, J & Walther, JB 2016, ‘Media Effects: Theory and Research’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 315-338. Van Audenhove, L, Marien, I, Segers, K, Fastrez, P & De Smedt, T 2014, Media and Information Literacy Policies in Belgium, TRANSLIT, Paris. Van Leeuwen, T 2005, Introducing social semiotics, Routledge, London. van Rees, K & van Eijk, K 2003, ‘Media repertoires of selective audiences: the impact of status, gender, and age on media use’, Poetics, vol. 31, pp. 465–490. Vandewater, EA 2017, ‘Ecological Approaches to the Study of Media and Children’ in The Routledge International Handbook of Children, Adolescents and Media, ed D Lemish, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 46-53. Vansteenkiste, M & Ryan, RM 2013, ‘On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle’, Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 263-280. Varis, T 2010, ‘Understanding Media Literacy’ in Children and Youth in the Digital Media Culture. From a Nordic Horizon, ed U Carlsson, The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, Gothenburg, pp. 75-84. Veith, H. (2004). Zum Wandel des theoretischen Selbstverständnisses vergesellschafteter Individuen. In D. Geulen & H. Veith (Hrsg.). Sozialisationstheorie interdisziplinär: Aktuelle Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius Vester, M 2006, ‘Die ständische Kanalisierung der Bildungschancen’, in Soziale Ungleichheit im Bildungssystem, ed W Georg, UVK, Konstanz, pp. 13-54. Vieira, K 2013, ‘On the Social Consequences of Literacy’, Literacy in Composition Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26-32. Available from: [03 May 2019]

382

References

Viola de Azevedo Cunha, M 2017, Child Privacy in the Age of Web 2.0 and 3.0: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy, Innocenti Discussion Paper, UNICEF Office of Research. Vittadini, N, Siibak, A, Reifova, I & Bilandzic, H 2014, ‘Generations and Media: The Social Construction of Generational Identity and Differences’ in Audience Transformations: Shifting Audience Positions in Late Modernity, eds N Carpentier, KC Schrøder & L Hallett, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 65-81. Vollbrecht, R 2007, ‘Der sozialökologsche Ansatz der Mediensozialisation’ in Mediensozialisationstheorien: Neue Modelle und Ansätze in der Diskussion, eds D Hoffmann & L Mikos, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 93-108. Vonken, M 2004, Handlung und Kompetenz. Theoretische Perspektiven für die Erwachsenen- und Berufspädagogik, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Vonken, M 2011, ‘Kritische Anmerkungen zum Kompetenzbegriff’ in Kompetenzorientierung in der beruflichen Bildung, eds M Bethschneider, G Höhns, Gabriala & G Münchhausen, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp. 21-32. Vrabec, N & Petranova, D 2014, Media and Information Policies in the Slovakia, TRANSLIT, Paris. Vuorikari, R, Punie, Y, Carretero, S & van den Brande, L 2016, DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Wadsworth, BJ 2004, Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development, Pearson. Waechter, N, Triebswetter, K & Jäger, B 2011, ‘Vernetzte Jugend Online. Social Networking Sites und ihre Nutzung in Österreich’ in Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web: Bildbezogenes Handeln und Peergroup-Kommunikation auf Facebook & Co, eds K Neumann-Braun & U Autenrieth, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 55-78. Wagner, U 2011, Medienhandeln, Medienkonvergenz und Sozialisation: Empirie und gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Perspektiven, kopaed, Munich. Wagner, U, Brüggen, N & Gebel, C 2009, Web 2.0 als Rahmen für Selbstdarstellung und Vernetzung Jugendlicher. Analyse von jugendnahen Internetplattformen und ausgewählten Selbstdarstellungen von 14- bis 20-Jährigen, JFF, Munich. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Wagner, U, Eggert, S & Schubert, G 2016, MoFam – Mobile Medien in der Familie. Available from: https://www.jff.de/fileadmin/user_upload/jff/projekte/mofam/JFF_MoFam1_ gesamtStudie.pdf [03 May 2019]. Wahl, S, Klimmt, C & Sowka, A 2014, ‘Außerschulische Medienkompetenzarbeit: Akteure, Prioritäten, erlebte Herausforderungen’, M&K, vol. 62, no. 2, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 236-256. Warming, H 2016, ‘Playing with socially constructed identity positions: accessing and reconstructing children’s perspectives and positions through ethnographic fieldwork and creative workshops’ in Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New perspectives in Childhood Studies, eds F Esser, MS Baader, T Betz & B Hungerland, Routledge, New York, pp, 119-131. Warschauer, M 2003, Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide, MIT Press, Cambridge. Waters, T 2012, Schooling, Childhood, and Bureaucracy. Bureaucratizing the Child, Palgrave, New York. Watson, JB & Rayner, R 1920, ‘Conditioned emotional reactions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-14. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Watson, JB 1913, ‘Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it’, Psychological Review, no. 20, pp. 158-177. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Watson-Manheim, MB & Bélanger, F 2007, ‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media Choices’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 267-293.

References

383

Webb, LM & Temple, N 2016, ‘Social Media and Gender Issues’ in Handbook of Research on the Societal Impact of Digital Media, eds B Guzzetti, & M Lesley, IGI Global, Hershey, PA:, pp. 638-669. Weber, M 1922, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Webster, JG & Ksiazek, TB 2012, ‘The dynamics of audience fragmentation: public attention in an age of digital media’, Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 39-56. Weiß, R. (2000). ‘Praktischer Sinn’, soziale Identität und Fern-Sehen: Ein Konzept für die Analyse der Einbettung kulturellen Handelns in die Alltagswelt. M&K 48/1, 42-62 Weinert, FE 1998, ‘Vermittlung von Schüsselqualifikationen’ in Entwicklungen Aus- und Weiterbildung – Anforderungen, Ziele, Konzepte, ed. S Matalik & D Schade, Nomos, BadenBaden, pp. 23-43. Weinert, FE 1999, Concepts of Competence. Contribution to the OECD-Project ‘Definition and Selection of Competencies. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations’, DeSeCo, Neuchatel. Weinert, FE 2001, ‘Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification’ in Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, eds DS Rychen & LH Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Goettingen, pp. 45-65. Weissensteiner, E & Leiner, DJ 2011, ‘Facebook in der Wissenschaft: Forschung zu sozialen Onlinenetzwerken’, M&K, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 526-544. Westera, W 2001, Competences in education: A confusion of tongues, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 75-88. Westlund, O & Bjur, J 2013, ‘Mobile News Life of Young’ in Mobile Media Practices, Presence and Politics: The Challenge of Being Seamlessly Mobile, eds K Chumskey & L Hjorth, Routledge, New York, pp. 180-197. Westlund, O & Bjur, J 2014, ‘Media Life of the Young’, Young, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 21-41. White, RW 1959, ‘Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence’, Psychological Review, vol. 66, pp. 297-333. Wiedemann, T & Meyen, M 2013, ‘Warum Bourdieu, warum internationale Perspektiven? Eine Einführung’ in Pierre Bourdieu und die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Internationale Perspektiven, eds T Wiedemann & M Meyen, Herbert von Halem, Köln, S. 7-19. Wijnen, CW & Trültzsch, S 2014, ‘Participatory Design as an Innovative Approach to Research on Young Audiences’ in Audience Research Methodologies: Between Innovation and Consolidation, eds G Patriarche, H Bilandzic, JL Jensen & J Jurišić, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 73-86. Wijnen, CW 2008, Medien und Pädagogik international. Positionen, Ansätze und Zukunftsperspektiven in Europa und den USA, kopaed, Munich. Wijnen, CW 2010, ‘Making Sense of Model Casting Shows: A Peer-to-Peer Research Project’, paper presented at the European Communication Conference, Hamburg. Wijnen, CW 2011, Model-Castingshows im Alltag von Jugendlichen: Projektbericht. Available fr om : [21.11.2016]. Willemse, I, Waller, G & Süss, D 2010, JAMES, Jugend-Aktivitäten-Medien-Erhebung Schweiz. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Wilxon, C, Grizzle, A., Tuazon, R, Akyempong, K & Cheung, C-K 2011, Media and Information Curriculum for Teachers, UNESCO, Paris. Winter, S, Haferkamp, N, Stock, Y & Krämer, NC 2011, ‘The Digital Quest for Love – The Role of Relationship Status in Self-Presentation on Social Networking Sites’, Cyberpsychology, vol. 5, no. 2. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Wirth, U 2002, ‘Der Performanzbegriff im Spannungsfeld von Illokution, Iteration und Indexikalität’ in Performanz – Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften, ed U Wirth, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 9-60.

384

References

Wirth, W & Brecht, M 1999, ‘Selektion und Rezeption im WWW: Eine Typologie’ in Selektion im Internet: Empirische Analysen zu einem Schlüsselkonzept, eds W Wirth & W Schweiger, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 149-180. Wolfsfeld, G, Yarchi, M & Samuel-Azran, T 2016, ‘Political information repertoires and political participation’, new media & society, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 2096-2115. WSIS 2003, Plan of Action, WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/5-E. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Wunderli, P (ed.) 2014, Ferdinand de Saussure: Cours de linguistique générale. Studienausgabe in deutscher Sprache, Narr, Tuebingen. Wünsch, C, Schramm, H, Gehrau, V & Bilandzic, H 2014, ‘Vorwort’ in Handbuch Medienrezeption, eds C Wünsch, H Schramm, V Gehrau & H Bilandzic, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Wyatt-Smith, C & Elkins, 2009, ‘Multimodal reading and comprehension in online environments’ in Handbook of research on new literacies, eds J Coiro, M Knobel, C Lankshear & D Leu, Routledge, New York, pp. 899–940. Yamagata-Lynch, LC 2010, Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments, Springer Science + Business Media, New York & London. Young, A, Quan-Haase, A 2013, ‘Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 479-500. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Yuan, E 2011, ‘News Consumption Across Multiple Media Platforms’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 998-1016. Zac, C & Laufenberg, D 2011, ‘Embracing the Squishiness of Digital Literacy’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Litracy, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 535-537. Zahle, J 2012, ‘Practical Knowledge and Participant Observation’, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, vol. 55, No. 1. pp. 50-65. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Zartler, U, Kogler, R & Zuccato, M 2018, Digitale Medien im Volksschulalter: Perspektiven von Kindern und ihren Eltern. Available from: [03 May 2019]. Zizek, B 2017, ‘Digital Socialization? An Exploratory Sequential Analysis of Anonymous Adolescent Internet-Social Interaction’, Human Development, vol. 60, no. 5., pp. 203-232. Zurkowski, P 1974, The information service environment: relationships and priorities, National Commission on Libaries and Information Science, Washington, DC.