| Audiences’ Communicative Agency in a Datafied Age: Interpretative, Relational and Increasingly Prospective. Journal Article Brita Ytre-Arne; Ranjana Das In: Communication Theory, vol. 0, no. C, pp. 1-19, 2020, ISSN: 1050–3293, (Pre SFI). @article{Arne2020c,
title = {Audiences’ Communicative Agency in a Datafied Age: Interpretative, Relational and Increasingly Prospective.},
author = {Brita Ytre-Arne and Ranjana Das},
url = {https://watermark.silverchair.com/qtaa018.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAtAwggLMBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggK9MIICuQIBADCCArIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM-cFhCl8ql-5yUsJoAgEQgIICg0JoOiOVaCIdOstGjiiVpYuTKzqRfP7Hb1L0JBUB7TMpOQ5ya4v7afXtJvvTasi126A8qHSxK2rDZfeWFajUD34XXIbXVfimKI-a7-dZNYNjF6xn9p5OzsBABo10PuVtS5bHE4B3RSURKpRgGKXIyem7o-HzoTgKWKxJjRuOEVJNX4XjUC9-D9C7f8n3BItvYkMJqiX8NRSmuM3MI1MmhCjjtrUEOaURe-mCNKonobiYtkdoywElD9W7SG0ZQg9nigzcJmEH36Rbf3jzaGMMQhOsTv0NCAFwm52wxxeqt1jlSX6GmjMPmwTTmhZNGPE-sD0j3VZEfzqZNb5RqOBv2tih20z3kz2mBAU_25OlUThhSQ_G9-dNMVfVsuKMbo6TnS8EUotKdlWDmmenYUmQdHFx6KHA2mFn3j0AYyqz9Kolc2HeSSu4JJhZMZGHIUkNVC5c-GPPCzpO4D5pCT3pNw2d4mK037ziOWPOKcr29Ak2sJlQ05rcn4NovqBWrNIeRQRuhlVyNI7nr7bIXXFMwogvhFttUt3IxH68cYD6nNQ1Gbtl2BwygLseOwrwZA_6irZcqueVtAwqzMchowERFcKR8gMPKyDiDGPfbbKMNvqeHeIvemaQSLnfLM7Lfj9-OYtxOgF6CxZTrbOcCTUVpnvwTIZO1Oq2amSRBEb2lCORDiegqrxTitstUZ141VXW5bId94vwLuZqPoYA58nNcF0_2WzAOB69owF5B7D_ofDUTA2tBAhuvcvwKpAB5t_bhLDscuVfVGcYi5azd06oQ9PJWPV5EigzleuyHR57_cVyPpYkXe-PimZJ6iZzEhnmYZE0v9A_9F2LYm9dwfEryznsCog},
doi = {10.1093/ct/qtaa018},
issn = {1050–3293},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-24},
journal = {Communication Theory},
volume = {0},
number = {C},
pages = {1-19},
abstract = {This article develops a conceptualization of audience agency in the face of datafication. We consider how people, as audiences and users of media and technologies, face transforming communicative conditions, and how these conditions challenge the power potentials of audiences in processes of communication—that is, their communicative agency. To develop our conceptualization, we unpack the concept of audiences’ communicative agency by examining its foundations in communication scholarship, in reception theory and sociology, arguing that agency is understood as interpretative and relational, and applied to make important normative assessments. We further draw on emerging scholarship on encounters with data in the everyday to discuss how audience agency is now challenged by datafication, arguing that communicative agency is increasingly prospective in a datafied age. Thereby, we provide a theoretical conceptualization for further analysis of audiences in transforming communicative conditions.},
note = {Pre SFI},
keywords = {Agency, Audiences, Datafication, Everyday, Interpretation, Prospection, Reception Theory, Sociological Theory, Structure, Technology, WP1: Understanding Media Experiences},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article develops a conceptualization of audience agency in the face of datafication. We consider how people, as audiences and users of media and technologies, face transforming communicative conditions, and how these conditions challenge the power potentials of audiences in processes of communication—that is, their communicative agency. To develop our conceptualization, we unpack the concept of audiences’ communicative agency by examining its foundations in communication scholarship, in reception theory and sociology, arguing that agency is understood as interpretative and relational, and applied to make important normative assessments. We further draw on emerging scholarship on encounters with data in the everyday to discuss how audience agency is now challenged by datafication, arguing that communicative agency is increasingly prospective in a datafied age. Thereby, we provide a theoretical conceptualization for further analysis of audiences in transforming communicative conditions. |
| On the distinction between implicit and explicit ethical agency Conference Sjur Dyrkolbotn; Truls Pedersen; Marija Slavkovik Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '18), 2018, (Pre SFI). @conference{Dyrkolbotn2018,
title = {On the distinction between implicit and explicit ethical agency},
author = {Sjur Dyrkolbotn and Truls Pedersen and Marija Slavkovik},
url = {https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3278721.3278769},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278769},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-12-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '18)},
pages = {74–80},
abstract = {With recent advances in artificial intelligence and the rapidly increasing importance of autonomous intelligent systems in society, it is becoming clear that artificial agents will have to be designed to comply with complex ethical standards. As we work to develop moral machines, we also push the boundaries of existing legal categories. The most pressing question is what kind of ethical decision-making our machines are actually able to engage in. Both in law and in ethics, the concept of agency forms a basis for further legal and ethical categorisations, pertaining to decision-making ability. Hence, without a cross-disciplinary understanding of what we mean by ethical agency in machines, the question of responsibility and liability cannot be clearly addressed. Here we make first steps towards a comprehensive definition, by suggesting ways to distinguish between implicit and explicit forms of ethical agency.},
note = {Pre SFI},
keywords = {Agency, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomy, Epistemology, Ethics, WP2: User Modeling Personalization and Engagement},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
With recent advances in artificial intelligence and the rapidly increasing importance of autonomous intelligent systems in society, it is becoming clear that artificial agents will have to be designed to comply with complex ethical standards. As we work to develop moral machines, we also push the boundaries of existing legal categories. The most pressing question is what kind of ethical decision-making our machines are actually able to engage in. Both in law and in ethics, the concept of agency forms a basis for further legal and ethical categorisations, pertaining to decision-making ability. Hence, without a cross-disciplinary understanding of what we mean by ethical agency in machines, the question of responsibility and liability cannot be clearly addressed. Here we make first steps towards a comprehensive definition, by suggesting ways to distinguish between implicit and explicit forms of ethical agency. |
