Internet in Terms of the Concept of Public Sphere - Research Paper Example

? Internet in Terms of the Concept of Public Sphere Total Number of Words: 6,006 Executive Summary This study aims to analyse the significance of using the Internet in public sphere. Based on the gathered academic journals that were published between 2009 to 2013, the use of traditional mass media platform has its own limitation in the sense that the structure of using the old traditional communication tools is limited to top-down system. It is through the use of the Internet that makes it possible for us to have a bottom-up communication structure. The use of the Internet also removes geographic barriers within the public sphere. It means that the use of the Internet and social networking sites allows the general public to easily spread out news and personal comments worldwide. Specifically the theory of Habermas with regards to public sphere is no longer applicable in online public sphere. For this reason, this study highly recommends the need to modify Habermas’ theory on online public sphere. Table of Contents Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 2 Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………… 3 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 4 2. Literature Review …………………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 General Information about Public Sphere …………………………….… 5 2.2 Herbamas Theory in Public Sphere ………………………………...…... 6 2.3 Differences between the Use of the Internet and Traditional Mass Media ……………………………………………….... 9 2.4 Significance of the Internet within the Context of Public Sphere ….…… 12 2.4.1 Main Actors in Online Public Sphere …..……………..……. 12 2.4.2 Advantages of Internet within the Concept of Public Sphere.. 13 2.4.3 Impact of Internet on Users’ Attitude and Behaviour ……..… 14 2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………. 16 3 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………. 18 References ………………………………………………………………………………… 20 - 25 1. Introduction In relation to globalization, the use of the Internet together with a widerange of different social networking tools and other digital gadgets plays a significant role in today’s communication (Khan et al., 2011). In line with this, a lot of private and state-owned companies today are using their own websites, e-mail, and chat rooms to facilitate communication between and amongst the group of business people, customers, and employees (James, 2008). Likewise, the same communication platform is currently being used by the government sector for political communication and persuasion as well as online campaign purposes (Hepburn, 2012; Ameripour, Nicholson and Newman, 2010; Robertson, Vatrapu and Medina, 2010; Wattal et al., 2010), public libraries which aim to promote community learning purposes (Jaeger et al., 2011; Nawaz et al., 2011), educational institutions for online academic teaching and learning purposes (Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes, 2009), and religious sectors that aim to educate people about the importance of renewing their religious faith (Dinham and Jones, 2012). The main purpose of this study is to explore and analyse the significance of the Internet within the concept of public sphere. In general, the public sphere is referring to a medium where people can freely observe and communicate a wide-range of social issues as well as political and economic concerns (Gerhards and Schafer, 2009). Because of the role of the Internet in today’s modern mode of communication, it is necessary to closely examine how the use of the Internet has significantly affects the traditional context of public sphere. The target readers of this study include those individuals who are currently studying the significance of public sphere within the modern modes of communication. To ensure that the readers will gain better understanding of the research topic, a literature review will be conducted not only with regards to the general information about the public sphere but also other relevant theories that were created to help explain the concept of public sphere. After differentiating the use of the Internet with the traditional mass media methods (i.e. television, print, and radio media), the literature review will focus on analyzing the significance of the Internet with the context of public sphere. Before identinfying and analyzing the theoretical arguments of different authors with regards to the significance of the Internet in the modern public sphere, part of the literature review aims to identify the main actors within the Internet communication sphere and the differences between online and offline Internet communication. Eventually, the impact of the Internet on users’ behavior and different world views (i.e. religious context, political point-of-views, members of the mass media, and the general public) will be analysed and tackled in details. 2. Literature Review 2.1 General Information about Public Sphere The public sphere is referring to the space where ideas are being transferred or communicated from one person to another. It can also pertain to a space where people can easily share their personal opinion within the public domain. In other words, public sphere aims to create communication link between and among the general public (Bee and Bozzini, 2010). Considering the main function of public sphere, Khan et al. (2011) argued that the public sphere can act as the mediator between the state and the society. Over the years, the availability of communication tools has emerged from the use of electric telegraphy, telephone, radio, and television (Khan et al., 2011). It was only recently that developments in digital technologies such as the use of the Internet, computers, and digital social networking has emerged (Nawaz, 2011, 2010). As a result, the traditional public sphere which was once based on the use of television, printed materials, and radio media has transformed into the development of a more globalized public sphere (Khan et al., 2011; Nawaz, 2011). In other words, interactive communication within the online public sphere has become multimodal (Douai and Nofal, 2012; Khan et al., 2011). Therefore, Khan et al. (2011) strongly suggest that the online public sphere is no longer limited by any form of geographic or territorial boundaries. The online public sphere a.k.a. electronic public sphere (e-public sphere), virtual public sphere, or the cyberspace is pertaining to online or virtual site where people could discuss an issue with another person or a group of people (Khan et al., 2011; Li, 2010). Within the online public sphere, Li (2010) mentioned that the general public can have the opportunity to discuss various topics ranging from trivial issues to political, economic, and social concerns. Aside from playing online games and sharing of digital music, videos, and photos via Spotify, YouTube, and Flickr respectively, the use of the Internet also allows people to communicate on a 24/7 basis using e-mail (i.e. yahoo and Google), public chat rooms, instant messaging (IMs), online discussion forums, and social networking sites (i.e. Facebook) (Khan et al., 2011; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Nawaz and Kundi, 2010; Baym, 2009). In relation to the different online platforms which can be used for online communication purposes, one can easily argue that the use of online public sphere is more interactive and more inviting as compared to the use of the traditional communication platform (Mrva-Montoya, 2012). 2.2 Habermas’ Theory in Public Sphere One of the most well-known theories in public sphere was publicly introduced by Jurgen Habermas. In line with this, Habermas considered the public sphere as a significant part of people’s social life wherein their public opinion can be used in developing public debates and that anything that people would end up in an agreement can be used in forming traditions (Khan et al., 2011). Unlike the use of the traditional mass media, Gerhards and Schafer (2009) mentioned that Habermas considered the use of the Internet as a better option in terms of promoting a “free and plural societal communication” which is not possible with the use of the traditional mass media. Habermas himself created the first theory that was designed to describe what the public sphere is all about (Iosifidis, 2011). Based on the theory of Habermas, the public sphere is a space whereby most of the private individuals are able to gather in one place in order to exchange new ideas and useful information which are essential in the formation of a debate concerning various issues that can affect the lives of most people (English, 2013). In relation to the use of the traditional mass media such as the radio, television, and newspaper, Habermas way back the 18th century considered the European bourgeois sphere as a space whereby most of the lower class citizens or the marginalized1 people who lives within a society were not given the opportunity to participate in a rational discussion concerning societal issues (Douai and Nofal, 2012). Back in 18th century, Douai and Nofal (2012) mentioned that the public sphere was highly dependent over the use of the traditional form of mass media. Even though Habermas pointed out that all parts of the society which includes the family and friends should be considered as a signifiant part of the public sphere (Chaudhary, Avis and Munn-Giddings, 2013), most of the general public failed to have the opportunity to share or voice out their public opinion with regards to social, poilitical, or economic activities. Since the use of the traditional mass media tools offer a top-down communication structure, Chaudhary, Avis and Munn-Giddings (2013) explained that it is often the state or the elite group of individuals which include the politicians and religious sector who often had the control over the messages or information that are spread out to the public. Specifically Habermas’ theory in public sphere was strongly influenced by Immanuel Kant’s concept of procedural rationality (English, 2013; O'Brien, 2009). In line with this, English (2013) mentioned that the theory of Habermas was inspired by the bourgeois society back in late 17th and 18th century when the state policies were strongly talked about using the ideals of Kantian’s procedural rationality. Pertaining to the term “rationality”, Habermas (1984, p. vi) explained that the communicative action within the public sphere is not tied up or limited by each person’s subjectivism or individualistic point-of-view especially when addressing certain philosophical or social ideas or principles. In most cases, the common topic of discussion that occurs within the public sphere is often linked to democracy in the sense that the general public or the local citiens are given the opportunity or are required to gather and participate in public discussion on certain political, environmental, economic, health, and social issues (English, 2013; Hirzalla and Zoonen, 2010; Cukier et al., 2009; Dalgren, 2009). With this in mind, one may consider that the public sphere is no longer made out of a single entity but is composed of a large number of different public spheres that are present within a given society (Iosifidis, 2011). Serving as a potential ground for a public debate, the use of the Internet has been considered by the Utopians as a good vehicle that can provide people with the best space where they can independently and freely share their personal information (English, 2013; Benkler, 2006). In line with this, Iosifidis (2011) explained that the presence of the Internet made it possible to trasform the traditional public sphere into a multi-layered online public sphere using the social networks. As a result, more people are given the opportunity to engage themselves in the process of shaping the current online communication structure (Iosifidis, 2011). In other words, each member of the society are being empowered to voice out their personal concerns through the use of online social networking sites. Considering the shift from the traditional public sphere to the use of online public sphere, the theory of Habermas with regards to the structure of communicative action has been widely used in the study of both online civil and political public sphere (Khan, Gilani and Nawaz, 2012; Breese, 2011; el-Nawawy and Khamis, 2011; Freelon, 2010; Cukier et al., 2009; Gerhards and Schafer, 2009). Because of the shift from the use of the traditional public sphere to the use of online public sphere, question arises as to whether or not the use of the Internet within the context of public sphere could make any difference in the way people are using the traditional public sphere. After analyzing the differences between Habermas’ model of public sphere and the new public sphere using the Internet and digital technologies, Khan, Gilani and Nawaz (2012) found out that the use of the Internet and other related digital technologies (i.e. social networking, digital photo sharing, etc.) is not totally irrelevant or different from Habermas’ suggestion on what the public sphere is but rather the use of the Internet and other related digital technologies is very much supportive in terms of enhancing the development of a more ideal public sphere. In other words, the use of the Internet and other related digital technologies has shifted the paradigm of a traditional public sphere from the national to a more globalized level (Khan, Gilani and Nawaz, 2012). 2.3 Differences between the Use of the Internet and Traditional Mass Media There are quite a lot of differences between the use of the Internet and traditional mass media. One of the most obvious differences between the use of the Internet and traditional mass media is the time requirement before messages can be send out to the public (Jacobs and Townsley, 2013). Using the Internet, Jacobs and Townsley (2013) explained that people in general can easily post whatever thought they have in mind. It simply means that through the use of traditional mass media such as printed forums in news paper or magazine, it may take awhile before the author can successfully send out their personal thoughts and opinion to the general public. Likewise, information that is being transferred through the use of the traditional mass media is often highly regulated by the news paper or magazine companies, radio broadcasting and television network but not so much as compared to the use of the Internet (Valcke, 2011). Furthermore, the use of the traditional mass media sends out knowledge and information using a top-down structure whereas the use of the Internet makes it possible to spread new information based on a bottom-up structure (Douai and Nofal, 2012; Graham, 2011). After examining the differences between the use of mobile phones and Internet in public places, Hampton, Livio and Goulet (2010) found out that the use of the Internet enables people to easily interact with a more diverse group of friends and loved ones as compared to the use of mobile phone. In other words, one of the advantages of using the latest online communication network is that the use of the Internet broadens people’s participation or engagement within the online public sphere (Cha, 2010; Hampton, Livio and Goulet, 2010). The use of the Internet as a form of communication medium enables people to send their messages across the world on a 24/7 basis (Khan et al., 2011). Aside from allowing people in general to have better access to a wide-range of public information, Internet connectivity promotes special collaboration at work as it gives people more option to engage themselves in online discussion (Shirky, 2011). This context is true since most of the existing software related to videos, photos, and online messages overlaps with one another in such a way that the online public spheres look more appealing in the eyes of the end-users (Robertson, Vatrapu and Medina, 2010). The current online public sphere is also widely known for being self-governing (West, 2013). It means that the general public can easily make use of the online public sphere without the need to pass through strict regulations. Within one second, the end-users can easily upload their personal photos and videos in social networking sites (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). The general public is also given the freedom to express their thoughts and opinion online. For this reason, the use of the Internet is expected to increase public participation with regards to social, environmental, economic, health, and political issues (West, 2013; Dahlgren, 2005). As explained by Cha (2010), one of the common barriers behind the use of the social media is the lack of skills when it comes to the use of the modern technology. It simply means that so long as people own online gadgets, adaptable to the use of online technology, and have ready access to the Internet, the online network will continuously spread various information and messages virally (Douai and Nofal, 2012; Khan et al., 2011; Min, 2010). Other possible barriers for the use of online public sphere include differences in the use of language (Chaudhary, Avis and Munn-Giddings, 2013). Unlike the use of traditional mass media such as printed materials like newspapers and magazines, telephone, or postal letters, West (2013, p. 155) argued that the use of the Internet is more powerful in terms of allowing people to spread out information and organize “social action and protest”. In fact, the use of the Internet creates an online public sphere wherein the local government authorities may have serious challenges when it comes to controlling the sentiments of people within the national and international boundaries (Douai and Nofal, 2012). For instance, the use of the Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds allows the bloggers to easily announce their latest blogs online (Bruns et al., 2011). In other words, one of the advantages of using the Internet is that the use of this particular communication technology can rapidly diffuse messages and information across the world (Khan et al., 2011). Often times, the use of the online public sphere make it more impossible for the local government to control or limit the spread of controversial issues within the national boundaries (Douai and Nofal, 2012). Using the theory of Habermas in public sphere, Gerhards and Schafer (2009) examined the differences between the use of the Internet and the old mass media in public sphere. After comparing the use of the mass media communication and the Internet based on the differences between its structural pre-requisites, influence in the society, and the openness in terms of participation particularly in the case of US and Germany, Gerhards and Schafer (2009) found out that there is no significant different between the use of the Internet and print media. Considering all the advantages associated with the use of online public sphere, one can easily contest that the use of the Internet is totally different from the use of the traditional mass media methods in the sense that the use of the Internet enabled us to gradually shift from the use of the national communication domain into a more globalized communication domain. Through the use of the Internet, Khan et al. (2011) mentioned that it is possible for people to promote the importance of global governance. 2.4 Significance of the Internet within the Context of Public Sphere 2.4.1 Main Actors in Online Public Sphere The main actors in online public sphere vary depending on the main purpose where the cyberspace is being used. For example, each time the online public sphere is being used to discuss political issues, the list of main actors within the online public sphere may include the general public, various government and non-government organizations, a large group of activists, and business organizations among others (Shirky, 2011). When it comes to political campaigns, Robertson, Vatrapu and Medina (2010) mentioned that the main actors within the online public sphere may include the electoral candidates and the voters. Also related to the use of the online public sphere, Davis (2010) identified the main actors in politics as the journalists, the officials, and the politicians but not much among the ordinary citizens. In most cases, the main actors in online public sphere are very much diverse. For instance, the general public or the local citizens can participate in online public spheres as either audience participants (Ruiz et al., 2011) or as observer (Li, 2010; Gerhards and Schafer, 2009). In line with this, Ruiz et al. (2011) explained that the audience participants are part of the general public or local citizens who prefer to express their point-of-views or feelings on certain social, economic, environmental, or political events. Within the educational institutions, the common actors include the school teachers and the students (Selwyn, 2009). Applicable within the religious sector, it is possible that those who are religious actors can freely participate in the online public sphere even though they act in a non-religious manner (Kohrsen, 2012). Instead of having a large group of actors within the national boundaries, the use of the Internet can help create the development of global actors and audiences (Douai and Nofal, 2012). 2.4.2 Advantages of Internet within the Concept of Public Sphere One of the most obvious advantages of using the social networking sites as a public sphere is that this particular mode of communication is free for public use (Mrva-Montoya, 2012). So long as the general public has access to the Internet, one can easily tag messages, organize online activities, share videos and photos to friends and search links for online resources (Cann, Dimitriou and Hooley, 2011). Furthermore, the use of the Internet makes it possible to spread new information based on either a top-down or bottom-up structure (Graham, 2011). The use of traditional mass media such as radio and television allows one-way communication from radio broadcaster and television networks to the general public (Udomisor, 2013). The same concept applies to printed news papers and magazines. In line with this, the use of the Internet as a public sphere removes the practice of a one-way communication which is common with the use of the traditional mass media (Mrva-Montoya, 2012; Tuten, 2008). 2.4.3 Impact of Internet on Users’ Attitude and Behaviour The impact of the Internet on users’ behaviour can either be positive or negative. For instance, after examining the main causes of psychological stress or online tension when using the social networking sites, Binder, Howes and Sutchliffe (2009) found out that the use of social networking sites such as Facebook can increase the risks of developing online tension when used among family members and relatives as compared to work or social-related purposes. With regards to data protection and privacy, Debatin et al. (2009) found out that these issues are not enough to demotivate people from using the social networking sites since most of the social networking sites allow the users to control individuals who can view their personal profiles. As a form of public sphere, the use of the Internet enables a person to develop a positive attitude or behaviour because it gives them the freedom to enjoy their rights on personal expression (Khan et al., 2011). After examining the determinants of online user participation among 450 research survey respondents, Zhou (2011) found out that group norm and social identity has a significant impact on user participation. Likewise, the availability of internet connectivity in public places can also increase the general public’s decision to engage themselves in the use of online public sphere (Hampton, Livio and Goulet, 2010). After examining the effects of using Facebook on users’ self-esteem, Gonzales and Hancock (2011) found out that the users’ self-esteem can be enhanced just by allowing the users to view their own profile on Facebook. In other words, self-presentation using the social networking sites increases the users’ desire to rely more on the use of the online public sphere. With regards to online shopping, online customers are most likely to develop either a positive or negative behaviour on online shopping practices depending on their previous experiences in online purchasing (Hernandez, Jimenez and Martin, 2011). The Internet can be used in getting access to online news reports. In line with this, Kang et al. (2013) examined how each person can be motivated in participating in online news reading, online news sharing, and their individual perception on online discussion. Based on the structural equation modelling result, Kang et al. (2013) revealed that there is a significant relationship between online “news reading and sharing behaviour”. However, online reading behaviour has no significant impact over each person’s decision to participate in online news discussion (Kang et al., 2013). Likewise, Internet technology is commonly used when setting out and implementing a long list of political objectives (Fritsch, 2011) or political campaigns (Robertson, Vatrapu and Medina, 2010). However, it is a common misconception that the use of the Internet as a public sphere can help increase success in political campaign, political communication and persuasion. This argument is true since there are several limitations as to what the Internet technology can do to enlighten political conversation. For instance, after examining the influence of social networking sites on the end-users’ political attitude and behaviour (i.e. Facebook, My Space and YouTube), Zhang et al. (2010) found out that the end-users’ decision to make use of the social networking sites can effectively increase civic participation. However, the use of social networking sites does not literally affect the end-users’ decision to participate in political discussion (Zhang et al., 2010). Likewise, Khan et al. (2011) mentioned that not all people have ready access to the Internet and that people who are computer illiterate are prevented from using online public sphere. Furthermore, the development of online network is highly dependent on social fragmentation and individualism. Because of these reasons, it is unlikely for all people to easily read whatever that is posted online (Khan et al., 2011). Considering these arguments, one can easily argue that the use of the Internet as a form of public sphere could somehow create “digital divide” (Min, 2010). 3. Discussion One of the most obvious differences between the use of the traditional mass media and the Internet is that the application of traditional mass media tools often follows a top-down dissemination of information whereas the use of the Internet makes it possible to create a bottom-up communication structure within the public sphere (Douai and Nofal, 2012; Graham, 2011). Furthermore, the use of the Internet and online social media technology has transformed the usual public sphere into an uncensored and more interactive global communication (Douai and Nofal, 2012; Khan et al., 2011). Related to the use of the traditional form of mass media, the use of top-down communication structure often makes the general public becomes the passive part of the public sphere (Chaudhary, Avis and Munn-Giddings, 2013). It simply means that the general public normally acts as the main observer within the public sphere. Since it was common for important messages to come from the state or few well-known individuals, the only thing that the general public can do is to listen closely to what these people would say. The process of incorporating the use of the Internet within the public sphere actually removes communication barriers on the part of the general public. Instead of simply acting as the main observer within the public sphere, the general public now-a-days, including the less fortunate ones and the minorities have the option to voice out whatever they have in mind. As such, the process of promoting the use of bottom-up communication structure empowers the general public within the public sphere. Instead of acting as an audience, the general public can now become one of the active actors within the online public sphere. Unfortunately, the process of empowering the people to voice out their personal ideas and concerns can sometimes create chaos within the online public sphere. Despite the advantages of creating a multi-layered online public sphere in terms of global communication purposes, Iosifidis (2011) gave emphasis on the adverse consequences of shifting from the use of traditional public sphere into a more globalized public sphere. In line with this, Iosifidis (2011) mentioned that some of the common problems with the shift from the use of traditional mass media to the use of the Internet is that the use of the online social media strongly promotes the act of inclusiveness and violate the norms on censorship. Because of the significant changes that had occurred in the traditional public sphere, Rasmussen (2013) strongly recommends the need to revise the theory of Habermas in such as way that it will fit the pre-requisites of using the Internet or online mass media technology. For instance, Douai and Nofal (2012) criticized the theory of Habermas for disregarding the significance of mediation and access when it comes to the use of the online public sphere. Likewise, the idealized theory of public sphere as proposed by Habermas limit the public participation as a privilege to the few elite groups within the society (Douai and Nofal, 2012). Considering the arguments made by Douai and Nofal (2012) with regards to the flaws in the theory of Habermas in public sphere, it is clear that the theory of Habermas with regards to the public sphere based on the concept of the 18th century European bourgoeis public sphere is no longer applicable in the modern online public sphere which requries the use of the Internet. 4. Conclusion The use of traditional mass media platform has its own limitation in the sense that the structure of using the old traditional communication tools is limited to top-down system. It simply means that the number of people who are able to make full use of the old communication tools is limited only to the state or the elite individuals who could pay a high price for printed magazine and news report or television and radio broadcasting services. Within the context of public sphere, the use of the Internet and online social media technology is more advantageous as compared to the use of traditional mass media in the sense that the Internet has transformed the usual public sphere into an uncensored and more interactive global communication. Instead of restricting the general public from being able to actively participate in social, civic, and political participation, the use of the Internet opens more opportunity for the general public to freely express their own thoughts and public opinion online. Furthermore, the use of the Internet removes geographical barriers within the public sphere. In the absence of the Internet, information transmission can take more time before the messages can be sent out to its intended audiences. Through the use of the Internet and social networking sites, the general public can easily spread out news and personal comments worldwide. Given the fact that the general public could freely express their own thoughts and opinion at much lesser cost means empowering the general public and making them a part of the online public sphere actors rather than just simply being treated as a public sphere observer. Since the general public are given the freedom to voice out their personal concerns, the use of the Internet within the modern public sphere may or may not increase the general public’s participation in online social, economic, or political discussion. With regards to Habermas’ theory in public sphere, this study concludes that some of the concept presented in his theory is no longer applicable in online public sphere. For this reason, this study highly recommends the need to modify Habermas’ theory on online public sphere. References Ameripour, A., Nicholson, B. and Newman, M. (2010). Conviviality of Internet social networks: An exploratory study of Internet campaigns in Iran. Journal of Information Technology, 25, pp. 244-257. Baym, N. (2009). A call for grounding in the face of blurred boundaries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, pp. 720-723. Bee, C. and Bozzini, E. (2010). Mapping the European Public Sphere: Institutions Media and Civil Society. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Binder, J., Howes, A. and Sutchliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. CHI '09 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 965-974. Breese, E. (2011). Mapping the Variety of Public Spheres. Communication Theory, 21(2), pp. 130-149. Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Highfield, T. and Kirchhoff, L. (2011). Mapping the Australian Networked Public Sphere. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), pp. 277-287. Cann, A., Dimitriou, K. and Hooley, T. (2011). Social media: a guide for researchers. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rin.ac.uk%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fattachments%2Fsocial_media_guide_for_screen_0.pdf&ei=s1mbUpiDPeiTiAe9kYDYCA&usg=AFQjCNEVD05cBatqfNe2BmLjwGhyCzcJxQ&b [Accessed 1 December 2013]. Cha, J. (2010). Factors affecting the frequency and amount of social networking site use: motivations, perceptions, and privacy concerns. First Monday, 15(2). Chaudhary, S., Avis, M. and Munn-Giddings, C. (2013). Beyond the therapeutic: A Habermasian view of self-help groups’ place in the public sphere. Social Theory & Health, 11, pp. 59-80. Cukier, W., Ngwenyama, O., Bauer, R. and Middleton, C. (2009). A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology: preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis. Information Systems Journal, 19(2), pp. 175-196. Dalgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation1. New Media & Society, 12(5), pp. 745-761. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J., Horn, A.-K. and Hughes, B. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), pp. 83-108. Dinham, A. and Jones, S. (2012). Religion, Public Policy, and the Academy: Brokering Public Faith in a Context of Ambivalence? Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(2), pp. 185-201. Douai, A. and Nofal, H. (2012). Commenting in the Online Arab Public Sphere: Debating the Swiss Minaret Ban and the “Ground Zero Mosque” Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), pp. 266-282. el-Nawawy, M. and Khamis, S. (2011). Political Blogging and (Re) Envisioning the Virtual Public Sphere: Muslim— Christian Discourses in Two Egyptian Blogs. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(2), pp. 234-253. English, C. (2013). The Public Sphere and Online Social Media: Exploring the Use of Online Social Media as Discursive Spaces in an Irish Context. In C. Fowley, C. English and S. Thouesny (Eds.), Internet Research, Theory, and Practice: Perspectives from Ireland (pp. 135-155). Freelon, D. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Societ, 12(7), pp. 1172-1190. Fritsch, S. (2011). Technology and Global Affair. International Studies Perspectives, 12, pp. 27-45. Gerhards, J. and Schafer, M. (2009). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany. New Media & Society, XX(X), pp. 1-18. Gonzales, A. and Hancock, J. (2011). Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. yberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2), pp. 79-83. Graham, T. (2011). Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere. European Journal of Communication, 26(1), pp. 18-32. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. and Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age. Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), pp. 246-259. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Hampton, K., Livio, O. and Goulet, L. (2010). The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), pp. 701-722. Hepburn, P. (2012). Local Governance and the Online Networked Public Sphere—A Case Study. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4), pp. 370-387. Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J. and Martin, M. (2011). Age, gender and income: do they really moderate online shopping behaviour? Emerald, 35. DOI: 10.1108/14684521111113614. Hirzalla, F. and van Zoonen, L. (2010). Beyond the Online/Offline Divide: How Youth’s Online and Offline Civic Activities Converge. Social Science Computer Review, DOI: 10.1177/0894439310385538. Iosifidis, P. (2011). The public sphere, social networks and public service media. Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), pp. 619-637. Jacobs, R. and Townsley, E. (2013). The Space of Opinion: Media Intellectuals and the Public Sphere. Social Forces, DOI: 10.1093/sf/sot051. Jaeger, P., Bertot, J., Kodama, C., Katz, S. and De Coster, E. (2011). Describing and measuring the value of public libraries: The growth of the Internet and the evolution of library value. First Monday. 16(11). [Online] Available at: http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3765/3074 [Accessed 29 November 2013]. Kang, H., Lee, J., You, K. and Lee, S. (2013). Does Online News Reading and Sharing Shape Perceptions of the Internet as a Place for Public Deliberations? Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), pp. 533-556. Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), pp. 60-61. Khan, M., Gilani, I. and Nawaz, A. (2012). From Habermas Model to New Public Sphere: A Paradigm Shift. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12(5). Khan, M., Nawaz, A., Khan, S. and Khan, A. (2011). The Potentials of New Public Sphere For Emerging Global Civil Society. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Communicatio, 5(2), pp. 40-59. Kohrsen, J. (2012). How religious is the public sphere? A critical stance on the debate about public religion and post-secularity. Acta Sociologica, 55(3), pp. 273-288. Li, S. (2010). The online public space and popular ethos in China. Media, Culture & Society, 32(1), pp. 63-83. Min, S. (2010). From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, pp. 22-35. Mrva-Montoya, A. (2012). Social Media: New Editing Tools or Weapons of Mass Distraction? Journal of Electronic Publishing, 15(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0015.103. Nawaz, A. (2011). User’s training: The predictor of successful eLearning in HEIs. Global Jurnal of Computer Sciences & Technology, 11(4), pp. 1-8. Nawaz, A. (2010). Using eLearning as a tool for ‘education for all’ in developing states. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(6). Nawaz, A. and Kundi, G. (2010). Digital Literacy. An analysis of the contemporary paradigms. Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2), pp. 19-29. Nawaz, A., Awan, Z. and Ahmad, B. (2011). Integrating educational technologies in higher education of the developing countries. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(2). O'Brien, L. (2009). !e Discourse Quality Index. A Critical Assessment of the application of Habermas’ Discourse Ethics to Political Deliberation. Roundhouse, 1(1), pp. 1-10. Rasmussen, T. (2013). Internet-based media, Europe and the political public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 35(11), pp. 97-104. Robertson, S., Vatrapu, R. and Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Information Polity, 15(1-2), pp. 11-31. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J., Diaz-Noci, J., Meso, K. and Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), pp. 463-487. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students' education?related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), pp. 157-174. Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), pp. 28-41. Tuten, T. (2008). Advertising 2.0: social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world. Westport, CT.: Praeger. Udomisor, I. (2013). Management of Radio and Television Stations in Nigeria. New Media and Mass Communication, 10, pp. 1-12. Valcke, P. (2011). Looking for the user in media pluralism regulation: Unraveling the traditional diversity chain and recent trends of user empowerment in European media regulation. Journal of Information Policy, 1, pp. 287-320. Wattal, S., Schuff, D., Mandviwalla, M. and Williams, C. (2010). Web 2.0 and politics: the 2008 u.s. presidential election and an E-politics research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), pp. 669-688. West, M. (2013). Is the Internet an Emergent Public Sphere? Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 28(3), pp. 155-159. Zhang, W., Johnson, T., Seltzer, T. and Bichard, S. (2010). The Revolution Will be Networked. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), pp. 75-92. Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective. Internet Research 21(1), pp. 67-81. Research Proposal The Internet is totally different as compared to the structure as well as the advantages and limitations of the old mass media communication (i.e. television, print, and radio media) (Gerhards and Schafer, 2009). As compared to the use of various old media tools, West (2013, p. 155) argued that the use of the Internet is more powerful in terms of allowing people to organize “social action and protest”. Aside from converting the public sphere as a communication medium that is self-governing, the use of the Internet can also increase the public participation with regards to social, environmental, economic, health, and political issues (West, 2013; Dahlgren, 2005). The main purpose of this study is to explore and analyse the significance of the Internet within the concept of public sphere. On top of identifying the main actors in internet communication, the differences between online and offline internet communication will be compared and contrast. Based on participatory theory, the advantages of internet within the concept of public sphere will be tackled in details. In line with this, a list of theoretical arguments made by West (2013), Mrva-Montoya (2012), Khan et al. (2011), and Gerhards and Schafer (2009) with regards to the significance of the Internet within the modern public sphere will be analysed followed by closely examining the impact of using the Internet on users’ behaviour and on different world views (i.e. religious context, political point-of-views, interventions made by the members of the mass media, and the general public) (Kang et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2011; Gonzales and Hancock, 2011; Hernandez, Jimenez and Martin, 2011; Zhou, 2011; Hampton, Livio and Goulet, 2010; Zhang et al., 2010; Binder, Howes and Sutchliffe, 2009; Debatin et al., 2009). In general, the public sphere is considered important because it serves as medium where people observe and communicate a wide-range of social issues as well as political and economic concerns (Gerhards and Schafer, 2009). To allow people to gain better understanding about the importance of public sphere, Jurgen Habermas established the normative bourgeois theory behind the development of public sphere (Gerhards and Schafer, 2009; Ubayasiri, 2006). In relation to the theory of Habermas on communication actions, research questions such as to what extent does the use of the Internet have widened the channel of public communication distribution? How does the use of the Internet differ from the use of traditional mass media? Does the use of the Internet contribute to the development of a better public sphere? In the process of discussing the point-of-views of Habermas with regards to public sphere, critics made by other authors with regards to the limitations of Habermas’ theory will be considered in the main discussion (Rasmussen, 2013; Douai and Nofal, 2012). In search for related literature, databases of EBSCO Host Connection, CSA Illuminav, and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) will be utilized to locate journal articles that are closely related to the significance of the Internet on the concept of public sphere. To ensure that more recent information will be presented in this study, part of the inclusion criteria includes all journal articles that has discussed the relationship between the Internet and the public sphere published between 2009 to 2013 will be included in the formation of a descriptive literature review. Furthermore, only journal articles that were written in English language will be included in this study. To address the main purpose of this study, key terms such as “internet public sphere”, “social media public sphere”, “web 2.0 public sphere”, “Habermas internet public sphere”, “theory internet public sphere”, “advantages internet public sphere”, “participatory theory internet public sphere”, and “traditional mass media internet public sphere” will be encoded in the databases of EBSCO Host Connection, CSA Illuminav, and SSCI. As part of the preliminary search of journal articles, related journals were initially screened based on the research title and abstract. Basically, the research title could give the researcher a rough idea on what the research study is all about whereas the abstract could give the researcher a better insight about the main purpose of the study, the research method used in the primary or secondary research, research findings, and the study conclusion. Based on the pre-selected journal articles, the following headings and sub-headings will be used in presenting the literature review: 1. Introduction 2. General Information about Public Sphere 3. Herbamas Theory in Public Sphere 4. Differences between the Use of the Internet and Traditional Mass Media 5. Significance of the Internet within the Context of Public Sphere 5.1 Main Actors in Online Public Sphere 5.2 Advantages of Internet within the Concept of Public Sphere 5.3 Impact of Internet on Users’ Attitude and Behaviour 6. Discussion 7. Conclusion As compared to other existing studies, the proposed research is quite comprehensive in the sense that it does not only limit the topic discussion on the existing theories related public sphere but also tackles the significance of the Internet not only on users’ attitude and behaviour but also a wide-range of world views. As such, this study will purposely provide the readers with general information about the public sphere. It will also discuss different theories in public sphere as suggested by Jurgen Habermas. After discussing the differences between the use of the Internet and the traditional mass media, the significance of the Internet within the context of public sphere will be tackled in details. In line with this, the gathered literature review will purposely identify the main actors in online public sphere as well as identify the advantages of the Internet within the concept of public sphere (i.e. impact of Internet on users’ behaviour and different world views). In the process of analyzing the arguments made by different authors with regards to the significance of the Internet within the modern public sphere and Habermas’ theory on communication action, it is easier to come up with a fair judgment and better understanding with regards to the impact of Internet in public sphere. Based on the research findings, study conclusion and future study recommendation will be included in the final report. References Binder, J., Howes, A. and Sutchliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. CHI '09 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 965-974. Coleman, R., Lieber, P., Mendelson, A. and Kurpius, D. (2008). ‘Public Life and the Internet: If You Build a Better Website, Will Citizens Become Engaged? New Media & Society, 10(2), pp. 179-201. Dahlgren, P. (2005). ‘The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication. Political Communication, 22(2), pp. 147-162. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J., Horn, A.-K. and Hughes, B. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), pp. 83-108. Douai, A. and Nofal, H. (2012). Commenting in the Online Arab Public Sphere: Debating the Swiss Minaret Ban and the “Ground Zero Mosque” Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), pp. 266-282. Gerhards, J. and Schafer, M. (2009). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany. New Media & Society, XX(X), pp. 1-18. Gonzales, A. and Hancock, J. (2011). Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. yberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2), pp. 79-83. Hampton, K., Livio, O. and Goulet, L. (2010). The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), pp. 701-722. Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J. and Martin, M. (2011). Age, gender and income: do they really moderate online shopping behaviour? Emerald, 35. DOI: 10.1108/14684521111113614. Kang, H., Lee, J., You, K. and Lee, S. (2013). Does Online News Reading and Sharing Shape Perceptions of the Internet as a Place for Public Deliberations? Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), pp. 533-556. Khan, M., Nawaz, A., Khan, S. and Khan, A. (2011). The Potentials of New Public Sphere For Emerging Global Civil Society. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Communicatio, 5(2), pp. 40-59. Mrva-Montoya, A. (2012). Social Media: New Editing Tools or Weapons of Mass Distraction? Journal of Electronic Publishing, 15(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0015.103. Rasmussen, T. (2013). Internet-based media, Europe and the political public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 35(11), pp. 97-104. Ubayasiri, K. (2006). Internet and the Public Sphere: A glimpse of YouTube. [Online] Available at: http://ejournalist.com.au/v6n2/ubayasiri622.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2013]. West, M. (2013). Is the Internet an Emergent Public Sphere? Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 28(3), pp. 155-159. Zhang, W., Johnson, T., Seltzer, T. and Bichard, S. (2010). The Revolution Will be Networked. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), pp. 75-92. Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective. Internet Research 21(1), pp. 67-81. Read More