Convergence and Interactivity in New Media Studies - Essay Example

Convergence and Interactivity in New Media Studies For the past sixty years, new media studies have explored the impact of communications technology and information technology on the formation of new media and new media stakeholders. In Understanding Media, McLuhan (1968) argued that “the content of any medium is another medium” (15-16). He stressed that the medium is the message because media channels do not only differ in content, but also instigate and shape the consumers’ thoughts and senses. Bolter and Grusin (2000) resisted McLuhan’s technological determinism and argued that new media is a product of convergence between “old” and “new” media through “remediation,” which they examined in their book, Remediation: Understanding New Media. This essay aims to study how convergence and interactivity are defined in new media studies. Through several examples and definitions, it critically evaluates these concepts in relation to remediation and intra-activity. According to new media scholars, convergence is defined through technological convergence, the lens of consumer agency (Lister et al., 2009: 48; Suchman, 2007), cultural/system/corporate convergences (Jenkins, 2008; Murdoch, 2000), and remediation (Bolter and Grusin, 2000), while interactivity has been defined as a cause, enabler, and result of convergence (Murdoch, 2000; Manovich, 2001); however, the “myth of interactivity” (Manovich, 2001: 74) and the process of inter-activity (Barad, 2007) criticise the intuitive and interactive notions of new media interactivity and convergence (Hay and Couldry, 2011). Before convergence is further understood, the meaning of new media must be explored first because it shapes the philosophical conceptualisation of convergence. One of the common definitions of new media is the interaction between old and modern media, especially computers, mobile information and telecommunication devices, and the Internet. New media is more complex and varied than the use of current web and mobile technology interfaces, nonetheless. In the article, “How Should We Read New Media and New Technologies?” Gökçek (2011) cautioned people in seeing new media as a single and homogenous object, when it is composed of a “...collection of objects which should be analysed economically, socially, culturally, politically, philosophically, theoretically and technologically” (71). He resisted separating new media from its social context, as well as bundling it into a simplistic view of networked and interactive modern technological systems. Manovich (2001), in The Language of New Media, went beyond relating new media with computers and the Internet and asserted that: “...new media represents a convergence of two separate historical trajectories: computing and media technologies” (44). This definition underscores that convergence shapes the formation and development of new media through the intertwined growth of computing and media innovations. Dewdney and Ride (2006), in ‘Convergence,’ expressed the notion that new media is in its unified form, where digital media convergence is paramount (252). Basically, for these scholars, new media is digital in its physical sense, which departs from the analogue nature of old media, although the former is also more socialised and unified in its production than the latter. Aside from technological convergence, new media is defined through new user experiences in accessing, making and sharing information through new media technologies. Lister et al. (2009) are not satisfied with the technological convergence approach to defining “new media.” For them, new media constitutes diverse dimensions: 1) “New textual experiences,” 2) “New ways of representing the world,”3) “New relationships between subjects (users and consumers) and media technologies,” 4) “New experiences of the relationship between embodiment, identity and community,” 5) “New conceptions of the biological body’s relationship to technological media,” and 6) “New patterns of organisation and production” (12-13). Their holistic viewpoint of new media includes the concepts of remediation, where transformed and improved old media is considered as new media too. These definitions of new media serve as the springboard in discussing convergence and interactivity, some of the salient dimensions of new media and the concerns of several new media studies scholars. Some of the pervasive ways of defining convergence is through the discussion of technological and cultural convergence. Dewdney and Ride (2006) described convergence through the interaction between multimedia and hypermedia, especially in high-definition streams (252). Convergence includes changing how people see and use TV content, for instance, when they are able to access TV shows through the Internet, such as YouTube and other video streaming web services. Another definition expands technological convergence to include cultural convergence. Dwyer (2010) affirmed that “media convergence is the process whereby new technologies are accommodated by existing media and communication industries and cultures” (2). He believed that old and new media continue to confront and to shape one another in a complex and multidimensional process. He provided the example of Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), which “blurs ‘Internet’ and ‘television’ media,” by merging them into a new distribution mode, while recreating new television cultural products (Dwyer, 2010: 2). Convergence, in this sense, consists of new media technologies and resulting novel cultural forms. Apart from technological and cultural convergence viewpoints, convergence has been defined as the rise of agency in media production, distribution, and consumption. New media shows convergence when producers and consumers merge or actively interact with and affect one another. An example is a TV show that uses online surveys to allow viewers to vote for their favourite stars. Viewers directly affect the results of their TV shows. Technology and consumer/user interactivity further promote convergence. Lister et al. (2009) showed that through media-consumer interactivity, convergence is achieved: “Searchable databases that facilitated a convergence of existing print and visual media and the information they contained were seen as a new way for the individual to access, organise, and think with information” (48). People can use new media to access and to criticise information. Moreover, new media technology enables convergence, when people reinforce convergence between the human and the machine. Suchman (2007), in “Agencies at the Interface,” of the book, Human-Machine Reconfigurations, argued that the interface is a “site for novel forms of connection, both with and through computational devices” (206). An example is Facebook, where the interface becomes a form of connection with others and a connection to the self. Some people see their Facebook as extensions of their identity, aside from being a means to connect with their family, friends and acquaintances. Their identity becomes developed or changed through their interactions with others in their profiles, for instance. These Facebook users turn to technology to perform functions, which they cannot normally do on their own too. An example is expressing their sentiments for the day to 300 people. Through Facebook, they can update their statuses and inform their Facebook “friends” in real time. The same goes for Twitter. Its users can tweet anything and to some extent, some would say, “everything” instantly. They can produce updated online information because of how they interact with new media. The human being and the interface become interactive elements through convergence of multimedia and hypermedia. Lister et al. (2009) talked about new media as the production and strengthening of new relationships between consumers/users and media technologies. Consumers are becoming media producers through their social networking accounts, blogs, and other online/offline communication tools and databases. They are converging with the new media through co-production of media content. Aside from content production, convergence occurs through co-distribution of media products. Manovich (2001) illustrated hypermedia, where multimedia converges through hyperlinks (57). Media objects remain independent, but they can still merge through the process of hyperlinking. Journalists, for instance, use hyperlinks to connect news concepts to other websites for expounding, marketing, or other purposes. Aside from convergence in media distribution, consumption is no longer one-way in the new media. Lister et al. (2009) explored convergence through new ways of seeing one’s identity in relation to media technologies and in forming new organisations and communities. Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, and various other social networking sites of different functions and orientations allow people to co-produce and co-consume the meaning of social/group/individual affairs together. Convergence, hence, entails the ultimate participation of users/consumers in new media production, distribution, and consumption. Convergence can be significantly consumer-focused, nevertheless. For some media scholars, convergence is predominantly seen as people who are converging with one another. In Convergence Culture, Jenkins (2006) underscored that convergence is less technological and more social in process. He believed that people, not technology, are the ones who are converging, according to their user behaviours. These processes enable people to be involved in the “storyworld,” which Jenkins exemplifies in The Matrix trilogy, because the latter invokes deconstructing ambiguities through sharing interpretations and comparing ideas in the industries of film, game, animation, and the Internet (Lister et al., 2009: 222). Jenkins (2006) asserted that: The old rhetoric of opposition and cooptation assumed a world where consumers had little direct power to shape media content and where there were enormous barriers to entry into the marketplace, whereas the new digital environment expands their power to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media products (Lister et al., 2009: 222). People use the new media to create, store and redistribute their or others’ media products. They are empowered to choose, for instance, among different smartphone applications, so that they can use the ones that fit their personality and needs the most. Empowerment, nevertheless, is not always a product of convergence. As Jenkins pointed out, oppressive sectors can use new media to stop people from accessing vital information that will serve their individual/collective interests (Lister et al., 2009: 222). In this scenario, the user-centeredness of convergence pertains to the state, or other ruling parties. They are the users who control what information and media tools are available to others. Convergence can be seen from a macro-perspective as well, although each component have been or can be studied extensively. Murdoch (2000), in “Digital Futures: European Television in the Age of Convergence,” defined convergence in terms of three major dimensions: convergence in cultures, convergence in communication systems, and corporate convergence (36). Convergence in cultural forms takes place, as users employ diverse forms of expressions altogether or through several ways (Murdoch, 2000: 36). The result may be a hybrid culture, for example, such as anime that becomes more localised to local niche markets. Convergence in communication systems pertain to convergence in media technology and some examples are connections between traditional TV networks and Internet service providers (Murdoch, 2000: 37). Finally, Murdoch (2000) defined convergence in corporate ownership through examples of vertical and horizontal mergers and acquisitions in the media industry (38). The drive for synergy and maximisation has propelled widespread national and international mergers and acquisitions, where a larger scale can result to cost savings and bigger market shares (Murdoch, 2000: 38). Lister et al. (2009) agreed with a holistic understanding of convergence that includes new business models. For them, everyday life for people who are entrenched in the new media interacts with and reinforces convergence, as the former becomes the “focal point of an interlocking set of convergences of consumer, media, educational and entertainment technologies and markets” (Lister et al., 2009: 239). Thus, convergence happens between people and technology and between people and business entities, whether they are media firms or organisations that use new media as new business models and/or they use new media to support traditional business structures. The cultural/system/corporate convergence perspective is nothing new, according to Bolter and Grusin (2000). The television is a cultural product and cultural shaper too, not just the Internet. Bolter and Grusin (2000) presented the concept of remediation, which underlines that new media is old media, only in changed forms: “Convergence is remediation under another name, and the remediation is mutual: The internet refashions television even as television refashions the internet” (Bolter and Grusin, 2000: 224). For example, instead of watching TV shows through the television, it can now be downloaded online. Recreating the access to old media has resulted to new media. Moreover, new media serves the same convergence functions as old media: “New media are doing exactly what their predecessors have done: presenting themselves as refashioned and improved versions of other media” (Bolter and Grusin, 2000: 15). Refashioned is not always the same as improved, however. Sometimes, packaging changes, but the content is very much the same. For instance, Amazon.com sells hardbound books too. It offers a click-and-mortar version of traditional book sellers. Hence, even cultural and technological convergences in new media can be rooted to its earlier forms in old media. To expound on this more, this section of the essay discusses how new media merges new and old media tools for traditional and non-traditional media purposes in the context of remediation. Bolter and Grusin (2000) explored the “double logic of remediation,” which embraces immediacy and hypermediacy, where immediacy refers to realism, while hypermediacy includes “fascination with media in themselves” (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Both immediacy and hypermediacy exist in the history of media (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Immediacy pertains to the medium’s need to “disappear,” so that a transparent existence is attained, where the audience can imagine what it is like to be in a certain position or surrounding (Gökçek, 2011: 73). An example is a film that aims for authenticity, and so consumers interact with “reality” without its immediate presence (Gökçek, 2011: 73). The opposite end of immediacy is hypermediacy, such as having several TV shots in one computer screen (Gökçek, 2011: 73). William J. Mitchell (1994) called it the focus on the “process or performance rather than finished artwork” (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Homogeneity gives way to heterogeneity through fragmented screens, and so the process becomes a “tantalising” form of recreation too (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Moreover, representations are shifting from text to icons through interface-based technology (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Because remediation has double logic, it affirms the cyclical, instead of linear, understanding of media history (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Remediation is a “dynamic, progressive and complex process” (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Indeed, hybridity is a product of remediation, which asserts that new media is not entirely “new” (Gökçek, 2011: 73). Convergence, hence, concerns integration of new and past media tools, practices, and values. Intra-activity, in Barad’s definition, is a criticism of interactivity and convergence, when they are defined through consumer agency alone. Barad (2007) argued that interactivity processes are not only about people acting on matter because matter likewise relates and acts with humans in a mutual manner. Matter and discourse have real agency too: Apparatuses are material-discursive practices – ... intra-actions through which matter is iteratively and differentially articulated, reconfiguring the material-discursive field of possibilities and impossibilities in the ongoing dynamics of intra-activity that is agency. Apparatuses are not bound objects of structures; they are open-ended practices (Barad, 2007:170). Agential realism depends on the association between matter, apparatus and agency through “mattering” (Styhre, 2012: 63). Human beings and media change each other, where the emphasis is not the epistemological concern of media interactivity, but its ontological nature. Moreover, Barad does not postulate technological determinism or human agency determinism. The emphasis is on “agential realism” that concerns material-discursive practices and interactions. The issues circulate around how interactivity is defined and how it should be defined. The strengths of Barad’s concept of intra-activity are its realistic consideration for matter and discursive practices and the role of matter in interactivity. This essay believes that reality is made within the phenomena, as Barad argues. Matter is not only a thing, but a being in its becoming (Barad, 2007: 56). Furthermore, matter cannot be divided from the “experimental system” and it can be understood from an objective standpoint (Styhre, 2012: 63). The new media system has diverse elements that affect everything in it. Intra-activity occurs in new media, as new media mimics and improves the old. Gökçek (2011) asserted that the new and old media continue to “intra-act” with one another (73). He noted: No single medium today seems to submit to another’s authority. Instead, along with the entities surrounding them, they tend not to interact but in fact “intra-act” with each other and are ultimately mutually counterbalanced in order to keep pace with the rapid development of advanced technology. (Gökçek, 2011: 73). The status quo of old media functions remains. Smartphones and tablets may be co-opting TV, but they act like televisions too. Nonetheless, they offer something new to consumers, when they become producers and distributors of media, such as when they produce video clips or articles and share them with their friends or the public online. Smartphones are no longer telephones per se, but have become multimedia tools. Some scholars criticized convergence as a utopian or seemingly positive interactive process with automatic democratisation outcomes. In their article, “Rethinking Convergence/Culture,” Hay and Couldry (2011) asserted that the sociological nature of convergence must not be overlooked in analysing convergence in new media studies. Couldry (2011) underscored that the standard description of convergence as something that occurs among television, online and telecommunications media has erased “important processes of differentiation and stratification,” and as a result, these perspectives disable scholars and the public from understanding the “politics of convergence” (Pertierra and Turner, 2013: 27). Bird (2012) criticized the Westernised accounts of convergence, which accentuate “audience empowerment and the democratisation of media systems” (Pertierra and Turner, 2013: 27). She warned people of the dangers of normalising convergence as something empowering in itself. This essay agrees with these criticisms because convergence should be criticised too, particularly when studying who defines and controls it. At the onset, it might seem that people are controlling their web experiences, for instance, as they interact with the web, but in reality, the content provided to them might be biased already. Convergence cannot be argued as a normalised empowering and participatory process, when it does not fully or realistically allow people to control the tools, systems and networks of convergence. This brings the essay to the discussion of interactivity. Interactivity has been defined as a cause, enabler, and result of convergence (Murdoch, 2000; Manovich, 2001). Interactivity can be argued as a cause of convergence when people interact with new media, and it results to converging of people, systems and technologies. It can also cause convergence when people produce new media tools for the purpose of merging media and social purposes. Aside from causing convergence, interactivity can also enable convergence. An example is when people use multimedia to attain organisational goals. Moreover, interactivity can be defined as an effect of digital convergence. Interactivity is almost automatically defined in terms of consumer agency, to the point that it means consumer/user empowerment. Lister et al. (2009) provided a neo-liberal definition of interactivity, which “...stands for a more powerful sense of user engagement with media texts, a more independent relation to sources of knowledge, individualised media use, and greater user choice” (21). They focused, nonetheless, on the instrumental dimension of interactivity, where users participate in accessing, using and sharing images and text online (Lister et al., 2009: 22). Lister et al. (2009) provided the dimensions of interactivity that included: Hypertextual navigation, Immersive navigation and Registrational interactivity (Lister et al., 2009: 22-23). Hypertextual navigation pertains to users who navigate the web to “individualised text made up from all the segments of text which they call up through their navigation process. The larger the database the greater the chance that each user will experience a unique text” (Lister et al., 2009: 22). Immersive navigation includes 3D content and interactions, which produce visual and sensory pleasures (Lister et al., 2009: 22). Registrational interactivity pertains to “opportunities that new media texts afford their users to ‘write back into’ the text; that is to say, to add to the text by registering their own messages” (Lister et al., 2009: 23). These forms of interactivity suggest that users make decisions on their own on what networks or databases to use and where they can put their personal information and opinions. They go to websites or conduct web-based activities, according to their own needs and wants. Interactivity, however, does not occur in a vacuum. Its sanitised interpretation overlooks the role of politics, culture, and religion, for instance, in shaping what gets to be accessed online and how. In “The Myth of Interactivity,” Manovich (2001) explained the externalisation of the human mind and its functions through media products, which helped him establish that new media interactivity is a myth. He illustrated the works of Francis Galton, Hugo Munsterberg, Sergei Eisenstein and Jaron Lanier, who believed that “technologies externalise and objectify the mind” (72). Münsterberg, in The Film: A Psychological Study (1916), asserted that the fundamental nature of films depends on its ability to reproduce, or “objectify” various mental functions on the screen: “The photoplay obeys the laws of the mind rather than those of the outer world” (Manovich, 2001: 72). Eisenstein thought about using film to externalise and control thinking: “The content of CAPITAL (its aim) is now formulated: to teach the worker to think dialectically” (Manovich, 2001: 72). Lanier saw virtual reality (VR) as being able of “completely objectifying, or better yet, transparently merging with mental processes” (Manovich, 2001: 72). Manovich (2001) believed, nonetheless, that the mind cannot be fully externalised, particularly in light of new media. He gave the example of hyperlinking that objectifies the thinking process. People go from one hyperlink to another, which is a pre-determined cognitive course. The ontology of interactivity is not empowering at all, when hyperlinking is explained in this manner. New media interactivity is a myth when someone else controls the cognitive process, which may or may not result to true intuition. Manovich echoed the characterisation of intuition in Deleuze’s (2002), “Intuition as Method,” which affects the real nature of interactivity in new media. Deleuze (2002) defined intuition as “neither a feeling, an inspiration, nor a disorderly sympathy, but a fully developed method, one of the most developed methods in philosophy. It has its strict rules, constituting that which Bergson calls ‘precision’ in philosophy” (13). The method of intuition has three elements: “The first concerns stating and creating problems; the second, the discovery of genuine differences in kind; the third, the apprehension of real time” (Deleuze, 2002: 14). In the case of hyperlinking, intuition is not embedded in its process because people are already directed to certain views on knowledge. They might start the questions about community problems, but what these problems are may be effects of their interactions with mainstream news, instead of a careful analysis of local problems and issues. The primary criticism of hyperlinking is that some people might think that by choosing among web options, they are already interacting in an empowered way. They have not criticised that, perhaps, someone else shapes the content they are accessing and consuming. The media content, in turn, affects their opinions and ideas that they produce and share with others. New media interactivity loses the autonomous nature for its actors. The classical definition of intuition is also not a given in new media interactivity. Badiou (2000) defined intuition that aligned with Descartes, where it is made of “an instantaneous isolation of the idea, guided by a localised mental light, and free of any connection with any form of obscure ground” (34.5). It rests on the theory of light that a clear idea is a more distinct idea (Badiou, 2000: 34.5). Intuition through new media must be clear and distinct, which is not easy to attain when users are bombarded with too much information, both false and true. The criticism on this idea of intuition though is that clarity may only be transient in its intensity (Badiou, 2000: 34.5). On the one hand, people might have difficulty in getting clarity regarding issues and concepts because of teeming conflicting information online. On the other hand, by interacting with new media, they can use these tools to still generate insight that is critical and analytical, and not merely dependent on the biases of original media makers or distributors. With critical and analytical thinking skills, as well as other cognitive functions, users can compose insight from interacting with and through new media. Manovich (2001), however, does not think that interactivity can ever result to individual-based and original insights. He castigated the logic of externalising human knowledge and thinking. He suggested minimalism in preferences and identity markers, in order for people to generate a true “individualised inner world” (124): The private living space has taken on the guise of objectivity: neutral, value-free, as if this were a found space, not an impeccably designed one. The world outside, meanwhile, has become subjectified, rendered into a changing collage of personal whims and fancies. This is to be expected in a culture dominated by the distribution system. That system, exists, after all, not to make things but to sell them, to appeal to individual impulses, tastes, desires. As a result, the public realm has become a collective repository of dreams and designs from which the self requires refuge. (Manovich, 2001: 124). He does not accept that the public is personal. The collective, in his view, is polluted with personal whims and impulses. Manovich (2001) recommended that to escape the collective devaluation of human knowledge, people should reject “all options and customization, and ultimately refusing all forms of interactivity” (124). The collective offers only pre-constructed identities that people can and must do away with. This paper understands the concerns with the loss of the individual and original thinking in new media. Interactivity might result to homogenous cultures, instead to hybrid or co-existence of different cultures. For example, some people might say that the Americanisation of fast food has expanded obesity, not only in America, but in developing countries that emulate American lifestyles and eating habits. When American fast food firms control local media, they can transfer their values and practices to others, thereby homogenising local cultures. Interactivity can ironically generate loss of agency. Cut-and-paste practices among indolent students, for instance, show that new media can encourage a lackadaisical attitude toward learning. Instead of studying and maximising available information, they resort to copying the ideas of others for instant results. With these examples, individuality, localisation and hard-earned original thinking may be endangered because of new media interactivity. This paper believes, however, that new media presents more opportunities than threats to individualisation, heterogeneity of cultures and innovation. Diverse factors shape how people see and use the media for their individual and collective development purposes. The Arab Spring, for instance, has relied on new media to spread the call for the end of tyranny and oppression. Lone persons, such as Mohamed Bouazizi, demonstrated how an individual can instigate social changes. New media users subsequently asserted their individualism in sharing the fire of revolution and starting a movement. From the individual, new collective purposes can be attained. Moreover, media consumers are not all passive adopters of cultural forms. While some support anorexia websites, for instance, others reject the ideals of neglecting health for the sake of copying unrealistic body types. The key is genuine democracy in interactivity. People are free to agree that they can disagree. Free speech includes supporting, changing and opposing mainstream cultural values, expressions and tools. Sometimes, cultures seem to be converging and becoming more alike, but in its spaces and fringes are countless other minority or subcultures that are free to form their own cultural communities. Moreover, innovation and originality are not sparse in new media. Remediation can launch innovation, as new media users think of innovations on the old media to solve personal and social issues and problems. More information, it seems, is better than limitations in its access, production, distribution and consumption. Convergence and interactivity are salient features of new media and new media studies. Convergence can be limited to agency, or include macro and micro elements of convergences, depending on the philosophical orientation of new media scholars and their purposes in defining new media and convergence. Remediation is another useful concept in understanding convergence. Cultural, social, political, economic and technological convergences attest to the hybridity of the definitions of convergences. Interactivity is described through the changing relationships between media producers and media consumers and between the media industry and consumers. Furthermore, it includes aspects of intra-activity that underlines the role of matter and apparatuses in shaping new media forms and experiences. This paper asserts that students should not accept one definition alone and subject them to critical thinking and analysis. New media essentially invites them to be open to new definitions, while learning and changing existing ones, according to their realities and academic purposes. Thus, convergence and interactivity can be further studied in its becoming, as its processes and products continue to shape new media and its outcomes in real time and in the future. Bibliography Badiou, A. (2000) Deleuze: The Clamor of Being, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press Barad, K. (2007) ‘Agential Realism: How Material-Discursive Practices Matter,’ Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham and London: Duke University Press Bolter, J.D. and Grusin, R. (2000) ‘Convergence,’ Remediation: Understanding New Media, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press Deleuze, G. (2002) ‘Intuition as Method,’ Bergsonism, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, New York: Zone Books Dewdney, A. and Ride, P. (2006) ‘Convergence,’ The New Media Handbook, Oxon: Routledge Dwyer, T. (2010) Media Convergence, Oxon: Open University Press Gökçek, E. (2011) ‘How Should We Read New Media and New Technologies?’ Available at: [Accessed on 27 December 2012] Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture, New York and London: New York University Press Jenkins, H. (2008) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York: NYU Press Hay, J. and Couldry, N. (2011) ‘Rethinking Convergence/Culture,’ Cultural Studies Volume 25, Numbers 4-5 July-September Lister, M. Dovey, J. Giddings, S. Grant, I. and Kelly, K. (eds) (2009) ‘1.2.2 Interactivity,’ New Media: A Critical Introduction, second edition, London and New York: Routledge McLuhan, M. (1968) Understanding Media, London: Sphere Manovich, L. (2001) ‘The Myth of Interactivity,’ The Language of New Media, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press Murdock, G. (2000) ‘Digital Futures: European Television in the Age of Convergence,’ Wieten, Murdock and Dahlgren (eds.), Television Across Europe, London: Sage Pertierra, A.C and Turner, G. (2013) ‘Understanding Television Today,’ Locating Television Today, Oxon: Routledge Styhre, A. (2012) Organizations and the Bioeconomy: The Management and Commodification of the Life Sciences, New York: Routledge Suchman, L. A. (2007) ‘Agencies at the Interface,’ Human-Machine Reconfigurations, Cambridge University Press Read More