The sociological dimension of media interactions: current state and author's design of the study
https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2023-11-4-39-50
Abstract
In the research of modern digital society, interaction through various channels and media is increasingly coming to the fore as a “|gaining momentum” trend of social development. Meanwhile, despite the abundance of empirical data in this area, the scientific understanding of interactions understood as media is in the process of formation, which is especially noticeable from the point of view of sociological discourse. It thoroughly represents the interactions of the traditional type, that is, social, in the works of E. Durkheim, M. Weber, G. Simmel, T. Parsons, J. Homans, J. Mead, P. Bourdieu and other classics of sociological thought. The Russian sociological science, starting with P.A. Sorokin and up to the present day, in which interactions form the essence of all social processes, does not stand aside either. Actually, media interactions have been considered by foreign sociologists since the 70s of the twentieth century, in line with the interaction of the audience with the media and social networks (J. Nordlund, P. Robinson, J. Blommaert). The paper is intended to represent the author’s vision media interactions studies design and is based sociolinguistic and socio- communication approaches allowing to most accurately identify essence of these processes.
About the Author
T. V. Andriyanova
Kursk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andriyanova Tatyana Vladimirovna – CandSc (Law), associate professor at the Depatment of Sociology
305004, Kursk, Radishchev st., 29
References
1. Andriyanova T.V. (2022). Towards the conceptualization of the concept of “media inclusion”: a managerial aspect. Communicology. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 137-146. DOI: 10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-3-137-146 (in Rus.).
2. Andriyanova T.V. (2022). Media sphere as a space of interaction between users of social networks. News of the South-West State University. Series: Economics. Sociology. Management. Vol. 12, No. 2. P. 219–231. DOI: 10.21869/2223-1552-2022-12-2-219-231 (in Rus.).
3. Appadurai A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
4. Barulin B.S. (2002). Dialectics of spheres of public life. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House (In Rus.).
5. Blommaert J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: Sociolinguistics and the Sociological Imagination. London: Bloomsbury.
6. Blumler J.G., Katz E., ed. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
7. Bourdieu P. (1993). Social space and symbolic power (transl.). THESIS. Issue 2. P. 137-150 (In Rus.).
8. Chernousova L.N. (2012). Social interaction: concept, levels, methodological traditions. Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. No. 12. Part 1. P. 214-216 (In Rus.).
9. Chizhik A.V. (2014). New media formats in modern Russia. In: Technologies of the information society in science, education and culture: collection of scientific articles. Proceedings of the 17th All-Russian joint conference “Internet and modern society” IMS-2014, St. Petersburg, November19-20, 2014. P. 164-171 (In Rus.).
10. Dyck T. (2013). Discourse and power. Representation of dominance in language and communication (transl.). M.: Book House (In Rus.).
11. Frolov S.S. (1994). Sociology. Textbook. M.: Nauka (In Rus.).
12. Goffman E. (2009). Ritual of interaction: Essays on face-to-face behavior (transl., ed. N.N. Bogomolova, D.A. Leontyev). M.: Smysl (In Rus.).
13. Goodwin Ch. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of practice. Discourse and Society. № 18 (1). Р. 53-73.
14. Homans J.K. (2001). Social behavior: its elementary forms (transl. V.G. Nikolaeva). Social and humanitarian sciences. Domestic and foreign literature. Ser. 11. Sociology. No. 4. P. 88-132 (In Rus.).
15. Jenny D., Jurgenson N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society. № 17 / 4. Р. 476-485. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.888458
16. Kirillina N.V. (2021). Fragmentation of the digital space and sociocultural aspects of the development of digital diplomacy. In: Russia and the world: dialogues. Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference, March 18-19, 2021. P. 88-95. EDN AKTGBU (In Rus.).
17. Kirillina N.V. (2021). On user roles and fragmentation of global network. Communicology. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 41-49. DOI: 10.21453/2311-3065-2021-9-2-41-49. EDN KZQSNQ.
18. Kirillina N.V. (2022). Fragmentation of the media audience: from a global village to a global theater. Communicology. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 170-179. DOI: 10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-170-179. EDN RRCCIO (In Rus.).
19. McKennel A.C. (1970). Attitude measurement: use of coefficient alpha with cluster or factor analysis. Sociology. № 4. Р. 227-245.
20. Mead J.G. (1997). Mind, self and society (transl. V.G. Nikolaeva). Social and humanitarian sciences. Domestic and foreign literature. Ser. 11. Sociology. No. 4. P. 135-200 (In Rus.).
21. Nazarov M.M. (2018). Modern media environment: diversity and fragmentation. Sociological Studies. No. 8 (412). P. 54-64. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250000762-1. EDN YCNEMX (In Rus.).
22. Nordlund J.-E. (1978). Media Interaction. Communication Research. № 5(2). Р. 150-175. DOI: 10.1177/009365027800500202.
23. Rampton B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interactions in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Robinson P. (2000). The Policy-Media Interaction Model: Measuring Media Power during Humanitarian Crisis. Journal of Peace Research. № 3 (5). Р. 613-633.
25. Sharkov F., Kirillina N. (2022). Convergence of real and virtual communities in the digital space: a sociological review. Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 229-249. DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-229-249. EDN UMBUAS (In Rus.).
26. Sharkov F.I., Kirillina N.V. (2022). Dichotomy of the Personal and the Public in Virtual Communities. Communicology. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 23-33. DOI: 10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-4-23-33. EDN NUYVMI.
27. Sidorov V.A. (2015). Media interaction as an area of contact between values. Bulletin of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Ser.: Humanities and social sciences. No. 5. P. 57-64 (In Rus.).
28. Smelser N. (1994). Sociology (transl.). M.: Phoenix (In Rus.).
29. Sorokin P.A. (2008). System of sociology. Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin (into, ed. V.V. Sapova). M.: Astrel (In Rus.).
30. Strauss A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. N.Y.: Routledge.
31. Szabla M., Blommaert J. (2018). Does context really collapse in social media interaction? Applied Linguistics Review. № 11 (2). Р. 251-279.
32. Weber M. (2019). Economy and society: essays on understanding sociology (transl., ed. and preface L.G. Ionina). M.: Publishing house of the Higher School of Economics (In Rus.).
Review
For citations:
Andriyanova T.V. The sociological dimension of media interactions: current state and author's design of the study. Communicology. 2023;11(4):39-50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2023-11-4-39-50
Views:
200
Email this article 
