TY - JOUR
AU - Jackson, Susan T
AB - Abstract Each year the prevalence of digitized information becomes more entrenched, not least with the amount of activity on social media. Yet, new media studies pose a number of challenges to international relations scholarship, which are only beginning to be addressed. With some exceptions IR scholars who conduct this research tend to rely on traditional qualitative methods and have been hesitant to embrace interdisciplinary collaboration—especially with those disciplines outside of the social sciences—as well as methodological pluralism across interpretive and quantitative approaches within the social sciences. This tendency shows a general lack of understanding of what new/social media might mean, not only as a source of and tool for generating information but also as a structural factor in how we conduct IR research and practice international relations. In this way, social media can provoke IR scholars to ask questions about their own discipline. This article aims to address these challenges and to provide suggestions on how to bring structural aspects of new media into IR research. In particular, it incorporates ideas centered on the shifting media ecology as fundamental to examining these structural challenges in terms of practicing international relations and in the visual turn in IR. interdisciplinary, methodological pluralism, new media There are approximately 3.8 billion internet users worldwide, three billion of whom are active social media users (Kemp 2017). For people with access to online resources, each year digital information becomes a more taken-for-granted part of life. More than 98 percent of stored information in the world is now digitized (Cukier and Mayer-Schoenberger 2013), and Web 2.0 applications and user-generated content (UGC) rival traditional media as a means of gathering information (Ghannam 2011). Since 2009, news use within social media has increased by over 50 percent and now accounts for at least 9 percent of all traffic going to news sites and growing (Weeks and Holbert 2013). Because of the amount of and widespread reliance on digital communication, the position of technology companies in filtering and promoting online content, for example in deciding what hate speech is, can impact what we access and how we conduct international relations research (e.g., see Wells et al. 2016), as well as impact the potential for disinformation as both content on and structural aspects of new media (see Dohle and Bernhard [2016, 12–13] and Owen [2015] for discussions of the consequences of rumors on behavior). Today's hybrid media ecology—a combination of older and newer media logics that dominates the creation and sharing of communication—poses challenges to conventional IR debates regarding actors and how their relationships can change depending on notions of “adaptation and interdependence and concentrations and diffusion of power” (Chadwick, Dennis, and Smith 2016, 8). This shifting media ecology means we need to interrogate if and when new media itself impacts the politics we study and practice and whether these structures might have implications for the questions we ask and how we look for the answers as IR scholars. Der Derian (2009, 5) aptly reminded us in the early days of new/social media that “the informational, technological as well as political networks of global media require new modes of comprehension and instruction” (see also Hoskin 2013). While material structures might not matter in every case, they can have implications for how we conceptualize key IR elements (e.g., agency, control, power, citizenship) and, consequently, for our research findings. Further, in light of questions around fragmentation versus cooperation in terms of new/social media user behavior, we need to explore how the structures of social media platforms can and do facilitate and reinforce different types of contradictory behaviors simultaneously. Such a pivotal new media role in dissent and effectiveness requires methodologies that allow us to assert these claims. This article aims to address these challenges by suggesting how to bring structural aspects of new media into IR research, in particular, ideas centered on the shifting media ecology. As supported by the building momentum toward pluralistic and interdisciplinary IR research (e.g., Vowe and Henn 2016; Bleiker 2015 and 2017; Bennett 2015; Simmons 2011), the approach presented here entails exploring new methodologies and/or modifying existing ones as well as embracing the contributions of interdisciplinary and feminist IR that bring marginalized actors to the center, approaches that have yet to be integrated more broadly into IR research on new media, and on social media in particular. For the remainder of this article, I offer a discussion on the relevance of new media in IR research, first by discussing the contributions a shifting media ecology perspective offers to IR by exploring ideas around digital communication and everyday political artifacts, the politics of new media structures, and the call for a deeper discussion on the ethics of using digital data in research. In the subsequent two sections, I provide examples of and insights into the notion of using social media as a site for identifying political behavior and as a way to use visual analysis to interpret meaning construction. Through a focus on key subject areas in IR and new media (networked actors; state surveillance and the digital arms race; data/ethics; (in)visibility/silences; and, seeing, hearing, and feeling IR), these sections examine the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches and add elements missing in the current research. I conclude by offering overarching suggestions on the direction in which IR's new media research could go. The Shifting Media Ecology These communicative dynamics [of the shifting media ecology] certainly imply inter- or cross-disciplinarity, require new methods to approach them, and possibly offers global communication as a new ontology for IR, which transcends realist inherency, liberal institutionalism, social constructivism, and perhaps even the critical universal emancipatory project. (Constantinou, Richmond, and Watson 2008, 7) New Media as IR Mediatization is the increasing degree to which society is dependent upon the media and the media is part of how other social institutions operate, as well as being a social institution in its own right (e.g., Awan, Hoskins, and O'Loughlin 2011). Over the past two decades, the mediatization of society has become a central component in what is a shifting media ecology, an ecology that now is heavily influenced by the strategies and mechanisms of social media (van Dijck and Poell 2013). Because of how pervasive mediatization is, people adapt to a “media logic” (Robertson 2015, 134), with more research being focused on not only what news and information people receive and how but on how various IR domains themselves are mediatized or dependent on or transformed by the media (Azari 2016). Within the context of the global information age—something Simmons (2011, 595) defines as “the ability of individuals to create, transfer, and access information globally” with technologies that often are decentralized and commercialized—a communications technology revolution has “redefined the relationship between producers and receivers of online information” (Carpenter and Drezner 2010, 256; see Marlin-Bennett [2013] on conceptualizing the flow of information as power). We can conceptualize these new digital technologies as “produc[ing] new types of association, identity and mobilisation shaped by popular sentiments and understandings of political possibility” (Grayson, Davies, and Philpott 2009, 158; see also Hanson 2008; Singh 2013; Youngs 2009; Howard and Hussain 2013; Chadwick et al. 2016). As part of the communications technology revolution, new media is “generally identified as digitized, interactive, networked forms of communication” (der Derian 2009, 247). Materials (these everyday political artifacts) that are part of new media can be recirculated more easily and quickly, thereby potentially taking on a lifespan and reaching an audience that were unimaginable until recently and which allow users (producers especially) to “establish their own agendas” (Elthaway cited in Ghannam 2011, 6; also see Hansen 2011). Social media is a major part of new media and the hybrid media ecology and can be identified as having platforms that have three technological characteristics: “the intermediation of user-generated content,” “the possibility of interactivity among users and direct engagement with content,” and “the ability for an individual to articulate network connections with other users” (DeNardis and Hackl 2015, 762; see also Kaplan and Haenlein 2011; Jackson 2016). The underlying social media logic is the “processes, principles, and practices through which [these] platforms process information, news, and communication” and involves “a particular set of strategies and mechanisms” that influence how the media ecology is shifting (van Dijck and Poell 2013, 5). Social actors navigate, influence, and are influenced by this social media logic as it permeates other aspects of life, becoming a major factor in why IR needs to pay attention to the new media elements of the hybrid media landscape. Further, the “social” of social media demands researchers specify a social theory (Fuchs 2014). The field can no longer assume that existing approaches to political communication and networks can simply be applied to recent work on new media, especially in how social media use interacts with other parts of the hybrid media ecology (e.g., embedded and linked items in online news reports, sponsored content that resembles news, and social media language that blends in with traditional news reports in print and broadcast forms). These interactions result in everyday political artifacts, which are a cornerstone for IR new media research (Hamilton 2016; Jackson 2016). The ways we communicate using new media provide a key opportunity for researchers to investigate the politics of everyday international relations (Martino 2015; Crilley 2016; de Silva and Crilley 2017) and have the potential to impact how we participate in politics and whether and how we are empowered (e.g., Loader and Mercea 2012). Within and because of this new ecology, we continually observe/experience “new sites of popular culture formation from texting to the blogosphere and YouTube,” through which “political battles are waged over distribution, access and content of these media” (Grayson et al. 2009, 157). We can look to new media to explore if communication and outcomes change as a result of using new media or if the changing media logics behind communication result in stable political systems instead (Klinger and Svensson 2016; Roberts 2015). For example, there are claims that organizations (e.g., terrorist organizations) embrace new media as “a transformative tool that offers endless possibilities for communication and expansion” (Seib and Janbek 2011, ix). Elsewhere, there are claims that it is not a new type of network organization but rather only new ways for communicating within and among networks (Macdonald and Mair 2015). These types of claims raise a number of questions: who is empowered by new media and what do we know about different levels or types of agency? How are the levels of analysis we use impacted when we think about new (especially social) media as having a structural impact on politics? Can we assume that online messages are reaching intended audiences and that the communication has been effective in the ways intended? Further, how can we get at data that can address how people (audiences) perceive or understand the relationship between new media and political processes? The IR of New Media Structures Media studies reminds us that the medium of communication can be the meaning of the message rather than assuming the message is simply a matter of interpreting the content on its own (McLuhan 1964). If we incorporate this understanding into an IR perspective and technology “shapes the processes of producing, finding, and reproducing” information (Klinger and Svensson 2016, 27), then information technologies and new/social media structures are not neutral byproducts but rather are political in and of themselves (Nahon 2016; DeNardis and Hackl 2015; Murphy 2009). This nonneutrality, then, makes the structures of technology a key feature to consider in IR research in terms of who and what controls the way new media look and feel. These structures not only provide parameters for use but also are co-constitutive of the politics of online communication. It is necessary, then, to address the structural issues posed by new media in order to know if and when existing theoretical and methodological approaches in IR can be applied to new media research (Henn and Vowe 2016) and when we need to adapt or develop new ones. This section discusses the key structural aspects of new media, in particular: the role of states and platforms/companies in (contention for) the control of data composition and access; the developers’ roles and the (potential) corresponding structural impact on online behavior; and social media structures, in particular, because they have a broader tendency to impact new media structures overall. A 2009 forum in the International Studies Review examined what is being controlled on the internet and under what conditions, raising issues around the role of state and nonstate actors, with the state having ultimate control, though perhaps at varying degrees (e.g., Salhi 2009), versus growing power in the private sector (Eriksson and Giacomello 2009). States and corporations both support and challenge each other as gate keepers to the internet, for example, regarding access, privacy, and encryption (e.g., Boeke and Eijkman 2015), all while being challenged by nonstate actors, for example, groups that attempt to work out their own encryption architectures (Moore and Rid 2016).2 A major actor in this political dance, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the structure of the internet and influences how related technologies are developed, including naming protocols, norms on information sharing, and general operational standards.3 It should not go unnoticed that even as ICANN works toward a more inclusive representation, it remains heavily influenced by the United States (Scholte 2016). In this capacity, we can conceptualize the internet and related technologies as a form of social power or institution that has been designed to further US foreign policy objectives (as envisioned by political and corporate elites) and embodies an imperialist approach to information markets by supporting material outcomes that favor US foreign policy (McCarthy 2015). This favoring of the United States should be at least a consideration when thinking about the politics of structure and new media in IR research. Because these companies/platforms provide spaces for others to post content, it might seem from a technological perspective that new/social media platforms are politically neutral. However, the programmers’ backend decisions on content and related user policies regarding appropriate content and behavior act as a form of user censorship (e.g., see DeNardis and Hackl 2015; Nahon 2016), whether of something seen as inhibiting speech or of something in contestation as one of the growing number of fake news sites (Ha 2017). It is “[t]hrough the design of infrastructure [that] architects influence the decisions of users regarding their privacy, what to share, how to write, and how to behave on that platform” (Nahon 2016, 43; see also Tufekçi 2014), providing boundaries and shaping preferences. Nonhuman online activity (e.g., automated data-generating mechanisms such as spambots, click farms, and fake accounts) has the potential to skew the data and thus research findings. Therefore, we need to account for who has the power to design and build the systems and what the political implications are (McCarthy 2013). We also need to interrogate how, as information intermediaries, those systems look and feel and how they impact how we use social media (and, therefore, how we perform politics), in order to assess the presence of “privatized governance” or “governance by social media rather than governance of social media” (DeNardis and Hackl 2015, 762, emphasis in original). How databases are constructed and used and by whom is also about power (Teboho Ansorge 2011). These contexts matter. The politics of online communication technology are especially important when we consider the broader social biases in place and what that context might mean for the systems we use and how they are structured, and vice versa. As an example of social biases, research centering on online verbal aggression and the complex relationships between the virtual and physical worlds, including borders in their many guises, calls for developing “tools which take into account not only of the structural features of digital media, but also of the cultural and historical specificities” (Rutten, Fedor, and Zvereva 2013, 239). Gender bias in the selection and construction of the datasets used to train computers in machine-learning, for example, amplifies existing material world biases in the virtual world and back again (Kugler, Tinsley, and Ukhaneva 2017; Zhao et al. 2017), exemplifying how human agency in the development process has broader significance in social and political life. Further, online hate and radicalization, when viewed as a type of (re)production of societal discourses, call for multimethod IR approaches in order to get at the content and at the amount of data available (e.g., see Törnberg and Törnberg's [2016] large-N study on a right-wing, antifeminist, Islamophobic site). Anonymity is an important structural aspect of new/social media and likely increases the potential for online hate and radicalization, yet the lack of established regulations combined with anonymity are two of the key structural reasons some actors express themselves through violent social media (e.g., see Sieb and Janbek 2011). In the UN Broadband Commission for the Digital Development Working Group on Broadband and Gender 2015 report on cyber violence against women and girls, the commission found that 73 percent of the world's women and girls have experienced cyber violence in some form (UN 2015, 2), suggesting that it would be useful to expand our IR understanding of the structures of social media to include norms of behavior such as trolling and self-censorship. Research investigating connections between antiminority social media hate speech in the United States and Western Europe—for example, against Muslims—and structural issues, such as viewer agency, shows discourse, online hate, and minority representations are linked to IR outcomes (e.g., Aguilera-Carnerero and Azeez 2016). Further, the shift from a mass media culture toward a network (hybrid) media culture in the shifting media ecology means people “no longer share the same picture of a common sociopolitical reality” (Klinger and Svensson 2016, 30). Alongside this shift, there is evidence that the internet does not polarize people, but rather polarized people tend to use the internet more for information, especially from sites that confirm their existing beliefs (Nie et al. 2010; see Archetti 2015 regarding the role of individual narratives in radicalization). Rather than assuming new media either facilitates cooperation or builds barriers, it is important to reflect on how existing barriers might be reinforced and exacerbated by new/social media. Data and Ethics In order to expand our views of what is political so that we can address research questions suited to social media, IR needs to explore new methodological toolboxes to accommodate otherwise excluded but important factors, for example, the methodological considerations of ethics and data use (Bleiker 2015). The collection of personally identifiable information (PII; for example, residential addresses) that is in the public realm is a significant issue (Dunn Cavelty and Mauer 2009; Al-Rodhan 2014). How do we treat the ethics of privacy and use of social media data, especially data from everyday people who have not given informed consent for researchers to use the data the users have generated online (e.g., see Morrow, Hawkins, and Kern 2014)? This data might be visible to anyone online, but was that the intention of the social media user? How do we know users have consented to having their data used (e.g., Bush [2014] and online gamers)? In addition, large-scale data collection now is possible because of the algorithmic research methods crafted for data mining in a variety of contexts (Mutlu 2015). But just because we can do it, does it mean we should? Ethical issues also are centered on data access during data collection and processing. The digital divide in terms of data access between the lack of transparency of the platforms that control the data (e.g., from deciding what data to collect and how those algorithms are written) and academics is important because the platforms have access to the raw user data and academics only have access to and process the platforms’ data in the ways the platforms allow (Keyling and Jünger 2016, 194–46). Because of the lack of transparency and the implications for individuals and other actors, these tensions bring into question code ownership and copyright policies in regards to level of openness in technology development (May 2008; Halbert 2014). Relatedly, given the vested interests platforms/companies have to maximize information sharing amongst their respective users, users often unknowingly have “exposed” more content than they expected (Nahon 2016, 41), raising ethical questions regarding platform and researcher use of user data. In addition, a particular concern is that “[i]mages do not speak for themselves—they are made to speak for, by and about us. We are asking these bodies to do political work for us that, however ‘right,’ also works to reduce them to representative examples of their plights” (Dauphinee 2007, 153). Shepherd (2017, 221) also reminds us that the choice of an image is an “ethicopolitical decision with implications for the lives of others.” If, as Dauphinee claims, the visual image is part of the torture (in terms of the act of taking images while people are being tortured as adding to the already physical torture they experienced), then where is the discussion of the ethics of using the images of torture circulated on social media as part of IR scholarship? By using the images are we contributing to the torture? Is it enough to say that our intentions for using these images are ethical (namely, but not exclusively, in protest of the torture) and therefore their use is ethical? Along these lines, Chouliaraki (2016, 415) looks at civic responsiveness in relation to “spectacles of suffering on digital platforms” and what role viewership plays in moral responsibility. How do these types of observations fit with the increase in quantity and speed of images from conflict areas, such as the images of dead children who had been trying to flee from conflict? Depending on the purposes of the online data collection, IR researchers should consider the types of precautions we take when engaging in nondigital human subjects research. What safeguards and disclosures do we use, for example, in participant-observation research? If our actions as researchers can/will impact private individuals who otherwise are not in the public eye, then we should have the necessary precautions in place. The IR of New Media Behavior IR research more broadly often focuses on actor behavior using materials to understand or uncover behavior and talk about power and change/continuity. As a result, many of the questions central to IR new media research focus on who might be empowered and what other factors, such as traditional media, might be jointly relevant to claims about agency, social movements, and networks (e.g., see Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia 2014). People can use social media to quickly disseminate information in response to their own life events (e.g., Tungohan 2013) or in protest as a spontaneous group (Schneider 2014). However, these platforms can be used in unintended ways for organizing and physical security in other places and for humanitarian reasons. For instance, refugee populations that previously relied on word-of-mouth communication regarding safe places can now potentially use social media platforms (such as Twitter) to communicate in more real-time than before and can spread the information more widely (Jose and Medie 2015).The new media practices of networks of resistance or of organized violence can resemble elite actors’ behavior, but what does this tell us about the challenges to state power by “disruptive innovators” who now can bypass institutional governance (see Owen 2015, 9)? Are IR's conventional approaches to understanding networks valid in a new media environment, for example, when looking at state surveillance/censorship activities or states’ outreach via new media? Are the invisible necessarily more visible than before and does it make a difference? Networked Actors A common aspect across IR studies on social movements is the significance of networked communities or publics in combination with other country-specific factors. The Arab Spring literature suggests that the hybrid media ecology (via preexisting information infrastructures coupled with the networking aspects of mobile phones) was a significant factor in peaceful protests that led to regime change (albeit short-lived) (Howard and Hussain 2013). Elsewhere, research has indicated that, through digital technologies, this media ecology works together with sentiment as a way to forge ties across networks by providing ways to identify to whom to become closer and from whom to keep distant (Papacharissi 2015; see also Ross 2010), in part as a way for “networked publics to negotiate agency and reimagined citizenship” in the everyday in tandem with the politicization of the youth outside of established political institutions (Zayani 2015, 8). However, these types of network studies remain limited, in part because there is a general lack of cross-national IR research on social movements and new media (Bruns et al. 2016, 2). These findings indicate a potential special linkage between social structures and the use of digital technologies and how people interact and share affiliation. Beyond social movements, new/social media has become a window for observing how people conduct political violence (e.g., terrorism) and for interrogating how social media can be a part of that violence, or not (e.g., see Archetti 2015; Forest and Honkus 2009). Outreach includes practices that normalize political participation in these groups, such as radicalization and recruitment; various kinds of networking; and basic publicity and propaganda efforts (Jarvis, Macdonald, and Chen 2015). These tactics mark a shift to a modern communication model that is “audience-based, meaning-centered, culture-dependent” and which attempts to align itself with the narrative within the sociopolitical context that the group operates (Seib and Janbek 2011, 1). This type of harnessing of online communication tactics is the most recent way to consider violent political events as media events (Nacos 2002; Awan et al. 2011), only now broadcast media is no longer the primary actor that can publish the violence and influence the narrative through mass public outreach. Organizations can use social networking sites as sources of data mining to further their networks, making it possible for networked organizations (however loosely tied) to coordinate activities (Seib and Janbek 2011). Because of social media platforms, it is possible for independent terrorist hubs, for instance, to link up in ways not available before, in ways that might be changing the shape of terrorist networks by making closeness a less central part of organizing (Moghadam 2013). Through online representations, we also can see how, as part of the new media environment, use of the internet in Iraq went from pragmatic and strategy oriented to radical and marginalizing (Lynch 2011), suggesting that this use reflects political contexts at the same time that it shapes them. Corporations grasped social media messaging early on, with implications for IR/ir, for example, in terms of nation branding and citizen identity construction (Joachim et al. 2018; Jackson 2016). Similar to corporate outreach attempts to reach broader publics, official actors such as ministries of foreign affairs and embassies conduct digital diplomacy—a form of so-called “soft power”—across a network of government actors (Forest and Honkus 2009). The potential for social media use to impact diplomatic behavior and effectiveness rests on the two-way interactive structure of social media (Cull 2013) and in its near real-time posts (Holmes and Bjola 2015). Pamment (2016) links the transmedia storytelling structure of digital public diplomacy to issues of engagement and surveillance such that the multistakeholders invested across a diplomatic community work to construct a unified, transmedia message that coalesces a set of behavioral norms around a given campaign (e.g., the British Campaign to End Sexual Violence in Conflict), norms that constrain stakeholder behavior. In the process, diplomatic listening becomes an ongoing endeavor instead of something that only precedes campaign formation and results in a type of surveillance. However, though social media has the potential to increase engagement between foreign ministries, recent research has shown that digital public diplomacy by governments generally is targeted at foreign populations rather than domestic audiences, thereby limiting dialogic communication between governments (Kampf, Manor, and Segev 2015) and with limited effectiveness due to the inability to adapt old diplomacy strategies to new media structures (Manor 2016). State Surveillance and the Digital Arms Race Institutional controls over digital technology infrastructure facilitate states’ abilities to use digital surveillance to monitor and attempt to curtail unrest and (potential) social movements. While there are studies on state surveillance and censorship in often lesser studied IR areas (e.g., on Africa see Gumede 2016), this section focuses on China because restricting the discussion to one case illustrates what applying different methodological approaches offers to IR and new media research. Large-N work on Twitter data shows how China directs information intermediators (companies) to censor users when they post about collective action (mobilization; anti-assembly) but not so much when they post about dissent (antigovernment) (King, Pan, and Roberts 2013). Research on Weibo (China's leading microblog) indicates that the Chinese government used a mix of censorship decisions during an interaction with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to turn Weibo into a sort of public sentiment safety valve (Cairns and Carlson 2016). In turn, online activists (netizens) implement creative strategies in order to bypass censorship structures, for example, mimicry and recontextualizing political parodic satire, while keeping the scope of their criticism limited (Lee 2016). Broadly speaking, authoritarian regimes might exert more control over traditional media now as a way of mitigating the hybrid media's tendency to link traditional and social media aspects of news reporting, thus keeping news off of online sources (on China, see Lorentzen 2014). However, though this research is increasingly multifaceted, it generally lacks a broader cross-national comparison with how new media works in authoritarian regimes. States monitor other state actors as well—sometimes aggressively, as is the case between the United States and China (Lindsay, Cheung, and Reveron 2015)—and can be thought of as participating in type of digital arms race (Owen 2015). This race is based on the potential threat to the state that digital technologies pose. One intellectual area at stake in this digital race, though, is that in their behavioral analyses corporations and governments tend to decontextualize the datafication of people's lives, leaving the research lacking in terms of understanding content and, therefore, difficult to use for broader conclusions (Keyling and Jünger 2016). Recognizing Online (In)Visibility and Silences IR often renders the contribution of marginalized actors on new/social media and elsewhere as absent or insignificant. Feminist IR scholars (among others) bring women, people of color, transgender people, and others into IR research by showing how their presence on social media and their participation in protests, as with the Arab Spring, are not unexpected nor surprising (e.g., see Pedersen and Salib 2013; Kunz and Maisenbacher 2015). Elsewhere, presence on new media can challenge the invisibility that is thrust on some in the material world, making it evident that they are violently excluded, for example, the discussion about using selfies to expose the erasure of brown, queer, and transgender people, in general (Rage 2017). Similarly, it is possible to recognize those marginalized in conventional studies by using traditional methods alongside social media posts in order to combine the analyses of official versions with other voices. For example, by using a postcolonial feminist perspective and applying a mixed methods approach that juxtaposes social media posts with official EU documents, it is possible to locate the voices and the silences in the EU's promotion of gender equality and how the silences expose this promotion as reinforcing Othering (Kunz and Maisenbacher 2015). While new media has the potential to expose this marginalization—both online and within IR research—this form of assumed agency needs to be examined more closely in practice before we can assume emancipation or automatic advantages for those on the margins (e.g., see Constantinou et al. 2008; Murphy 2009; Lindsay 2013). IR would benefit from incorporating methodologies that could get at issues of effectiveness. Seeing, Hearing, and Feeling IR With the amount of online visual content, we need to recognize that “visual language [has become] the language of contemporary popular culture—the language that amateurs and experts increasingly rely upon in order to claim contemporary literacy” (Weber 2008, 138). Social media's contribution to this contemporary literacy is coupled with IR's general inability to deal with global communication (Constantinou et al. 2008), challenging IR to step up its game. Visual analysis finds strength in untangling how experiencing images is mediated in new media and finds space for exploring some new methodologies. However, thus far, IR visual analysis has struggled with incorporating the audio in audio-visual analysis (Jackson 2017) and with adopting interdisciplinary quantitative data approaches, in part because of the difficulty in translating across disciplines (Hemphill and Jackson 2017). However, these translations are possible and have the potential to contribute to a revamping of epistemological and theoretical assumptions that make it possible to do interdisciplinary research. A key strength of visual analysis for IR and new media research is its ability to contextualize images, showing that images in and of themselves are not provocative. Context matters, not least within the global media ecology (O'Loughlin 2011; de Franco 2016). Because images are “constituted through spoken and written discourse” (Hansen 2011, 53), linking text to the kind of authority that generated it as well as to the type of genre to which it belongs is essential as well (Hansen 2011, 55; see also Vuori 2010). For instance, war experiences are mediated online through official channels as militaries worldwide become more adept at using social media to deliver their messaging, but also the experience is mediated for the viewer/receiver through amateur videos made by soldiers in conflict zones such that the amateur form of documentary presents a sense of immediacy and authenticity that is missing in more formalized images of war (e.g., Kennedy 2009; Kuntsman and Stein 2015). Internet memes—pictures “with a short caption which is a caricature illustration of current political, sports, and cultural events” (Gorka 2014, 215)—similarly are part of a larger context, and meaning is made beyond the individual meme itself (Shifman 2013). Building on this understanding, iconological analysis of images centers on the idea of social embeddedness and issues of performativity, whether icons on the domestic level (Heck and Schlag 2012 on the United States; Gaufman 2017 on Russia) or on the international level (Hansen 2015). Visual analysis also lends itself toward making traditional IR concepts visible in unexpected, complicated ways, for example, the difference between terror and horror in response to war (Weber 2014). However, questions regarding if, how, and why audiences respond to images and what kinds of meanings they construct often are bypassed in visual analysis studies because of the focus on what the images themselves might mean (Gaufman 2017). How do we know whether images that have been circulated have an (intended) effect? Do these effects matter? Audience questions are taking on a growing role in this research and can be addressed by broadening visual analysis methodologies to include: mixed method approaches and digital anthropology for research on the success of threat narratives (Gaufman 2017); audience ethnography to understand audience perceptions of images of war (Moss and O'Loughlin 2008; O'Loughlin 2011) and the relationship between media, radicalization, and audience perception (Awan et al. 2011); and integrated multidisciplinary media analysis that brings together audience ethnography, discourse analysis, image analysis, and institutional and policy analysis to look at the media-security nexus (Gillespie et al. 2010). Further, quantifying visual signifiers can result in meaningful generalizations about messaging and political constructions on/of social media (e.g., see Robinson and Schulzke 2016). Part of this discussion also centers on the role of algorithms in delivering personalized experiences and how that delivery might impact meaning construction, if indeed context is a factor. In addition to Weber's (2008) challenge to IR scholars to move beyond the linguistic turn to a visual one, the politics of online videos require an audio component for understanding the complexity of meaning construction (Jackson 2017). Similar to the ways images can rely on positioning, lighting, and other visual techniques to create representations that are gendered, racialized, sexualized and so on, sound lends itself to setting an environment or expectation that is tied to other texts or moments that then contribute to meaning construction jointly. Machin (2010) provides a multimodal approach that can be adapted for IR's purposes in illuminating the use of audio techniques to evoke authenticity and believability, among other things (and therefore making video messaging more realistic to and embraceable by viewers). In support of pluralism, Jackson (2017) adapts Machin's multimodal approach to bring sound (e.g., music, accents, and nature) into IR's visual analysis for videos, showing the importance of sound in constructing Us/Them (in terms of national identity) and conveying authenticity in ways moving images alone do not. Studies on migration and diasporas present the larger context of sound and meaning construction (e.g., Toynbee and Dueck 2011) as does research on sound and social movements (e.g., Rühlig's [2016] work on the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong and corresponding nonverbalized demands), early work on constructing nationhood (Shapiro 2001), and the research on music and politics (Franklin 2005). Visual and audio-visual analyses lend themselves to IR research on how emotions contribute to meaning construction and the potential for incorporating intergroup emotions (Sasley 2011), visuality of pain (Crilley 2017), cosmopolitan empathy (Robertson 2010), or the empathic self (Weber 2014; see also Lisle 2016). Ross (2010) cites the circulation of certain images and responses on YouTube as incidental in contributing to negative views of Muslims in Western media and academia, uncovering common Western representations of Muslims as angry and acting through rage. Hansen (2011, 53) posits that the “immediacy, circulability and ambiguity” of images are key in the power of meaning construction. Similarly, Faria (2010) explains how women's bodies are used as markers of national boundaries in her analysis of YouTube promotional videos of the US-based Miss Sudan contest. In her work on tracing her own emotions to the research she was conducting and the reactions she was getting, Sjoberg (2011) used personal narrative and Facebook status collages along with discussion of her own emotional reactions to the research process to examine how to use narratives to share research feelings and how those feelings affect the research—thus using social media to bring in an awareness of the impact of researcher emotions. Conclusions Early in the article I suggested that mediatization is an important, but widely ignored, factor in IR research on/with new/social media, not least because of its pervasiveness and its impact on a variety of IR domains. Digital media in particular is a driving force in how we shape and practice international politics, whether in traditional spheres, such as by government actors, or in the everyday level to which feminist scholars pay attention. While the political artifacts that comprise new/social media warrant our interest, the new/social media structures that make them possible do as well. The article points to how embracing pluralistic and interdisciplinary approaches can contribute to IR new/social media scholarship. In practice, the potential for structures to influence outcome is quite meaningful: whether it is the tension between states and corporations for control over data composition, flow, and access; the power of developers to drive the direction of online communication through platform algorithms; or how system structures can influence online behavior, for example, through anonymity as linked to social bias. New/social media structures also impact the ethical use of user data in terms of what the platforms control, whether users realize their data is public, and how researchers exploit data (e.g., images) by assigning their own values. Given these points, we need to consider, rather than assume, whether the invisible and silenced have automatic agency they did not have before. While IR visual analysis is expanding to include interdisciplinary methodologies such as iconology and digital ethnography, what is lacking in this area are the methodologies for assessing audience perception and the effects images have on viewers/receivers and for quantifying online images. Further, with the amount of online material that is in video form, IR visual analysis is called on to incorporate the “audio” part of audio-visual, similar to the various ways IR research on emotion addresses other kinds of silences. Whether quantitative or qualitative, though, the influence of algorithms to select which images appear in which contexts (including to which viewers) remains largely unexplored by IR scholars, though methodological approaches could be adapted from other disciplines. As with the printing press, telegram, radio, television, satellite TV, and Web 1.0 internet, it is possible new/social media is a whole other thing, or perhaps it is a continuation of communication changes that have been in motion across the ages. This overview shows that, as IR scholars, we cannot address what new/social media means for IR without exploring the methodological issues this new space poses and without working in collaboration across disciplines. Author Biographical Susan T. Jackson is the principal investigator of Militarization 2.0: Militarization's Social Media Footprint through a Gendered Lens, a four-year framework grant funded by Vetenskapsrådet (the Swedish Research Council). Susan works in Sweden as a researcher at Stockholm University and is an associate senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Her research focuses on militarization and international relations with an emphasis on corporate actors and the conventional arms industry. Prior to the Militarization 2.0 project, Susan was head of the Arms Production Project at SIPRI. She has published on the marketing of militarism, the national security exception, and the selling of national security through arms industry promotional videos posted on corporate YouTube channels. Footnotes 1 This research is part of the Militarization 2.0: Militarization's Social Media Footprint through a Gendered Lens framework grant funded by Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Research Council, grant no. 340-2012-5990). I would like to thank Chiara de Franco, Lisa Gaufman, Nick Robinson and Robert Stewart Ingersoll for early comments, and the editors and reviewers at ISR for their feedback. That said, the content is my own including any errors. 2 Hate groups increasingly rely on encryption services for their online communication (e.g., Phillips 2016). 3 Industry research also shows a developer-level digital divide in programming languages that seems to indicate a hierarchy between higher-income countries and lower-income countries in terms of who is driving how platforms work, which thus constitutes another aspect of imperialism in technology (Robinson 2017). REFERENCES Aguilera-Carnerero Carmen , Azeez Adbul Halik. 2016 . “ ‘Islamonausea, Not Islamophobia’: The Many Faces of Cyber Hate Speech .” Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 9 : 21 – 40 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Al-Rodhan Nayef . 2014 . “ The Social Contract 2.0: Big Data and the Need to Guarantee Privacy and Civil Liberties .” Harvard International Review , September 16, 2014. Accessed February 2, 2015. http://hir.harvard.edu/the-social-contract-2-0-big-data-and-the-need-to-guarantee-privacy-and-civil-liberties . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Archetti Christina . 2015 . “ Terrorism, Communication and New Media: Explaining Radicalization in the Digital Age .” Perspectives on Terrorism 9 ( 1 ): 49 – 59 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Awan Akil N. , Hoskins Andrew, O'Loughlin Ben. 2011 . Radicalisation and Media: Connectivity and Terrorism in the New Media Ecology . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Azari Julia R. 2016 . “ How the News Media Helped to Nominate Trump .” Political Communication 33 ( 4 ): 677 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bennett Andrew . 2015 . “ Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis with Computer Assisted Content Analysis .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 ( 3 ): 984 – 7 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bleiker Roland . 2015 . “ Pluralist Methods for Visual Global Politics .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 ( 3 ): 872 – 90 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bleiker Roland . 2017 . “ In Search of Thinking Space: Reflections on the Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 ( 2 ): 258 – 64 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Boeke Sergei , Eijkman Quirine. 2015 . “ State Surveillance in Cyberspace: A New Perspective on Digital Data Practices by Intelligence and Security Services .” In Terrorism Online: Politics, Law and Technology , edited by Jarvis Lee, Macdonald Stuart, Chen Thomas M., 125 – 45 . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bruns Axel , Enli Gunn, Skogerbo Eli, Larsson Anders Olof, Christensen Christian. 2016 . “ Introduction .” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics , edited by Bruns Axel, Enli Gunn, Skogerbo Eli, Larsson Anders Olof, Christensen Christian, 1 – 4 . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bush Kate M. 2014 . “ Preface .” In Predicting Real World Behaviors from Virtual World Data , edited by Ahmad Muhammed Aurangzeb, Shen Cuihua, Srivastava Jaideep, Contractor Noshir, VII – X . London : Springer International . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cairns Christopher , Carlson Allen. 2016 . “ Real-World Islands in a Social Media Sea: Nationalism and Censorship on Weibo during the 2012 Diaoyu/Senkaku Crisis .” The China Quarterly 225 : 23 – 49 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Carpenter Charli , Drezner Daniel W.. 2010 . “ International Relations 2.0: The Implications of New Media for an Old Profession .” International Relations Perspective 11 ( 3 ): 255 – 72 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chadwick Andrew , Dennis James, Smith Amy P.. 2016 . “ Politics in the Age of Hybrid Media: Power, Systems, and Media Logics .” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics , edited by Bruns Axel, Enli Gunn, Skogerbo Eli, Larsson Anders Olof, Christensen Christian, 7 – 22 . Oxon : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Chouliaraki Lilie . 2016 . “ Concluding Comment: Moral Responsibility and Civic Responsiveness: Spectacles of Suffering on Digital Media .” Javnost: The Public 23 ( 4 ): 415 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Constantinou Costas M , Richmond Oliver P, Watson Alison M. S.. 2008 . “ International Relations and the Challenges of Global Communications .” Review of International Studies 34 : 5 – 19 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crilley Rhys . 2016 . “ Like and Share Forces: Making Sense of Military Social Media Sites .” In Understanding Popular Culture and World Politics in the Digital Age , edited by Hamilton Caitlin, Shepherd Laura, 51 – 67 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Crilley Rhys . 2017 . “ The Visual Politics of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces on Facebook .” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 10 ( 2–3 ): 133 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Cukier Kenneth Neil , Mayer-Schoenberger Viktor. 2013 . “ The Rise of Big Data: How It's Changing the Way We Think about the World .” Foreign Affairs , May/June, 2013. Accessed February 2, 2015, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139104/kenneth-neil-cukier-and-viktor-mayer-schoenberger/the-rise-of-big-data . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Cull Nicholas J. 2013 . “ The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy .” International Studies Review 15 ( 1 ): 123 – 39 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dauphinee Elizabeth . 2007 . “ The Politics of the Body in Pain: Reading the Ethics of Imagery .” Security Dialogue 38 ( 2 ): 139 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat De Franco Chiara . 2016 . “ Media Ecology and the Blurring of Public and Private Practices: A Case from the Middle East .” Politik 19 ( 4 ): 11 – 29 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat DeNardis L. , Hackl A. M.. 2015 . “ Internet Governance by Social Media Platforms .” Telecommunications Policy 39 : 761 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Der Derian James . 2009 . Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial Complex . New York : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC De Silva Raquel , Crilley Rhys. 2017 . “ ‘Talk about Terror in Our Back Gardens’: An Analysis of Online Comments about British Foreign Fighters in Syria .” Critical Studies on Terrorism 10 ( 1 ): 162 – 86 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dohle Marco , Bernhard Uli. 2016 . “ Third-Person Effect and Influence of Presumed Media Influence Approach Revisited .” In Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs , edited by Vowe Gerhard, Henn Philipp, 103 – 17 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Dunn Cavelty Myriam , Mauer Victor. 2009 . “ Postmodern Intelligence: Strategic Warning in an Age of Reflexive Intelligence .” Security Dialogue 40 ( 2 ): 123 – 44 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Eriksson Johan , Giacomello Giampiero. 2009 . “ Who Controls What, and Under What Conditions? ” International Studies Review 11 ( 1 ): 206 – 10 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Faria Caroline . 2010 . “ Contesting Miss South Sudan: Gender and Nation-Building in Diasporic Discourse .” International Feminist Journal of Politics 12 ( 2 ): 222 – 43 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Forest James J. , Honkus Frank. 2009 . “ Introduction .” In The Introduction in Influence Warfare: How Terrorists and Governments Fight to Shape Perceptions in the War of Ideas , edited by Forest James J., 1 – 26 . Westport, Conn : Praeger . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Franklin M. I. (ed). 2005 . Resounding International Relations: On Music, Culture, and Politics . New York : PalgraveMacmillan . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fuchs Christian . 2014 . Social Media: A Critical Introduction . London : Sage Publications . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Gaufman Elizaveta . 2017 . Security Threats and Public Perception: Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Ghannam Jeffrey . 2011 . “ Social Media in the Arab World Electronic Resource: Leading up to the Uprising of 2011 .” Report . Washington, DC : Center for International Media Assistance, National Endowment for Democracy , October 25, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2017. http://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CIMA-Arab_Social_Media-Report-10-25-11.pdf . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Gillespie Marie , Gow James, Hoskins Andrew, O'Loughlin Ben, Žveržhanovski Ivan. 2010 . “ Shifting Securities: Theory, Practice and Methodology: A Response to Powers, Croft and Noble .” Ethnopolitics 9 : 269 – 74 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gorka Marek . 2014 . “ The Meme as an Example of a Carnivalized Internet Communication .” e-Politikon 9 : 215 – 42 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Grayson Kyle , Davies Matt, Philpott Simon. 2009 . “ Pop Goes IR? Researching the Popular Culture-World Politics Continuum .” Politics 29 : 155 – 63 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gumede William . 2016 . “ Rise in Censorship of the Internet and Social Media in Africa .” Journal of African Media Studies 8 (3) : 413 – 21 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ha Anthony . 2017 . Facebook Says Pages that Regularly Share False News Won't Be Able to Buy Ads . TechCrunch.com , August 29, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/28/facebook-fake-news-ads/ . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Halbert Debora . 2014 . The State of Copyright. The Complex Relationships of Cultural Creation in a Globalized World . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hamilton Caitlin . 2016 . “ World Politics 2.0: An Introduction .” In Understanding Popular Culture and World Politics in the Digital Age , edited by Hamilton Caitlin, Shepherd Laura J., 68 – 82 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hansen Lene . 2011 . “ Theorizing the Image for Security Studies: Visual Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoons .” European Journal of International Relations 17 ( 1 ): 51 – 74 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hansen Lene . 2015 . “ How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib .” Review of International Studies 41 ( 2 ): 263 – 88 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hanson Elizabeth C. 2008 . The Information Revolution and World Politics . Plymouth, UK : Rowman & Littlefield . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Heck Axel , Schlag Gabi. 2012 . “ Securitizing Images: The Female Body and the War in Afghanistan .” European Journal of International Relations 19 ( 4 ): 891 – 913 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hemphill Libby , Jackson Susan T.. 2017 . “ Accessibility and Flexibility: Two Organizing Principles for Big Data Collaboration .” In Big Data Factories: Collaborative Approaches , edited by Matei Sorin Adam, Jullien Nicolas, Goggins Sean P., 9 – 22 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Henn Philipp , Vowe Gerhard. 2016 . “ Introduction: Political Communication Research in the Online World .” In Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs , edited by Vowe Gerhard, Henn Philipp, 1 – 8 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Holmes Marcus , Bjola Corneliu. 2015 . Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice . Oxon : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hoskin Andrew . 2013 . “ Death of a Single Medium .” Media, War and Conflict 6 ( 1 ): 3 – 6 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Howard Philip N. , Hussain Muzammil M.. 2013 . Democracy's Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jackson Susan T. 2016 . “ Marketing Militarism in the Digital Age: Arms Production, YouTube and ‘Selling’ National Security .” In Understanding Popular Culture and World Politics in the Digital Age , edited by Hamilton Caitlin, Shepherd Laura J., 68 – 82 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jackson Susan T. . 2017 . “ ‘Selling’ National Security: Saab, YouTube and the Militarized Neutrality of Swedish Citizen Identity .” Critical Military Studies Online: 1–19. https://doi:10.1080/23337486.2017.1395675 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Jarvis Lee , Macdonald Stuart, Chen Thomas M. 2015 . “ Terrorism Online—Law, Politics, Technology .” In Terrorism Online: Politics, Law and Technology , edited by Jarvis Lee, Macdonald Stuart, Chen Thomas M., 1 – 9 . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Joachim Jutta , Martin Marlen, Lange Henrietta, Schneiker Andrea, Dau Magnus. 2018 . “ Twittering for Talent: Private Military and Security Companies Between Business and Military Branding .” Contemporary Security Policy. https://doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1420608 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Jose Betcy , Medie Peace A.. 2015 . “ Understanding Why and How Civilians Resort to Self-Protection in Armed Conflict .” International Studies Review 17 : 515 – 35 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Kampf Ronit , Manor Ilan, Segev Elad. 2015 . “ Digital Diplomacy 2.0? Cross-National Comparison of Public Engagement on Facebook and Twitter .” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 ( 4 ): 331 – 62 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kaplan Andreas M. , Haenlein Michael. 2011 . “ Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media .” Business Horizons 53 : 59 – 68 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kemp Simon . 2017 . “ Three Billion People Now Use Social Media .” Wearesocial.com, August 10, 2017. Accessed September 4, 2017. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2017/08/three-billion-people-now-use-social-media . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Kennedy Liam . 2009 . “ Soldier Photography: Visualising the War in Iraq .” Review of International Security 35 ( 4 ): 817 – 33 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Keyling Till , Jünger Jakob. 2016 . “ Observing Online Content .” In Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs , edited by Vowe Gerhard, Henn Philipp, 183 – 200 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC King Gary , Pan Jennifer, Robert Margaret E.. 2013 . “ How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression .” American Political Science Review 107 ( 2 ): 326 – 43 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Klinger Ulrike , Svensson Jakob. 2016 . “ Network Media Logic: Some Conceptual Considerations .” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics , edited by Bruns Axel, Enli Gunn, Skogerbo Eli, Larsson Anders Olof, Christensen Christian, 23 – 38 . Oxon : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Kuntsman Adi , Stein Rebecca L.. 2015 . Digital Militarism: Israel's Occupation in the Social Media Age . Stanford, CA. : Stanford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Kugler Ariana D. , Tinsley Catherine H., Ukhaneva Olga. 2017 . “ Choice of Major: Are Women Really Different from Men .” NBER Working Papers no. 23735, Doi:10.3386/w23735 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Kunz Rahel , Maisenbacher Julia. 2015 . “ Women in the Neighborhood: Reinstating the European Union's Civilising Mission on the Back of Gender Equality Promotion? ” European Journal of International Studies . Online: 1–23. Doi:10.1177/1354066115621120 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Lee Siu-Yau . 2016 . “ Surviving Online Censorship in China: Three Satirical Tactics and Their Impact .” The China Quarterly 228 : 1061 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lindsay Jon R. 2013 . “ Stuxnet and the Limits of Cyber Warfare .” Security Studies 22 ( 3 ): 365 – 404 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lindsay Jon R. , Cheung Tai Ming, Reveron Derek S.. 2015 . China and Cybersecurity: Espionage, Strategy, and Politics in the Digital Domain . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Lisle Debbie . 2016 . “ Waiting for International Political Sociology: A Field Guide to Living In-Between .” International Political Sociology 10 ( 4 ): 417 – 33 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Loader Brian D. , Mercea Dan, eds. 2012 . Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Lorentzen Peter . 2014 . “ China's Strategic Censorship .” American Journal of Political Science 58 ( 2 ): 402 – 14 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lynch Marc . 2011 . “ Explaining the Awakening: Engagement, Publicity, and the Transformation of Iraqi Sunni Political Attitudes .” Security Studies 20 ( 1 ): 36 – 72 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Macdonald Stuart , Mair David. 2015 . “ Lone Actor Terrorist Use of the Internet and Behavioural Correlates .” In Terrorism Online: Politics, Law and Technology , edited by Jarvis Lee, Macdonald Stuart, Chen Thomas M., 10 – 34 . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Machin David . 2010 . Analysing Popular Music: Image, Sound and Text . London : Sage . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Manor Ilan . 2016 . “ Are We There Yet: Have MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital Diplomacy? ” Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 1 ( 2 ): 1 – 100 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Marlin-Bennett Renee . 2013 . “ Embodied Information, Knowing Bodies, and Power .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 ( 3 ): 601 – 22 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Martino John . 2015 . War Play: Video Games and the Militarization of Society . New York : Peter Lang . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC May Christopher . 2008 . “ Opening Other Windows: A Political Economy of ‘Openness’ in a Global Information Society .” Review of International Security 34 ( S1 ): 69 – 92 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat McCarthy Daniel . 2013 . “ Technology and ‘the International’ Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Determinism .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 ( 3 ): 470 – 90 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat McCarthy Daniel . 2015 . Power, Information Technology, and International Relations Theory: The Power and Politics of US Foreign Policy and the Internet . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC McLuhan Marshall . 1964 . Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man . New York : McGraw-Hill . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Moghadam Assaf . 2013 . “ How Al Qaeda Innovates .” Security Studies 22 ( 3 ): 466 – 97 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Moore Daniel , Rid Thomas. 2016 . “ Cryptopolitik and the Darknet .” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 58 : 7 – 38 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Morrow Oona , Hawkins Roberta, Kern Leslie. 2014 . “ Feminist Research in Online Spaces .” Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 22 ( 4 ): 526 – 43 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Moss Giles , O'Loughlin Ben. 2008 . “ Convincing Claims? Democracy and Representation in Post-9/11 Britain .” Political Studies 56 ( 3 ): 705 – 24 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Murphy Emma . 2009 . “ Theorizing ICTs in the Arab World: Informational Capitalism and the Public Sphere .” International Studies Quarterly 53 ( 4 ): 1131 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mutlu Can . 2015 . “ Of Algorithmic, Data and Ethics: A Response to Andrew Bennett .” Millennium—Journal of International Studies 43 ( 3 ): 998 – 1002 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Nacos Brigitte L. 2002 . Mass-Mediated Terrorism: The Central Role of Media in Terrorism and Counterterrorism . Oxford : Rowman & Littlefield . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Nahon Karine . 2016 . “ Where There Is Social Media There Is Politics .” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics , edited by Bruns Axel, Enli Gunn, Skogerbo Eli, Larsson Anders Olof, Christensen Christian, 39 – 55 . Oxon : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Nie Norman H. , Miller Darwin W. III, Golde Saar, Butler Daniel M, Winneg Kenneth. 2010 . “ The World Wide Web and the US Political News Market .” American Journal of Political Science 54 ( 2 ): 428 – 39 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat O'Loughlin Ben . 2011 . “ Images as Weapons of War: Representation, Mediation and Interpretation .” Review of International Studies 37 ( 1 ): 71 – 91 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Owen Taylor . 2015 . Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Age . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pamment James . 2016 . “ Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns .” New Media & Society 18 ( 9 ): 2046 – 62 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Papacharissi Zizi . 2015 . Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pedersen Jennifer , Salib Monalisa. 2013 . “ Women of the Arab Spring: A Conversation with Esraa Abdel Fattah and Lina Ben Mhenni .” International Journal of Feminist Politics 15 ( 2 ): 256 – 66 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Phillips Craig . 2016 . “ Who Is Watching Hate? Tracking Hate Groups Online .” PBS Blog. April 1, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/who-is-watching-the-hate-tracking-hate-groups-online-and-beyond/ . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Rage Raju . 2017 . “ Inject/ed: Self(ie) Determination .” In Selfie Citizenship , edited by Kuntsman Adi, 3 – 11 . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Roberts John Michael . 2015 . Digital Publics: Cultural Political Economy, Financialisation and Creative Organisational Politics . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Robertson Alexa . 2010 . Mediated Cosmopolitanism: The World Television News . Cambridge : Polity . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Robertson Alexa . 2015 . Media and Politics in a Globalising World . Cambridge : Polity . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Robinson David . 2017 . “ A Tale of Two Industries: How Programming Languages Differ between Wealthy and Developing Countries .” Stackoverflow.com, August 29, 2017. Accessed August 31, 2017. https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/08/29/tale-two-industries-programming-languages-differ-wealthy-developing-countries/ . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Robinson Nick , Schulzke Markus. 2016 . “ Visualizing War? Towards a Visual Analysis of Videogames and Social Media .” Perspectives on Politics . 14 ( 4 ): 995 – 1010 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ross Andrew A. G. 2010 . “ Why They Don't Hate Us: Emotion, Agency and the Politics of ‘Anti-Americanism.’ ” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 ( 1 ): 109 – 25 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Rühlig Tim . 2016 . “ ‘Do You Hear the People Sing’ ‘Lift Your Umbrella’? Understanding Hong Kong's Pro-democratic Umbrella Movement Through YouTube Music Videos .” China Perspectives 4 ( 108 ): 59 – 68 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Rutten Ellen , Fedor Julie, Zvereva Vera, eds. 2013 . Memory, Conflict and New Media: Web Wars in Post-socialist States . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Salhi Hamoud . 2009 . “ The State Still Governs .” International Studies Review 11 ( 1 ): 210 – 4 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Sandoval-Almazan Rodrigo , Gil-Garcia J. Ramon. 2014 . “ Towards Cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the Use of Social Media and Other Information Technologies for Political Activism and Social Movements .” Government Information Quarterly 31 ( 3 ): 365 – 78 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Sasley Brent . 2011 . “ Theorizing States’ Emotions .” International Studies Review 13 ( 3 ): 452 – 76 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Schneider Florian . 2014 . “ Reconceptualising World Order: Chinese Political Thought and Its Challenge to International Relations Theory .” Review of International Studies 40 ( 4 ): 683 – 703 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Scholte Jan Aart . Panel on Infrastructure and the Political Ordering of Development for the Development Research Conference 2016: Panel Comments at Global Visions, Local Practices: Development Research in a Post-2015 World, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2016 . Seib Philip , Janbek Dana M.. 2011 . Global Terrorism and New Media: The Post-Al Qaeda Generation . Oxon, UK : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Shapiro Michael J. 2001 . “ Sounds of Nationhood .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30 ( 3 ): 583 – 601 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Shepherd Laura J. 2017 . “ Aesthetics, Ethics, and Visual Research in the Digital Age: ‘Undone in the Face of an Otter.’ ” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 ( 2 ): 214 – 22 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Shifman Limor . 2013 . “ Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker .” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication . 18 ( 3 ): 362 – 77 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Simmons Beth . 2011 . “ International Studies in the Global Information Age .” International Studies Quarterly 55 ( 3 ): 589 – 99 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Singh JP. 2013 . “ Information Technologies, Meta-power, and Transformations in Global Politics .” International Studies Review 15 ( 1 ): 5 – 29 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Sjoberg Laura . 2011 . “ Emotion, Risk, and Feminist Research in IR .” International Studies Review 13 ( 4 ): 699 – 703 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Teboho Ansorge Josef . 2011 . “ Digital Power in World Politics: Databases, Panopticons and Erwin Cuntz .” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 ( 1 ): 65 – 83 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Törnberg Anton , Törnberg Petter. 2016 . “ Combining CDA and Topic Modeling: Analyzing Discursive Connections Between Islamophobia and Anti-feminism on an Online Forum .” Discourse and Society 27 ( 4 ): 401 – 22 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Toynbee Jason , Dueck Byron, eds. 2011 . Migrating Music . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Tufekçi Zeynep . 2014 . “ Engineering the Public: Big Data, Surveillance and Computational Politics .” First Monday 19 ( 7 ) . Accessed August 31, 2017. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4901/4097#p3 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tungohan Ethel . 2013 . “ Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing Resistance .” International Feminist Journal of Politics 15 ( 1 ): 39 – 57 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat United Nations (UN) . 2015 . Cyber Violence against Women and Girls: A World-Wide Wake Up Call . A Report by the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development Working Group on Broadband and Gender . New York : United Nations . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Van Dijck José , Poell Thomas. 2013 . “ Understanding Social Media Logic .” Media and Communication 1 ( 1 ): 2 – 14 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Vowe Gerhard , Henn Philipp. 2016 . “ Fundamental Methodological Principles for Political Communication Research: Validity Even in the Online World? ” In Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and research Designs , edited by Vowe Gerhard, Henn Philipp, 151 – 69 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Vuori Juha A. 2010 . “ A Timely Prophet? The Doomsday Clock as a Visualization Securitization Moves with a Global Referent Object .” Security Dialogue 41 ( 3 ): 255 – 77 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Weber Cynthia . 2008 . “ Popular Visual Language As Global Communication: The Remediation of United Airlines Flight 93 .” Review of International Studies 34 ( S1 ): 137 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Weber Cynthia . 2014 . “ Encountering Violence: Terrorism and Horrorism in War and Citizenship .” International Political Sociology 8 ( 3 ): 237 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Weeks Brian E. , Holbert R. Lance. 2013 . “ Predicting Dissemination of News Content in Social Media: A Focus on Reception, Friending, and Partisanship .” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90 ( 2 ): 212 – 32 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Well Chris , Shah Dhavan V., Pevehouse Jon C., Yang Jung Hwan, Pelled Ayellet, Boehm Frederick, Lukito Josephine, Ghosh Shreenita, Schmidt Jessica L.. 2016 . “ How Trump Drove Coverage to the Nomination: Hybrid Media Campaigning .” Political Communication 33 ( 4 ): 669 – 76 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Youngs Gillian . 2009 . “ The Internet and Political Economy .” In Global Transformations and World Futures , edited by Inayatullah Sohail, Vol. 1 . 179 – 204 . Oxford : EOLSS Publishers . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Zayani Mohamed . 2015 . Networked Publics and Digital Contention: The Politics of Everyday Life in Tunisia . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Zhao Jieyu , Wang Tianlu, Yatskar Mark, Ordonez Vincente, Chang Kai-Wei. “ Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification Using Corpus-Level Constraints .” Paper presented at the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing. Accessed August 31, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09457. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat © The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com © The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association.
TI - A Turning IR Landscape in a Shifting Media Ecology: The State of IR Literature on New Media
JF - International Studies Review
DO - 10.1093/isr/viy046
DA - 2019-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/a-turning-ir-landscape-in-a-shifting-media-ecology-the-state-of-ir-mtDnVgZ0HG
SP - 518
EP - 534
VL - 21
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -