The contemporary landscape in Europe and globally is characterized by a prevailing sense of perpetual crisis and uncertainty, albeit experienced unevenly and in diverse ways. Against the backdrop of the (post) Covid-19 pandemic, previously deferred concerns such as climate change, food insecurity, population aging, and migration are resurfacing with heightened intensity. The repercussions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and escalating inequalities further amplify these challenges. In this tumultuous environment, populist discourses gain traction, favoring nationalism and extremism, primarily facilitated by the simplicity and emotional resonance afforded by the digital informational ecosystem.

In these tumultuous times, the imperative of reliable communication becomes paramount. The propensity of conspiracy theories to attain virality, coupled with the looming threat of exposure to contradictory information and the dissemination of fake news and disinformation, renders individuals more susceptible to vulnerability and confusion. Additionally, this environment may incline individuals towards accepting and proliferating content driven by ideology and polarized information.

This thematic issue aims to scrutinize the risks posed by this new wave of populism to liberal democracy and the European Union project. Employing the 2024 European Parliament elections as a case study, we will delve into the impact of populist discourse on shaping the outcome of these pivotal elections.

Our objective is to present a timely collection of articles delving into subjects associated with the 2024 EU election, utilizing rigorous research methods that scrutinize, question, or suggest modifications to theoretical frameworks within electoral communication studies. Articles that explore the wider implications of the election are encouraged, as well as those focusing on longitudinal and transversal studies.

Digitalization has not only changed the ways journalism is produced, disseminated, used, and financed, but it has also challenged the central position of journalism in the public sphere, making it one communicative form competing for attention and authority among others (Carlson et al., 2021). We now live in a complex media ecosystem where human and algorithmic actors, legacy and alternative media, as well as newer and older media observe, compete, influence, and interact with each other (Fürst & Oehmer, 2021; Reese, 2022). This leads to blurred boundaries, raising questions about the societal function, relevance, and value of journalism, how users discern and experience journalism and its actors, and how journalists distinguish themselves, their practices, and their products from non-journalistic modes of content production (Edgerly & Vraga, 2020; Splendore & Iannelli, 2022).

In his seminal book The Hybrid Media System, Chadwick (2017) moved scholars to understand the changing logics of attention and news production, as well as shifting power dynamics within the public sphere, through the lens of a networked media environment (Russell, 2020). This thematic issue takes up this invitation and aims to bring together theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contributions which reflect on the role of journalism in hybrid media systems. Single-country studies and comparative research using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches are all welcome. Given the prevailing “presentism” (Hallin et al., 2023) in research on hybrid media systems, we also particularly welcome historical and long-term analyses.

Lines of inquiry can include, but are not limited to:

• Key features and patterns of hybrid media systems and their implications for the role, function, societal importance, and funding of journalism;
• Changes in the diffusion of power, journalist-source relationships, and news quality;
• Interactions, competition, and attention dynamics between legacy news media and online platforms;
• The role of algorithms, (social) bots, and usage data in cross-platform dynamics and news practices;
• Changing journalistic norms, role conceptions, and practices, as well as changing actor constellations in hybrid media systems;
• International comparisons, historical studies, and long-term analyses of journalism in hybrid media systems;
• Trust in news and audience perceptions of journalism in the hybrid media system;
• Methodological challenges and approaches to studying journalism in the hybrid media system.

References

Carlson, M., Robinson, S., & Lewis, S. C. (2021). News after Trump: Journalism’s crisis of relevance in a changed media culture. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550342.001.0001

Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696726.001.0001

Edgerly, S., & Vraga, E. K. (2020). Deciding what’s news: News-ness as an audience concept for the hybrid media environment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(2), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916808

Fürst, S., & Oehmer, F. (2021). Attention for attention hotspots: Exploring the newsworthiness of public response in the metric society. Journalism Studies, 22(6), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1889396

Hallin, D. C., Mellado, C., & Mancini, P. (2023). The concept of hybridity in journalism studies. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(1), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211039704

Reese, S. D. (2022). The institution of journalism: Conceptualizing the press in a hybrid media system. Digital Journalism, 10(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1977669

Russell, A. (2020). Coming to terms with dysfunctional hybridity: A conversation with Andrew Chadwick on the challenges to liberal democracy in the second-wave networked era. Studies in Communication Sciences (SComS), 20(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2020.02.005

Government communication on social media has become ubiquitous, serving as a vital channel between state administrators, public officers, and citizens, from local to national levels. While government organizations globally have embraced these platforms, research on the topic remains limited and scattered across disciplines. In this thematic issue, we seek to bring together studies that highlight social media and communication dynamics in various government contexts, and that point to the benefits and dangers of these processes for communicators, the public, and democracy.

The digitalization of work, the emergence of social media, and the datafication of life have all altered the media and communication environments for governmental bodies—the local, national and international agencies and ministries of the state. In parallel, there is a growing use of social media by journalists who increasingly report on the basis of public authorities social media messages. Understanding communication strategies, the language of posts, and the perspectives of spokespeople in this domain is essential to improve relations between citizens and government.  

Social media platforms serve various functions, including participatory democracy, policy announcements, and public relations. However, there are cross-platform, cross-context, and cross-country differences which have not been examined. Additionally, research has emphasized the role of these platforms in crisis communication, but it is important to understand how crisis situations have impacted routine communications. Lastly, digitalization has expanded methodological opportunities for scholars to study governmental communication (e.g. via text mining, interactive visualizations), and how the public is responding (e.g., in terms of likes, dislikes, message retransmission, etc.).

In this thematic issue, we seek contributions that examine questions such as:

• Why and how does government use of social media differ across distinct platforms or contexts?
• How has government communication on social media changed after major crisis events?
• Why do people engage with and/or trust government social media communications?
• What is the relationship between journalists and government communication on social media?
• What are implications of different government communication strategies, for the public, organizations, and democratic values?
• How does government communication on social media balance goals of propaganda and public service?
• What are the challenges for government communicators in getting their messages to the public on social media?
• What kinds of methodological innovations can improve government social media research?

We welcome contributions from various theoretical and methodological frameworks, related but not limited to these questions. 

The thematic issue seeks to explore the ways in which news media around the world explore, report, and narrate death and the dead, in words, pictures, and even sound, where acts of counting become forms of recounting through which the literal body (a cadaver or corpse), being counted or discounted, becomes a site of incompatible biography: An object that has a history, but which no longer has a life. Accounts of death are unevenly explored across the journalistic landscape and earlier research has shown that images presenting dead bodies are infrequent (Griffin, 2010; Zelizer, 2010). This may however change with the increased importance of digital media and new conditions of production, content, and reception for representations of death in the news. Whereas some earlier research has focused mainly on the mediation of exceptional death (Sumiala, 2022), we see a need to empirically consider a variety of types of deaths, geopolitical perspectives, and whose bodies count in different geographies, societies, and times.

We are interested in singular and interdisciplinary articles and studies that look at current and historical journalistic forms of coverage of death, dying, and the dead, from journalists and photojournalists who are sent to cover combat zones, mass killings, or large-scale natural disasters, to media coverage of deadly pandemics, reporting on ways of assisted dying, or even a close reading of forms of obituaries. A specific focus will be given to emerging trends in the representation of death in digital and social media. Researchers looking at forms of journalism in the global south are encouraged to submit an abstract, and editing support will be given for accepted contributions where the authors are not first-language English speakers.

References

Griffin, M. (2010). Media images of war. Media, War & Conflict, 3(1), 7–41.

Sumiala, J. ( 2022). Mediated death. Polity Press.

Zelizer, B. (2010). About to die: How news images move the public. Oxford University Press.

Media and Communication invites scholars interested in contributing to this thematic issue to address questions including but not limited to the following:

• Emerging European media profiles to counter disinformation;
• The role of the EU against disinformation;
• The role of disinformation in European elections;
• A political theory approach to the relation between democracy and disinformation in the EU context;
• The pandemic and the Ukraine crisis as key disruptors of the European public sphere;
• Political communication and journalism fostering or hampering the European project;
• Impact of social media misinformation and disinformation on the European public sphere;
• The fragmented approach of EU institutions and European stakeholders against disinformation;
• Fake news, disinformation, and information disorders affecting the Europeanization process;
• The geopolitical turn of the EU and the tension between securitization and collaboration approaches to disinformation;
• Fighting disinformation in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

References

Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253.

Casero-Ripollés, A. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on the media system: Communicative and democratic consequences of news consumption during the outbreak. El Profesional de la Información, 29(2), 1–11.

The digital environment was heralded as an era of public speaking. Armed with low-cost tools “anyone” had a public they could connect with, making a networked public sphere possible. Trusting that the marketplace of ideas metaphor would hold and that good ideas would rise to the top, Jimi Hendrix’s famous quote “knowledge speaks but wisdom listens” was finally possible at a global scale. With the rise of this new communication ecology, the flourishing of deliberative democracy was anticipated by many worldwide. Instead, and only a few years later, democracy began to backslide in new and stable democracies alike, affective polarization and populism are on the rise in many parts of the globe, and the compromises needed to confront global challenges seem harder and harder to reach. Deliberative theorists including Susan Bickford (1996), Andrew Dobson (2014), and Mary Scudder (2020) have recently highlighted listening as one potential avenue for enhanced deliberation.

This thematic issue looks at political conversation with a focus on political listening and seeks to advance an empirical approach to listening. Listening here means not just exposure in media or co-presence in conversation, but as Benjamin Barber argues in his book Strong Democracy, it means “‘I will put myself in his place, I will try to understand, I will strain to hear what makes us alike, I will listen for a common rhetoric evocative of a common purpose or a common good’” (Barber, 2003, p. 175). We are interested in manuscripts that allow us to explore what we refer to as asymmetries in political conversation, that is conversations in which expression becomes more important than reception.

Some potential questions include:

• Has the nature of conversation, and listening in particular, changed over time?
• Is polarization, populism, and/or antidemocratic values related to changes in political listening and conversation?
• How does mis/disinformation affect the quality of political listening and conversation?
• How can we promote listening, particularly listening to those who don’t think like us?
• How do we scale up listening to mass publics?
• How does social media content relate to asymmetries in political conversation?
• How do elite conversations affect listening and conversation among the broader public?
• When do elites listen?

If you don’t see a theme that directly addresses your work but you are convinced it speaks to the core issue of conversation asymmetries, do not hesitate to contact us. We will try to listen.

References

Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.

Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship. Cornell University Press.

Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation. Oxford University Press.

Scudder, M. F. (2020). Beyond empathy and inclusion: The challenge of listening in democratic deliberation. Oxford University Press.

This thematic issue delves into the intricate relationship between media, individuals, and AI (Artificial Intelligence), and how this relationship is reshaping existing challenges while introducing new ones. We invite scholarly contributions that investigate the impact of AI-enabled mass and social media platforms on user experiences and behaviors. We aim to explore the potential positive and negative consequences of these transformations on our future society, as well as the strategies required to address challenges arising from the convergence of these three pivotal components: AI, media, and people, in the digital age.

We welcome submissions from a transdisciplinary group of researchers, including media and social researchers, data scientists, AI experts, legal and policy specialists, and futurologists. We encourage an approach rooted in “social data science” and “data social science,” which examines the intersection of data science and social science to describe and navigate the evolving landscape of AI-integrated media platforms and evolving user behaviors.

Contributions are invited on a wide range of topics, including:

• The data science-driven media business model;
• AI-driven journalism: Challenges and promises;
• Issues at the intersection of ICT, AI, and human interaction, such as fake comments and opinion spam;
• Online networks and novel research methodologies for studying radicalization or polarizing networks;
• The dynamics of social divisions within digital communities;
• Data science-driven problem-solving approaches;
• Emerging legal concerns related to AI-media and human users.

Ultimately, this thematic issue aims to illuminate the trajectory that AI-driven media and adaptable users are embarking upon in the near future. We seek to determine whether this journey will lead us toward a dystopian or utopian future. By fostering a collaborative environment that brings together diverse perspectives and expertise, our goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI’s impact on media and society, along with the necessary strategies to navigate it.

By this point, it is well known that social media data is increasingly hard to source as free APIs are mostly locked down by exorbitant paywalls and may also require technological expertise to access and analyze data. This situation has become more dire in recent months and has further bifurcated social media researchers into data “haves” from data “have nots”—and our field is currently adrift as to what the most viable portals and best practices for acquiring social media data are, which has resulted in isolated data vaults and fragmented efforts.

This thematic issue invites proposals from visionaries working in this turbulent space, whether they are media scholars, data vendors, or technological experts looking to help others not only access social media data but also create innovative ways to store, model, and share this data.

Development of historical and contemporary datasets are welcome, as are collaborative enterprises that cross disciplines, regardless of for-profit or non-profit statuses. Indeed, as the days of “free data” have come to a close for many (if not all) social media platforms, the most potent and viable solutions may well originate with industry and market research.

We don’t place parameters on submissions, but some starting points may include, but are not limited to:

• Who is capable of not only sourcing data, but also analyzing data once acquired—Does everyone need to learn Python, SQL, R, or other coding languages?
• What sources of data are available for various social media platforms, and which tools or vendors can be used to access that data?
• Where can we store social media data so that it is at once shareable for academic research but still respectful of privacy and safety concerns?
• When does data speak for itself? When is enough data enough, and when is it possible to move research into the 21st century with AI and machine learning automations in real time?
• How do interfaces work—Are they text or image based, and how can our tools leverage what is available to make a contribution to various cognate areas?

Non-ethical issues are paramount here, and while we can all appreciate the ability to problematize the collection and hyper-personalization of exploitative marketing through social media data, we are seeking solutions to existing problems. Essays or thought pieces that don’t advance tangible steps for the collection and analysis of large-scale social data are not the emphasis of this particular thematic issue as we attempt to move at the pace of data to overcome an existential crisis in our field.

Election campaign communication is a core area of political communication research. Although it is increasingly common to hear that the differences between election campaign periods and campaign-free periods are fading and that we are living in times of “permanent campaigning,” election campaigns remain key phases of political communication (Sarcinelli, 2011). In times when democracies are under attack, elections and election campaigns are all the more important, and result in groundbreaking decisions for the democratic constitution of states. After a super-election year in 2024—with elections for the European Parliament, presidential elections in the USA, national elections in Austria, state elections in Germany, etc.—our thematic issue invites studies focusing on the topic of election campaign communication. The aim is to discuss which content is communicated with which strategies and in which channels, which actors play an important role, and what effects election campaign communication achieves. While we will consider manuscripts on various aspects pertaining to communication in election campaigns, the following topics are of particular interest:

• Potential changes prompted by digitalization;
• The increasing tendency toward entertainment;
• The growing importance of visual communication;
• The rise of “non-political” actors such as influencers on Instagram and TikTok;
• The strategic use of (relatively) new platforms to reach young voters.

In light of these trends, questions arise about the continuity of scientific findings on election campaign communication: Are research findings generated in the 1990s and 2000s still applicable today? To what extent do our research approaches and methods need to be adapted to take account of changed conditions of election campaign communication in the digital era?

References

Sarcinelli, U. (2011). Wahlkampfkommunikation: Modernisierung von Wahlkämpfen und Modernisierung von Demokratie. In U. Sarcinelli (Ed.), Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland (pp. 225–246). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93018-3_12

In recent years, we have witnessed a growing body of research focused on identity politics, public shaming, and social outrage in the contemporary media landscape. Morality is often at the core of these debates. At times, societies are gripped by moral panics (Cohen, 1972/2011) and attribute the cause of such feelings of panic to certain media products such as TV dramas, reality TV, or advertising (Critcher, 2006; Guo, 2017). Yet, evidence that these media products contribute to audiences’ moral imagination and reflection in a positive sense increases (Bilandzic et al., 2017; Krijnen, 2009, 2011; Krijnen & Tan, 2009; Krijnen & Verboord, 2011, 2016). On social media platforms, the entanglement of morality with actions of gender-based harassment, status-seeking, and intergroup conflicts (Huang, 2021; Marwick, 2021) always dominates public attention. On the one hand, the existing moral norms and standards are often used to legitimize individual online practices and even to mobilize collective actions; on the other hand, the state and market actors draw on moral norms to regulate and moderate media content under the name of protecting public interests. This thematic issue aims to explore the historical trajectory and continuity of the vital role of media in shaping social dynamics and moral norms, particularly through the lens of gender, from a global perspective.

We welcome contributions that empirically and theoretically engage with the topic of gender, media, and morality, and encourage contributors to reflect on the topic with its intersections of class, race, geopolitics, etc. For example, and not limited to:

• In the process of formation and mobilization of moral norms, what roles do media play?
• How can we critically study, analyze, and compare the complex moralized rhetoric across media?
• What are the political and social consequences when the moralized rhetoric is used to target specific social groups (i.e., women and LGBTQ communities)?
• What kinds of power dynamics between individuals, social institutions, market actors, and nation-states are reflected in the construction of moral norms?

References

Bilandzic, H., Hastall, M. R., & Sukalla, F. (2017). The morality of television genres: Norm violations and their narrative context in four popular genres of serial fiction. Journal of Media Ethics, 32(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2017.1294488

Cohen, S. (2011). Folk devils and moral panics. Routledge. (Original work published year 1972)

Critcher, C. (2006). Critical readings: Moral panics and the media. Open University Press.

Guo, S. (2017). When dating shows encounter state censors: A case study of If You Are the One. Media, Culture & Society, 39(4), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716648492

Huang, Q. (2021). The mediated and mediatised justice-seeking: Chinese digital vigilantism from 2006 to 2018. Internet Histories, 5(3/4), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1919965

Krijnen, T. (2009). Imagining moral citizenship: Gendered politics in television discourses. In B. Cammaerts, S. Van Bauwel, & I. Garcia-Blanco (Eds.), Moral agoras: Democracy, diversity and Communication (pp. 115–133). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Krijnen, T. (2011). Engaging the moral imagination by watching television: Different modes of moral reflection. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 8(2), 52–73. https://www.participations.org/08-02-04-krijnen.pdf

Krijnen, T., & Tan, E. S. H. (2009). Reality TV as a moral laboratory: A dramaturgical analysis of The Golden Cage. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2009.027

Krijnen, T., & Verboord, M. (2011). De televisie als morele oefenruimte. Een kwantitatieve exploratie van morele reflectie naar aanleiding van televisieverhalen. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 39 (2), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.5117/2011.039.002.057

Krijnen, T., & Verboord, M. (2016). The moral value of TV genres: The moral reception of segmented TV audiences. The Social Science Journal, 53(4), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.04.004

Marwick, A. E. (2021). Morally motivated networked harassment as normative reinforcement. Social Media+ Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021378

Many scholars and initiatives in communication and media research have called for a “cultural shift” in our discipline toward more open, reproducible, and replicable research practices and better access to infrastructures and shared research resources (e.g., Bowman & Spence, 2020; Dienlin et al., 2021; Haim & Puschmann, 2023). However, when we look at the main forums in our field, we still see a lack of opportunities to share information on and experiences with such infrastructures and resources. Typically, this information is limited to brief references in articles, documentation scattered across the web, and informal exchanges among colleagues. A growing, but still limited number of journals have started to provide dedicated space for in-depth presentations or discussions of tools, datasets, or other resources (e.g., Araujo et al., 2022; Haim et al., 2023; Musi et al., 2024; Ohme, 2023; Schoch & Chan, 2023; Shaw et al., 2021; Strippel et al., 2023).

This thematic issue aims to contribute to these efforts by providing a forum for debate and exchange on open research infrastructures for communication and media research, with a focus on non-commercial resources following open science principles. Hence, we particularly welcome submissions which:

• Present, compare, or evaluate datasets, databases, and archives that provide research material and instruments for data analysis or data collection in the field of communication and media research;
• Present, compare, or evaluate research software, models (e.g., classifiers), training data, dictionaries, or other resources, taking into account the specific requirements in the field of communication and media research;
• Assess the extent to which open research infrastructures and resources are created and (re)used in communication and media research, discuss the factors that enable or constrain their adoption, and provide suggestions for ways forward;
• Discuss the implications of creating, maintaining, and using reusable research data, archives, and tools for both quantitative and qualitative research practices in communication and media studies with regard to research inequalities between the Global North and the Global South or the English language hegemony (e.g., Dutta et al., 2021; Humphreys et al., 2021).

References

Araujo, T., Ausloos, J., van Atteveldt, W., Loecherbach, F., Moeller, J., Ohme, J., Trilling, D., van de Velde, B., de Vreese, C., & Welbers, K. (2022). OSD2F: An open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.001.arau

Bowman, N. D., & Spence, P. R. (2020). Challenges and best practices associated with sharing research materials and research data for communication scholars. Communication Studies, 71(4), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1799488

Dienlin, T., Johannes, N., Bowman, N. D., Masur, P. K., Engesser, S., Kümpel, A. S., Lukito, J., Bier, L. M., Zhang, R., Johnson, B. K., Huskey, R., Schneider, F. M., Breuer, J., Parry, D. A., Vermeulen, I., Fisher, J. T., Banks, J., Weber, R., Ellis, D. A., . . . de Vreese, C. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052

Dutta, M., Ramasubramanian, S., Barrett, M., Elers, C., Sarwatay, D., Raghunath, P., Kaur, S., Dutta, D., Jayan, P., Rahman, M., Tallam, E., Roy, S., Falnikar, A., Johnson, G. M., Mandal, I., Dutta, U., Basnyat, I., Soriano, C., Pavarala, V., . . . Zapata, D. (2021). Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab027

Haim, M., Leiner, D., & Hase, V. (2023). Integrating data donations in online surveys. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 71(1/2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2023-1-2-130

Haim, M., & Puschmann, C. (2023). Opening up data, tools, and practices: Collaborating with the future. Digital Journalism, 11(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2174894

Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab026

Musi, E., Garcia Aguilar, E. E., & Federico, L. (2024). Botlitica: A generative AI-based tool to assist journalists in navigating political propaganda campaigns. Studies in Communication Sciences (SComS), 24(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2024.01.4270

Ohme, J. (2023). Research software reviews in mobile media & communication studies. Sage. https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/mmc/Research%20Software%20Reviews%20in%20Mobile%20Media_final-1646042282.pdf

Schoch, D., & Chan, C.-H. (2023). Software presentation: Rtoot: Collecting and analyzing Mastodon data. Mobile Media & Communication, 11(3), 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579231176678

Shaw, A., Scharkow, M., & Wang, Z. J. (2021). Opening a conversation on open communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab033

Strippel, C., Breuer, J., Fürst, S., Koenen, E., Prandner, D., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2023). Editorial: Data, archives, and tools—Introducing new publication formats on infrastructures and resources for communication and media research. Publizistik, 68(2/3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-023-00806-7

The times in which we live are characterised by increasing global instability brought about by the aftermath of the pandemic, rapid and accelerating climate change, and large growth in violent conflicts (2023 saw the most global conflicts since 1945 according to the Oslo Centre for Global Conflict). One outcome of this instability is that many societies around the world are becoming more diverse due to much increased levels of migration and also the growth in existing ethnic minority populations and, in some places, indigenous populations. The push factors producing migration from the global South to the global North have been the factors noted above—increased global conflicts, deepened social inequalities, and economic hardship caused by climate change and increasing political instability. The Covid-19 pandemic and recent ecological disasters have brought sharply into focus the challenges that governments and the public sector have faced in communicating risks, building trust, and developing resilience with ethnic minorities and other marginalised populations. The focus of this thematic issue is current empirical research focusing on theory and practice around the communication of risk, trust, and resilience in the context of societies characterised by diversity and/or inequality. Research analysing a wide range of approaches from public information campaigns and government communication, to community-oriented cultural communication and participatory approaches is all welcome.

This thematic issue of Media and Communication invites submissions that address health and disaster risk communications with diverse and marginalised groups in society. Submissions may include (but are not limited to) research into the following topics:

• Public health communication targeting ethnic minority groups;
• Government crisis communication in relation to ecological disasters;
• Unique challenges and culturally informed communication with diverse groups;
• Resilience communication strategies with vulnerable groups;
• Trust building between authorities, institutions, and marginalised communities;
• Local authority crisis communication to diverse and marginalised populations in relation to environmental changes;
• The role of media, social media, and technology in health and disaster risk communication.

The thematic issue aims to facilitate a multi-perspective reflection on the intricate relationship between generative AI and public engagement with complex information. With the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022, generative AI has emerged as a new intermediary for information, reshaping the dynamics of information flow within society. Occupying a unique position, generative AI functions both as a channel or tool and as a communicator, actively generating and disseminating information.

In the realm of public engagement with complex information, the thematic issue aims to understand how and for what reasons people use generative AI. The focus shall be on the potential benefits offered by generative AI to diverse audiences—evident in enhanced information access, personalized content experiences, and efficiency—and the corresponding risks of misinformation, reinforced biases, polarization, and the erosion of traditional structures of knowledge production. As such, generative AI introduces new complexities that complicate the public’s engagement with information and may challenge conventional notions of well-informed democratic discourse.

The thematic issue thus aims to advance our understanding of how generative AI affects the way complex information is generated, disseminated, and received in society. Generative AI might elevate the issue of the digital divide to the next stage. In the era of generative AI, the source credibility of information becomes critical, particularly when dealing with complex information of high social relevance, where misinformation can yield far-reaching consequences. Therefore, implications for information literacy should also be reflected, along with strategies to empower individuals in navigating the rapidly changing digital information landscape. Moreover, the use of generative AI in different countries, cultures, or languages should be elucidated from various levels and perspectives.

As the world faces a state of interwoven and overlapping crises—Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, and ongoing wars with global scope—referred to as “polycrisis” (Morin & Kern, 1999, p. 74), the role of media, and in particular of online social networks (boyd & Ellison, 2007), in affecting people’s resilience to withstand these crises remains understudied (Craig et al., 2015). This is problematic, as people’s extensive engagement with online social networks intertwines resilience to these crises with their practices on these digital platforms (Esteve-del-Valle et al., 2022).

This thematic issue aims to discuss how digital resilience (Tomkova, 2020) can be (re)defined within a state of polycrisis that—thanks to increased global connectivity through digitization—can be characterized as “hypermediated” (Hepp, 2020). It aims to bring together theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contributions examining how digital resilience can help counter digital threats such as mis/disinformation, conspiracy theories, malicious bots, or deep fakes (among others). The editors welcome proposals that focus on both individual countries and comparative studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches.

We welcome proposals that address (yet are not limited to) potential questions/themes such as:

• How can digital resilience be (re)defined within the current hypermediated polycrisis?
• How can digital resilience be conceptually integrated with digital literacy?
• What strategies can be employed to enhance digital resilience in countering misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms?
• How can digital resilience help mitigate current polarizing and radicalizing narratives in online social networks?
• What measures can be taken to build digital resilience against polluted online environmental discussions?
• What role can journalists play in increasing digital resilience against the so-called crisis of trust in media?

We particularly seek contributions that employ interdisciplinary approaches and strive for a balanced representation of gender and non-Western viewpoints.

References

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Craig, S. L., McInroy, L., McCready, L. T., & Alaggia, R. (2015). Media: A catalyst for resilience in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(3), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1040193

Esteve-del-Valle, M., Costa, E., & Hagedoorn, B. (2022). Network shocks and social support among Spanish, Dutch, and Italian WhatsApp users during the first wave of the Covid-19 crisis: An exploratory analysis of digital social resilience. International Journal of Communication, 16, 2126–2145. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18282

Hepp, A. (2020). Deep mediatization. Routledge.

Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press.

Investigative science journalism plays an increasingly vital role in shaping the science–society relationship. Science fraud and misconduct—such as hype, plagiarism, data manipulation, conflicts of interest, and other ethical breaches—are becoming more common, due to the infiltration of vested commercial and political interests, personal motives, work pressures, and other issues that compromise the integrity of the scholarly record. The number of publication retractions has skyrocketed in recent years. Journalists, as key brokers of research knowledge, can help raise awareness of these problematic aspects of science and ensure public audiences have the information needed to make decisions and form opinions based on trustworthy evidence. But the enaction of this watchdog role among science journalists remains the exception rather than the norm, and scholarly research into it is a rarity.

This thematic issue invites scholars to consider theories, practices, and implications of watchdog science journalism—broadly understood here as journalism that investigates, exposes, and warns society of the misuses and abuses of science methods, processes, outcomes, and authority by those practicing, funding, and/or using science in the public domain (e.g., scientists, government, businesses). It welcomes contributions on the pros and cons, theoretical or practical, of investigative science journalism and how it might impact public understanding, attitudes, and actions regarding science events and issues. Potential topics include, but are not limited to, issues around the following broad questions:

• How is watchdog science journalism distinguished from the more commonly promoted practice of “critical science journalism”?
• How do journalists conceptualize their role as science watchdogs, and to what extent is this role performed?
• What motivates journalists to act, or not to act, as watchdogs of science and its stakeholders?
• What techniques and strategies do journalists employ to shed light on the dark sides of science?
• What factors facilitate or hinder science journalists’ ability to perform a watchdog role?
• How does the science establishment (e.g., scientists and their institutions, science policy makers) respond to watchdog science journalism?
• How do publics perceive, receive, and approve/disapprove of watchdog science journalism?
• How have the above conceptions, performances, or impacts of the science watchdog role evolved in history?
• How do the above compare across geographic, cultural, or institutional contexts?
• What potential conceptual frameworks can be used to study journalism as a science watchdog?

Uncivil online communication, such as personal harassment, hate speech, or hateful misinformation, poses a pressing challenge in Western democracies and beyond. Most users regularly encounter such incidents, with marginalised groups and professional communicators like journalists being particularly affected. The consequences for individuals, digital discourse, and society at large are profound. Identifying these incidents and responding with counterspeech or reporting can help mitigate their impact. In addition to, or in support of, interventions by internet users, AI could have a crucial role in detecting and addressing uncivil online communication.

For example, journalists and fact-checkers can leverage AI tools to identify uncivil online comments, enabling them to manually moderate, verify, and debunk harmful content (Dierickx & Lindén, 2023; Stoll et al., 2019). Likewise, citizens who regularly engage in counterspeech can benefit from AI tools to receive factual support, maintain emotional detachment, and seek assistance when faced with harmful speech in response to their counterspeech efforts (Mun et al., 2024; Obermaier et al., 2023). However, counterspeakers themselves are concerned about the potentially negative effects of AI on people’s perceptions of the authenticity of counterspeech, their own agency, and the functionality of counterspeech (Mun et al., 2024). Similarly, users’ willingness to engage with innovative counterspeech technologies varies along the specific characteristics of the technology, such as its risk of depleting already limited resources even more (Frischlich et al., 2024).

This thematic issue aims to consolidate cutting-edge research on the use of AI for detecting and countering uncivil online communication, user perceptions of AI use in counterspeech, and the associated risks and opportunities of this AI application. Potential contributions can include, but are not limited to, articles that:

• Develop, test, or employ AI to detect or respond to uncivil communication or counterspeech;
• Study the perspectives of senders, targets, bystanders, moderators, etc., on the employment of AI;
• Present or discuss theoretical frameworks for understanding human–AI relationships in the context of counterspeech;
• Reflect on normative or regulatory frameworks around AI and counterspeech;
• Employ qualitative, quantitative, or computational measures.

References

Dierickx, L., & Lindén, C.-G. (2023). Journalism and fact-checking technologies: Understanding user needs. Communication +1, 10(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7275/cpo.1879

Frischlich, L., Klapproth, J., Frank, S., Heckmann, M., Kunze, S. E., & Murgas, T. (2024). Fighting fakes on WhatsApp: Audience perspectives on fact bots as countermeasures. Digital Journalism, 12(5), 700–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2341299

Mun, J., Buerger, C., Liang, J. T., Garland, J., & Sap, M. (2024). Counterspeakers’ perspectives: Unveiling barriers and AI needs in the fight against online hate. In F. F. Mueller, P. Kyburz, J. R. Williamson, C. Sas, M. L. Wilson, P. T. Dugas, & I. Shklovski (Eds.), CHI ‘24: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 742). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642025

Obermaier, M., Schmuck, D., & Saleem, M. (2023). I’ll be there for you? Effects of Islamophobic online hate speech and counter speech on Muslim in-group bystanders’ intention to intervene. New Media & Society, 25(9), 2339–2358. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211017527

Stoll, A., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2019). Detecting Incivility and Impoliteness in online discussions: Classification approaches for German user comments. Computational Communication Research, 2(1), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.1.005.KATH

This thematic issue explores AI-inspired newsroom practices in non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) nations, addressing an underexplored area in journalism studies. While extensive research exists on AI in WEIRD contexts (Broussard et. al, 2019; Milosavljević & Vobič, 2021; Thomson et al., 2024; Thurman et al., 2019), fewer studies focus on marginalized media settings or non-WEIRD societies. Limited research covers regions like Latin America (de-Lima-Santos et al., 2021; de-Lima-Santos & Salaverría, 2021; Mellado et al., 2024; Soto-Sanfiel et al., 2022), Asia (Jamil, 2021; Sharma & Bhardwa, 2024), Africa (Gondwe, 2024; Kothari & Cruikshank, 2021; Munoriyarwa et. al, 2023), and the Arab world (Abdulmajeed & Fahmy, 2023).

Considering Leiser’s (2022, p. 8) claim challenging AI’s existence, we examine the future of regions historically disadvantaged by or benefiting little from digital technology. This thematic issue aims to discuss how algorithmic or computational journalism (Anderson, 2012) is shaping newsroom cultures in the “Global South.” From perceptions to realities in AI use across “Southern newsrooms,” we seek papers that unlock the potential but also the challenges for the journalistic use of AI in marginalized societies. How are local journalists framing AI in these contexts? How are journalism training institutes integrating AI into their curricula? How is generative AI being used in spreading and countering misinformation? In what ways are “non-professional” actors such as social media influencers appropriating AI technology in gathering and spreading news? Accordingly, contributions are invited on a wide range of topics, including:

• AI adoption and adaptation in Global South media organizations;
• Perceptions and attitudes of journalists in non-WEIRD countries toward AI;
• Challenges and opportunities of implementing AI technologies in resource-constrained media outlets;
• The role of AI in addressing language barriers and promoting local language journalism in multilingual societies;
• AI and data journalism bridging the data divide in the Global South;
• Ethical considerations of AI use in journalism within culturally diverse contexts;
• AI-powered fact-checking tools and their effectiveness in combating mis- and disinformation in weak or young democracies;
• The impact of AI on journalistic roles and professional identity in non-Western contexts;
• AI in journalism education: Curriculum development and implementation in Global South institutions;
• Giving voice to marginalized societies using AI;
• AI and niche media;
• The role of AI in empowering community media and grassroots initiatives;
• AI-driven personalization and its impact on news diversity in fragmented societies;
• Regulatory frameworks and policy challenges for AI in media across different Global South regions;
• AI for bridging information gaps for exile media;
• The potential of AI in enhancing investigative journalism in countries with limited press freedom;
• AI adoption in commercially-owned vs. independent media outlets in non-WEIRD countries;
• AI’s role in improving access to news for people with disabilities in resource-limited settings;
• The impact of AI on news ecosystems and media sustainability.

In the current world of precarity, uncertainty, and violence, digital media technologies and datafication have produced complex new forms of spatial and temporal connections, interactions, and power dependencies. Digital media technologies are immersing in growing areas of urban environments, everyday practices, and experiences. Increasingly digital and data-driven media technologies are used to surveil, control, track, sensor, and manage everyday life and mobilities. New automated systems, from location tracking to facial recognition and language detection systems, have profoundly shaped migration and border practices. Data-driven systems of surveillance and automated decision-making have further enforced racialized inequalities, poverty categorizations, discrimination, and algorithmic oppression.

At the same time, new avenues of hope arise in everyday connections, intimacy, care, and comfort. Digital media, as everyday infrastructure, may operate as a fragile bridge to sociality, imagination, and joy, creating pathways to new forms of solidarity, resistance, and witnessing. Digital technologies of community building, counter-mapping, artistic interventions, and collective imagination explore original technologies to enhance both spatial and data justice. New intersectional and decolonial theorizations of digital geographies, datafication, and AI are needed to provide critique as well as imaginations of alternatives to data universalism.

This thematic issue explores digital geographies of hope. We encourage critical investigations that seek to identify hope and hopeful constellations in the current digitized world—related to imaginations and appropriations of different media in different places and spaces.

The term geomedia captures the conjuncture of mediated and spatial dimensions of the social world. The thematic issue, in turn, provides an interdisciplinary arena for research carried out at the crossroads of geography, communication, media, film, and cultural studies. It also builds bridges to such fields as urban studies, rural studies, regional planning and tourism studies, media anthropology, critical data studies, science and technology studies, and gender, race, and ethnicity research.

This thematic issue will explore how counter-data and counter-maps are being used by diverse global communities to visually construct new social realities that support their social justice aims (see Jeppesen & Sartoretto, 2023), both contesting data power and engaging the counter-power of map-making practices beyond cartographic representation (Calvo & Candón-Mena, 2023).

Communities may engage in resistant data appropriation, either reappropriating big datasets and/or creating community datasets (Ricaurte, 2019). Counter-data maps produced by diverse marginalized groups can reveal hidden inequalities, enhance communities’ visibility, and support calls for intersectional justice. They may express a community’s demands, contesting top-down categorizations imposed by states and corporations, and engage in counter-mapping as a form of data power embedded in notions of experienced spatiality and relationality.

We invite contributions that interrogate community data mapping practices and consider practices of data visualization and visual communication that contest the narratives of big data produced in hegemonic data mapping by states and corporations.

Potential contributors should address dimensions of counter-mapping that might include:

• Data mapping practices;
• Collaborative mapping;
• Inclusive dashboard design;
• Mapping ecologies and flows;
• Data visualizations;
• Map interactivity;
• Data mapping imaginaries;
• Data justice;
• Territorial justice;
• Data sources for counter-mapping;
• Community objectives and imaginaries in counter-mapping;
• Uses and capacities for digital mapping;
• Map production by diverse communities;
• Community ownership of data and maps, etc.

Contributors may also consider how communities, activists, and grassroots groups are appropriating data and/or data maps to address:

• Data colonialism;
• Racialized data and maps;
• Gendered data and maps;
• Rural mapping (or rural exclusions);
• Regional representations;
• Hegemonic data and mapping processes;
• Data mapping imaginaries;
• Queering data maps;
• Mapping disabilities;
• Accessibility to data mapping technologies;
• Mapping poverty or food deserts;
• Eviction mapping;
• Mapping ecologies;
• Mapping alternative economies;
• Intersectional mapping, etc.

We encourage contributors to de-centre Western epistemological frameworks and integrate interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary theoretical and methodological approaches. We also specifically invite contributions from lower-income countries, the Global South, and communities underrepresented in the scholarly literature.

References

Calvo, D., & Candón-Mena, J. (2023). Cartografías tecnopolíticas: Propuesta para el mapeo colaborativo desde la investigación-acción participativa. Cuadernos.info, 54, 23–44.

Jeppesen, S., & Sartoretto, P. (2023). Cartographies of resistance: Counter-data mapping as the new frontier of digital media activism. Media and Communication, 11(1), 150–162.

Ricaurte, P. (2019). Data epistemologies, the coloniality of power, and resistance. Television & New Media, 20(4), 350–365.

The rapid rise of digital technologies has fundamentally reshaped political communication, providing new opportunities for civic engagement while amplifying risks tied to populist rhetoric, societal polarization, and extremist narratives. Digital platforms, capable of bypassing traditional media gatekeepers, have become powerful tools for political actors to spread messages directly to the public. This environment fosters misinformation, radical ideologies, and emotionally charged content.

Populism amplified by social media has become a defining feature of political systems globally, influencing electoral dynamics, public discourse, and the resilience of democratic institutions in an increasingly post-truth era. This dynamic is closely linked to rising societal polarization, where digital platforms magnify voices of discontent, creating fragmented public spheres and deepening ideological divides. For instance, Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in 2024 illustrates how populist discourse, spread via social media, capitalizes on societal grievances. His campaign leveraged platforms like Truth Social to bypass traditional media, amplifying grievance politics and narratives around the “stolen election” of 2020, which fueled distrust in democratic institutions. Similarly, Călin Georgescu’s unexpected success in Romania’s 2024 elections highlights how digital disintermediation empowers extremist outsiders. His anti-establishment, nationalist, and Eurosceptic rhetoric resonated with disenfranchised voters through social media, exploiting economic frustrations and societal fears.

This thematic issue invites theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions that explore how digital communication technologies shape contemporary populism and polarization, and what implications this has for democratic resilience. We particularly welcome submissions addressing questions such as:

• How do algorithmic recommendation systems and social media logics amplify populist and polarizing messages?
• In what ways do populist actors use digital disintermediation to circumvent journalistic scrutiny and reach disenfranchised publics?
• What types of narratives are most effectively disseminated through digital platforms?
• How does exposure to emotionally charged or conspiratorial content affect civic trust, political participation, or electoral behavior?
• How do mainstream political actors respond to the digital strategies of populist competitors, and with what success?
• What are the gendered, generational, or socio-economic dimensions of digitally mediated populist mobilization?

This thematic issue explores the complex interplay between digital inequalities, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Global South. We invite theoretical and empirical submissions that examine how AI technologies are shaping and exacerbating existing inequalities in the Global South, and how these inequalities in turn influence the development and deployment of AI.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of AI on access to information, education, and healthcare in the Global South. How are AI-driven systems reinforcing or mitigating existing disparities in access to essential services?
• The role of AI in exacerbating economic inequalities. What are the effects of automation and algorithmic bias on employment and income distribution in the Global South?
• The ethical and societal implications of AI development and deployment in the Global South. How can we ensure that AI technologies are developed and used in a way that is equitable, just, and respects human rights and cultural diversity?
• Policy recommendations for mitigating digital inequalities in the context of AI development. What policies and interventions are necessary to ensure inclusive access to AI technologies and their benefits?
• Case studies of successful (or unsuccessful) initiatives aimed at bridging the digital divide in the Global South using AI. What lessons can be learned from these experiences?
• The role of stakeholders in exacerbating or mitigating digital inequalities and AI in the Global South.

We invite submissions for a thematic issue on Digital Media in Contemporary Conflicts. This thematic issue seeks to explore the multifaceted impact of digital media on conflicts across the globe, by examining both the positive and negative consequences. In recent years, the proliferation of digital media, which has led to unprecedented connectivity and information sharing among people, has transformed conflict landscapes and their narratives in numerous ways. Digital platforms, such as social media platforms, instant messaging apps, and other digital communication tools, have become central to the dissemination of information and the organization of social movements, thus, their role in shaping contemporary conflicts has grown increasingly significant. They have become essential in both the escalation and resolution of conflicts. On the one hand, they can be used to spread misinformation and inflame tensions, contributing to the escalation of violence. They offer new avenues for propaganda, misinformation, and cyber warfare. On the other hand, they can serve as good platforms for marginalized voices, enabling grassroots mobilization and the organization of peace initiatives. They are powerful tools for mobilization, storytelling, and humanitarian efforts.

Thus, this thematic issue aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of digital media in contemporary conflicts by bringing together interdisciplinary perspectives from fields such as journalism and communication studies, political science, international relations, and information technology. We seek to conceptualize the complex interplay between digital media and conflict by examining how these tools are used by various actors, their impact on public perception and policy, and the ethical considerations involved.

We welcome original research articles, theoretical papers, case studies, and critical reviews that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• Digital propaganda and misinformation: The role of social media in spreading misinformation during conflicts, and its impact on public perception and policy decisions;
• Cyber warfare: Analysis of state and non-state actors' use of digital tools for offensive and defensive purposes in modern conflicts;
• Social media as a tool for mobilization: How social media platforms are used for organizing protests, resistance movements, or even violence in conflict zones;
• Digital narratives and storytelling: The role of digital platforms in shaping narratives, memorializing conflicts, and influencing global opinion;
• Ethical considerations and digital media: Ethical challenges in reporting, documenting, and sharing content related to ongoing conflicts, including issues of privacy, safety, and manipulation;
• The digital divide in conflict: How social media control, understanding, and use have been affecting the conflict area and conflict actors;
• Digital humanitarianism: The use of digital media for humanitarian purposes during conflicts, including crisis mapping, crowd-funding, and the coordination of relief efforts;
• Regulatory and policy responses: Exploration of how governments, international organizations, and tech companies are responding to the challenges posed by digital media in conflict situations;
• Social media for peacebuilding in times of conflict: How the potential of digital tools can facilitate dialogue and reconciliation;
• Social media manipulation: How actors in the conflict control and oppress others in sharing and disseminating information on social media platforms;
• Conceptualization of social media during conflict: Analysis and conceptualization of how social media have become a center for current dynamics of conflicts in many countries.

The thematic issue, titled “Influence and Visibility in Gendered Public Spheres,” aims to shed new light on a topical and crucial area in media and communication studies.

Feminist media studies and gender scholars demonstrate that public spheres are strongly gendered and mirror unequal power relations, hierarchies, and injustices in politics and society. The thematic issue builds upon these crucial theoretical and empirical insights and focuses on the establishment, change, and stabilization of gendered public spheres in various communication contexts. It thus includes key questions of who is visible and which frames, ideas, and narratives are present as well as how influential are certain actors, frames, and discourses in gendered public spheres. The thematic issue shall offer new theoretical and empirical insights into the relationship between visibility and influence in gendered public spheres.

Hence, the thematic issue can cover the following topics:

• Fragmentation and polarization of public spheres and how gender dynamics come into play;
• The role of social media in shaping (anti-)gender narratives and fostering (anti-)feminist activism;
• Relevance of specific individual and collective actors (e.g., influencers, politicians, activists, and organizations) within public spheres, with a focus on the dynamics of influence and visibility;
• Conflicts and coalitions on the actor and ideational level in gendered public spheres;
• Cross-national comparisons of how gendered public spheres are constructed via global (anti-)gender movements;
• Disinformation and fake-news attacking gender studies and targeting gender equality.