Barbara Gentikow gave an interesting presentation to our department today, about a new project she’s starting up at the media department about new media and materiality. The project’s funded by KIM. She audaciously claimed that Norwegian media research so far has been media blind, that is, it’s concentrated on the content and not on the materiality of the medium that content is mediated through. Their project will discuss fairly traditional broadcast-style new media: digital television, journalism using digital editing practices and digital sound. They’re using Habermas and ideas of democracy about this.

I was interested that the researchers are embarking on this project with a lot of experience and competancy in traditional media and theory, but with little knowledge of new media. Barbara presented this as a possible asset – apparently there is an ethnographic tradition that emphasises precisely this kind of cultural ignorance as a very productive and creative starting point for learning about an area. When you’re not an expert on new media, you enter the field without preconceptions, and that can be an advantage in some ways. I think Clifford Geertz was one of the ethnographers she mentioned as a proponent for this approach. (I should google that but don’t have time) Annette Markham’s Life Online used this approach too, and it’s a great read, with many good insights and just a marvellous style and presentation. The cultural ignorance approach (I’m amazed it has a name, actually) does run a risk of redoing research that’s already done. Perhaps it can also present these ideas more successfully to a culturally ignorant audience.

I kind of like being totally engrossed in and passionate about what I study 🙂


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]