<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>During recent years, the concept of mediatization has made a strong impact on media and communication studies, and its advocates have attempted to turn it into a refined and central theoretical framework for media research. The present article distinguishes two forms of mediatization theory: a strong form based on the assumption that a ‘media logic’ increasingly determines the actions of different social institutions and groups, and a weak form that questions such a logic, though the latter form emphasizes the key role of the media in social change and singles out mediatization as a central ‘meta-process’ today. Exponents of the weak form have convincingly criticized the notion of media logic. However, the weaker version of mediatization is itself problematic, as its advocates have failed to produce a clear explanatory framework around the concept. We argue that, although the analytical status of mediatization is unclear, fascination with the concept will, in all probability, continue in the years to come, due to the promises of heightened disciplinary coherence and status that this notion has conveyed for media and communication studies.</p>
</abstract>

During recent years, the concept of mediatization has made a strong impact on media and communication studies, and its advocates have attempted to turn it into a refined and central theoretical framework for media research. The present article distinguishes two forms of mediatization theory: a strong form based on the assumption that a ‘media logic’ increasingly determines the actions of different social institutions and groups, and a weak form that questions such a logic, though the latter form emphasizes the key role of the media in social change and singles out mediatization as a central ‘meta-process’ today. Exponents of the weak form have convincingly criticized the notion of media logic. However, the weaker version of mediatization is itself problematic, as its advocates have failed to produce a clear explanatory framework around the concept. We argue that, although the analytical status of mediatization is unclear, fascination with the concept will, in all probability, continue in the years to come, due to the promises of heightened disciplinary coherence and status that this notion has conveyed for media and communication studies.

Strong and Weak Forms of Mediatization Theory: A Critical Review

Nordicom Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Strong and Weak Forms of Mediatization Theory: A Critical Review"}

During recent years, the concept of mediatization has made a strong impact on media and communication studies, and its advocates have attempted to turn it into...

Strong and Weak Forms of Mediatization Theory: A Critical Review

Publié en ligne: 13 mars 2020

Pages: 111 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0107

Mots clés
media logic, media studies, theory, critique, disciplinary identity, research funding

© 2014 Marko Ampuja et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Strong and Weak Forms of Mediatization Theory: A Critical Review

Publié en ligne: 13 mars 2020

Pages: 111 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0107

Mots clésmedia logic, media studies, theory, critique, disciplinary identity, research funding

© 2014 Marko Ampuja et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Mots clés
media logic, media studies, theory, critique, disciplinary identity, research funding