Public communication campaigns as mundane category
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i68.118071Keywords:
Public communication campaigns, engagement, public connection, governance, governmentalityAbstract
This article examines the public connection and understanding of public communication campaigns. Public communication campaigns are widespread, but the audience dimension of the campaign category itself is still a blind spot in research. Drawing on focus group interviews and a survey among Danish citizens, the article shows that public campaigns are recognized as a mundane communicative category. Moreover, drawing on theories of public connection and governmentality, we show how citizens receive and resist, accept and negotiate public campaigns.
References
Almlund, P., & Andersen, N.B. (2017). Lokaldemokrati på spil. Et casestudie af et dansk kommunalvalg. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Andersen, N.B. (2013). Negotiations of acknowledgement among middle class residents: An analysis of post disaster interactions and performance in a Danish context. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 31(2), 270-292.
Andersen J., Hede, A., & Andersen, J.G. (2017). Tryghedsmåling 2017: Tilliden til samfundets bærebjælker. Copenhagen: TrygFonden
Barbour, R. (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage.
Blue, S., Shove, E., Carmona, C., & Kelly, M.P. (2016). Theories of practice and public health: Understanding (un)healthy practices. Critical Public Health, 26(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2014.980396.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2018). Th e public connection project ten years on. Originally published in M.A. Guerrero, & A. Arriagada, Conexión Pública: practices cívicas y uso de medios en cinco paises (pp. 145-169). Mexico: Universidad Iberoamericana. Available in LSE Research Online: June 2018. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88284/1/Livingstone_Public%20Connection%20Project_Accepted.pdf
Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2010). Media Consumption and Public Engagement. Beyond the Presumption of Attention. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230800823
Coveney, J. (2000). Food, Morals and Meaning: Th e pleasure and anxiety of eating. London, Routledge.
Dean, M. (2006). Governmentality: Magt & styring I det modern samfund. Copenhagen: Forlaget Sociologi.
De Krom, M.P.M.M. (2008). Understanding consumer rationalities: Consumer involvement in European food safety governance of avian infl uenza. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00474.x.
Dervin, B. (1989). Audience as listener and learner, teacher and confi dante: the sense-making approach. In R.E. Rice, & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 67-86). London: Sage.
Dodds, A., & Chamberlain, K. (2016). Th e problematic messages of nutritional discourse: A case-based critical media analysis. Appetite, 108(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.02.
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802.
Foucault, M. (2008). Sikkerhed, territorium, befolkning. Forelæsninger på Collège de France 1977-1978. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993100530010105.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In C.G. Burchell , & P. Miller (Eds.), Th e Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87-104). Chicago: Th e University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226028811.001.0001.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the Self. UK: Tavistock Publication.
Foucault, M. (1982). Th e Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
Fornet-Betancourt, R., Becker, H., Gomez-Müller, A., & Gauthier, J. D. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984 (J.D. Gauthier, Trans.). Philosophy & Social Criticism, 12(2-3), 112-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145378701200202.
Gram-Hanssen, K. (2011). Understanding change and continuity in residential energy consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510391725.
Gustafsson, U., Wills, W., & Draper, A. (2011). Food and public health: Contemporary issues and future directions. Critical Public Health, 21(4): 385-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2011.625759.
Halkier, B (2010). Consumption Challenged: Food in Medialised Everyday Lives. Farnham, Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315573755.
Halkier, B. (2016). Civic engagement by invitation? Citizen negotiations about public media framings of everyday life responsibilities for societal problems. In H.K. Nielsen (Ed.), Th e Democratic Public Sphere (pp. 289-318). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Halkier, B. (2020). Mundane negotiations around official Danish dietary advice: Connection, expert knowledge, and everyday agency. Critical Public Health, 30(3), 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2018.1554244.
Hansen, S.E. (2015). Communication campaigns, food consumption and change of practices in everyday family life: An analysis of strategic communication on food and citizenship in Region Zealand, Denmark [PhD Thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark].
Hepp, (2013). Cultures of Mediatization. Cambridge: Polity.
Hjarvard, S. (2013). Th e Mediatization of Culture and Society. London: Routledge.
Jensen, K.B. (2012). A Handbook of Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Karlsen, M.P., & Villadsen, K. (2017). Det velafbalancerede subjekt: sundhedsfremme, guvernmentalitet og spørgsmål om nydelse og begær. In M.P. Karlsen, & K. Villadsen (Eds.), Sundhed og Magt (pp. 147-178). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. https://doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v19i3.2841.
Keller, M., & Halkier, B. (2014). Positioning consumption: A practice theoretical approach to contested consumption and media discourse. Marketing theory, 14(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593113506246.
Keller, M. Halkier, B. & Wilska, T.A. (2016). Policy and governance for sustainable consumption at the crossroads of theories and concepts, Environmental Policy and GovernanceI, 26, 75-88.
Kuzel, A.J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B.F. Crabtree, & W.L. Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 31-44). London: Sage.
Livingstone, S., Wijnen, C.W., Papaioannou, T., Costa C., & Grandio, M. (2014). Situating media literacy in the changing media environment: Critical insights from European research on audiences. In N. Carpentier, K.C. Schrøder, & L. Hallett (Eds.), Transforming Audiences: Shifting audience positions in late modernity (pp. 210-227). London: Routledge.
Lupton, D. (2015). The pedagogy of disgust: The ethical, moral and political implications of using disgust in public health campaigns. Critical Public Health, 25(1), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2014.885115.
Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. New York: Routledge.
Niederdeppe, J. (2014). Conceptual, empirical and practical issues in developing valid measures of public communication campaign exposure. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(2), 138-161.
Rice. R.E., & Atkin, C.K. (2013). Public communication campaigns (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Schrøder, K.C. (1997). Cynicism and ambiguity: British corporate responsibility advertisements and their readers. In M. Nava, A. Blake, I. MacRury & B. Richards (Eds.), BUY THIS BOOK Studies in Advertising and Consumption (pp. 276-290). London: Routledge.
Schrøder, K.C. (2017). Towards the ‘audiencization’ of mediatization research? Audience dynamics as co-constitutive of mediatization processes. In O. Driessens, G. Bolin, A. Hepp, & S. Hjarvard (Eds.), Dynamics of Mediatization (pp. 85-115). London: Palgrave macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62983-4_5.
Schrøder, K.C. (2018). Audience reception. In P.H. Napoli (Ed.). Mediated Communication: Handbooks of Communication Science (vol. 7) (pp. 105-128). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110481129-008.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273-1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282.
Stechova, M. & Hajek, R. (2015). Faithful confi dants or fi ckle coat-changers? Audience’s perceptions of celebrities in political campaigns before the first direct presidential election in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 337-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115577308.
Steensen, S., Ferrer-Conill, R., & Peters, C. (2020). Theory of audience engagement. Paper presented to the Journalism Studies Division, ICA conference, Australia, 20-25 May, 2020.
Takens, J., van Atteveldt, W., van Hoof, A., & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2013). Media logic in election campaign coverage. European Journal of Communication, 28(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113478522.
Vallgårda, S. (2011). Addressing individual behaviours and living conditions: Four Nordic public health policies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39(6), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494810378922.
Vitus, K., Tørslev, M.K., Ditlevsen, K., & Nielsen, A.L. (2017). Body weight management and dilemmas of health responsibility for vulnerable groups in the changing Danish welfare state: A comparative case analysis. Critical Public Health, 28(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2017.1286294.
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131-153.
Windahl, S. & Signitzer, B. (2009). Using Communication Theory: An introduction to planned communication.
London: Sage.
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W., & Fu, Y.C. (2016). The Sage Handbook of Survey Methodology. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Author and Journal.
Articles published after January 1 2024 are licensed under CCBY 4.0.
Articles published until December 31 2023 are licensed under CCBYNCND.
Articles submitted to MedieKultur should not be submitted to or published in other journals.
