Search

Social scientists are increasingly turning to digital interactions as a primary source of qualitative data. Online activities in turn typically take place on algorithmically mediated platforms, which shape what people do and say in crucial ways. Here, I offer a toolkit for what I call algorithmic ethnography, that is, the ethnographic study of how computational systems structure online activities. First, scholars need to follow the data and take into consideration the tracking strategies, monetization systems, and business models of the platforms where online interactions unfold. Second, ethnographers should focus on the details of algorithmic sorting, since platforms typically have more content than they can display and thus rely on algorithmic procedures to personalize their pages. Third, ethnographers should include metrics in their fieldwork and study their effects on interactions, hierarchies, and representations. Together, these angles afford a fine-grained understanding of the computational texture of online exchanges.

A common theme in social science studies of algorithms is that they are profoundly opaque and function as “black boxes.” Scholars have developed several methodological approaches in order to address algorithmic opacity. Here I argue that we can explicitly enroll algorithms in ethnographic research, which can shed light on unexpected aspects of algorithmic systems—including their opacity. I delineate three meso-level strategies for algorithmic ethnography. The first, algorithmic refraction, examines the reconfigurations that take place when computational software, people, and institutions interact. The second strategy, algorithmic comparison, relies on a similarity-and-difference approach to identify the instruments’ unique features. The third strategy, algorithmic triangulation, enrolls algorithms to help gather rich qualitative data. I conclude by discussing the implications of this toolkit for the study of algorithms and future of ethnographic fieldwork.

The number of predictive technologies used in the U.S. criminal justice system is on the rise. Yet there is little research to date on the reception of algorithms in criminal justice institutions. We draw on ethnographic fieldwork conducted within a large urban police department and a midsized criminal court to assess the impact of predictive technologies at different stages of the criminal justice process. We first show that similar arguments are mobilized to justify the adoption of predictive algorithms in law enforcement and criminal courts. In both cases, algorithms are described as more objective and efficient than humans’ discretionary judgment. We then study how predictive algorithms are used, documenting similar processes of professional resistance among law enforcement and legal professionals. In both cases, resentment toward predictive algorithms is fueled by fears of deskilling and heightened managerial surveillance. Two practical strategies of resistance emerge: foot-dragging and data obfuscation. We conclude by discussing how predictive technologies do not replace, but rather displace discretion to less visible—and therefore less accountable—areas within organizations, a shift which has important implications for inequality and the administration of justice in the age of big data.

In recent years, a variety of cultural industries have been transformed by platformization – a process in which technology companies serve as intermediaries connecting different parties (most importantly cultural producers and audiences) through websites and applications. From music to book publishing, movie production, and the visual arts, cultural production has undergone massive changes due to platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, Goodreads, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Etsy, etc. In most cultural sectors, creators now have to grapple with the platforms that make their work visible to online audiences. This often means paying close attention to the quantitative infrastructure of platforms, namely their algorithms and analytics, which drive visibility and commercial success. This panel examines what these economic and technological changes imply for the independence of cultural production. Classical studies of culture often emphasized the role that the values of independence and autonomy play in shaping artists’ worldviews and practices. From Bourdieu’s analysis of “fields of cultural production” as “the economic world reversed” to Becker’s theory of “art worlds” where internal dynamics redefine external constraints, or the Frankfurt School’s critical take on the demise of aura through mechanical reproduction, sociological approaches have paid close attention to the threats to independence emerging under modern capitalism. In fact, most classical sociology saw cultural producers in the mass cultural industries as having little independence, often assuming (sometimes without empirical research) that the massification of culture would destroy original and critical art works. Here we revisit the question of independence in the context of platformed creation – a term that embraces all forms of cultural production that are mediated, in part or completely, through digital platforms. By bringing together scholars studying different aspects of platformed creation and reflecting on the concept of independence through diverse disciplinary lenses, we ask: what does independence look like in the context of platformed creation? What are some of the theoretical and methodological tools available to scholars for making sense of cultural, economic, and technological independence in the case of platformed creation? And how do these evolving forms of independence affect the kinds of art works and cultural tropes that circulate online? These different studies aim to put the concept of independence in dialogue with the question of interdependence (among cultural producers, audiences, and platforms) in a mediated digital world.

The widespread implementation of algorithmic technologies in organizations prompts questions about how algorithms may reshape organizational control. We use Edwards’ (1979) perspective of “conteste...

This chapter provides the structural and historical background for the analysis of web analytics. It traces the distinct relationships and quantitative modes of representation that developed between journalists and their publics over the course of the past century and a half. It also relates developments from the different trajectories of the journalistic field in the United States and France. The chapter offers a comparative genealogy of how the relationship between journalists and their readers shapes current interpretations and debates about web analytics. It also argues how impossible it is to separate the question of publics from the broader and conflicting forces that shape journalistic field.

This chapter focuses on the early days of online news, before profit, traffic, and metrics-based imperatives became key concerns. It pays close attention to the first years of TheNotebook in New York and LaPlace in Paris, two publications that started as innovative, playful, and collaborative editorial projects. It also describes how TheNotebook and LaPlace shared similar utopian beliefs but at the same time had distinct political and editorial identities. The chapter points out ways LaPlace was more countercultural, participatory, and politically engaged than TheNotebook, even though the French website is an explicit imitation of its U.S. counterpart. By comparing the identities and metrics of TheNotebook and LaPlace, the chapter also discusses how news websites handled the chase for clicks.

This chapter examines how TheNotebook and LaPlace websites entered the chase for traffic. It recounts how the two websites realized that they needed to attract more online readers to survive. It also talks about how TheNotebook and LaPlace developed the same editorial and organizational strategies to increase their traffic over time despite distinct political and editorial identities. The chapter shows how media organizations located thousands of miles apart ended up making similar editorial decisions when they entered the chase for clicks. It also provides an analysis of TheNotebook and LaPlace when they started experiencing an acute tension between editorial and click-based modes of evaluation, which affected the kind of content they published.

This chapter explores the ramifications of the conflicting systems of evaluation by turning to the thorny question of compensation. It reviews the dilemma of TheNotebook and LaPlace websites on how to get people to work without enough money to pay all contributors a decent wage. The chapter talks about how in both websites traffic became an important criterion for deciding whom to pay and how much to pay them. It examines how compensations and wages affected the identities and careers of freelance journalists in America and France. It also analyzes why American journalists were less conflicted about using metrics-related criteria than their French counterparts.

This chapter centers on the uses and interpretation of web analytics at TheNotebook and LaPlace. It talks about how the two publications used the same software programs to track the preferences of their online readers but made sense of the metrics provided by these programs in different ways. The chapter discusses the traffic in New York that soon became an imperative for the top editors in charge of managing the publication while staff writers refused to embrace the tyranny of metrics. It also looks into the journalists in Paris that were simultaneously deeply critical of traffic numbers and obsessed with clicks. It also shows how metrics do more than function as market indicators and reveal the journalists' representations of their algorithmic publics.

This chapter explores the consequences of distinct understandings of metrics on the daily life of news organizations. It looks into two key aspects of metrics: editorial production and compensation systems, and analyzes the editorial routines associated with online news production. The chapter assesses how TheNotebook and LaPlace websites handled the tension between “fast” and “slow” news and highlights contradictory views on the bureaucratic and disciplinary dynamics that structured the daily life of the two websites. It also reveals the differences in the distinct strategies of TheNotebook and LaPlace for handling the tension between click-based and editorial modes of evaluation. By showing how digital metrics become integrated in broader organizational dynamics, the chapter reveals the dialectical relationship between algorithms and their contexts.

Resume L'opposition entre sites independants et « Big Media » est l'une des divisions structurantes du monde de la presse en ligne : de nombreux journalistes etablissent une equivalence directe entre l'independance economique et l'independance editoriale des sites internet. Cet article nuance ce point de vue en s'appuyant sur une enquete ethnographique comparative menee aupres de deux sites d'information en ligne, LaPlace a Paris et TheNotebook a New York, qui revendiquent une forte independance editoriale mais ont des statuts economiques distincts : le capital de TheNotebook a toujours ete domine par d'importants groupes de presse alors que LaPlace etait independant jusqu'a son recent rachat. Malgre ces statuts differents, LaPlace et TheNotebook ont reagi de facon similaire au durcissement de la concurrence en ligne, ce qui s'est traduit par un engagement fort dans la course au clic. En depit d'importants sacrifices editoriaux, TheNotebook a finalement ete mieux protege des aleas du marche du fait d'une division stricte du travail entre journalistes du « temps court » et du « temps long », ce qui lui a permis de sanctuariser ses articles d'enquete et de revendiquer l'independance editoriale comme marque distinctive du site. L'article conclut sur les conditions de possibilite d'une reelle independance editoriale dans l'economie numerique actuelle.

Sociological studies often emphasize the role of metrics in broader processes of convergence and homogenization. Yet numbers can take on different meanings depending on their contexts. This article...

Recent efforts to understand the significance of precarious work have been limited in at least two important respects. One is the neglect of the ideological constructs that workers are led to embrace concerning the employment relation, and the other is the undertheorized nature of much research in this field. To address these limits, the authors adopt a two-pronged strategy in this article. In empirical terms, the authors focus on an important source of popular thinking about work: the career advice genre, which has recently evolved into a growing literature on “personal branding.” In theoretical terms, the authors appeal to Foucault’s theory of governmentality in order to understand how and why workers respond to personal branding discourses. Data are drawn from two linked qualitative studies bearing on workers employed in distinct settings: freelance journalists in Paris and New York ( N = 101) and a broader set of white-collar employees who have faced market adversity in Boston ( N = 62). Findings reveal that personal branding discourse has become both prevalent and potent, encouraging many workers to conform to what Foucault referred to as the “enterprising self.” Yet the authors also find that workers respond to personal branding in a multiplicity of ways, some of which Foucault left unaddressed. The article thus finds qualified support for Foucault’s arguments but identifies issues—especially that of agency and resistance—which stand in need of additional elaboration.

Fields have become a key concept in sociological research. This paper compares the development and reception of two central sociological theories of fields: Bourdieu’s “champs,” developed in France, and DiMaggio and Powell’s “organizational fields” in the United States. The article first examines internal differences between champs and organizational fields. We argue that, in spite of their similar topographical approach, the concepts provide different perspectives on micro-foundations, field boundaries, and dynamics of social change. Then, drawing on a data set of citation patterns in top U.S. and French sociology journals, we analyze the diffusion and reception of the two concepts in their national context. We show that the citations for “champs” in France are consistent with Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic position-takings in scientific fields, whereas the diffusion of “organizational fields” in the United States resembles neo-institutionalist findings about rituals of deference and isomorphism. The paper discusses this homology between the U.S. and French sociological fields and the theory of field as it unfolded in each national context, before concluding that the two concepts are difficult to reconcile.

Are all transnational exchanges ‘fielded’? This article explores the limits of the concept of transnational field by focusing on the case of journalism. At first glance, journalism might seem to be the perfect example of a transnational field. The frequency, speed and extent of international exchanges between media outlets has increased dramatically with the development of online news, leading media scholars to develop the concept of ‘global news’. Yet I argue that such international exchanges do not necessarily constitute a field. Using ethnographic methods, I analyse the circulation of online news between the United States and France, two countries with strikingly different journalistic traditions. Specifically, I compare two editorial partnerships between US and French websites, one linking prestigious online magazines across the Atlantic and the other connecting tabloid-oriented news sites. I find that editorial content does not circulate seamlessly between the two countries. Based on this study, the article proposes three criteria that must be met for transnational fields to exist: competition over the legitimate definition of the field, reciprocal field effects, and the existence of common stakes. More broadly, the article contributes to defining the limits of the concept of ‘transnational field’ for the study of international exchanges.