Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T08:56:44.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Studies as Performative Research in a Digital Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Caroline Stockman  and
Fred Truyen
Caroline Stockman
Affiliation:
Blijde Inkomststraat 21, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: caroline.stockman@arts.kuleuven.be
Fred Truyen
Affiliation:
Blijde Inkomststraat 21, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: caroline.stockman@arts.kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the nature of digital culture research, and the fitting methodology. Although it is still felt to be a novelty, it is not so different from the more general domain of Cultural Studies. The aim of research for both domains is meaning, or the challenge to understand the dynamics of the encoding and decoding process. Both domains endorse a wide variety of subjects, although typically the concrete methodology of Cultural Studies still remains restricted to qualitative approaches. The question of quantitative data and their analysis is highlighted in digital culture, and we should consider both its opportunities and limitations for the research at hand. In our reflection, Cultural Studies research emerges as a performative enterprise, and this is one of its unique distinctions as a research domain.

Type
Focus: Nihilism
Information
European Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 309 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Barker, C. (2000) Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (London: Sage).Google Scholar
2.During, S. (2007) The Cultural Studies Reader, 3rd edn (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
3.du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. and Negus, K. (1997) Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman (London: Sage).Google Scholar
4.McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
5.Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. A. (1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
6.Hall, S. (1973) Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse (Birmingham: Centre for Cultural Studies).Google Scholar
7.Gitelman, L. (2008) Always Already New: Media, History and the Data of Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
8.Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).Google Scholar
9.Benjamin, W. (1936) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. 1936. Via marxists.org (retrieved 4 March 2013).Google Scholar
10.Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York University Press).Google Scholar
11.Haraway, D. (1991) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Simian, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge), pp. 149–181.Google Scholar
12.Hayles, K. (2008) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics. Literature, and Informatics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
13.Bogdan, R. (1973) Participant observation. Peabody Journal of Education, 50(4), pp. 302–308.Google Scholar
14.Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
15.Hoepfl, M. C. (1997) Choosing qualitative research: a primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), pp. 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Pickering, M. (2008) Research Methods for Cultural Studies (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
17.Collins, H. and Evans, R. (2007) Rethinking Expertise (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
18.Jick, T. D. (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Deacon, D. (2008) Why counting counts. In: M. Pickering, (ed.) Research Methods for Cultural Studies (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
20.Latour, B. (2010) On the Modern Cult of Factish Gods (Durham: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
21.Storey, J. P. (2003) Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
22.Jameson, F. (2002) Postmodernism, A Singular Modernity (London: New Left Books).Google Scholar
23.Lunenfeld, P. (2012) Digital Humanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
24.Teddlie (2009.Google Scholar
25.Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Wu, P. F. (2012) A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), pp. 172–187.Google Scholar
27.LSE (2012) Reading the Riots: Investigating England's Summer of Disorder. LSE Research Online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/Google Scholar
28.Prescott, A. (2012) An Electric Current of the Imagination, http://digitalriffs.blogspot.be/2012/01/electric-current-of-imagination-what.htmlGoogle Scholar
29.Fox, S. (2006) Are wired seniors sitting ducks?’ Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center, 11 April 2006. Retrieved 8 November 2012 via www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Are-Wired-Seniors-Sitting-Ducks.aspxGoogle Scholar
30.Dilthey, W. (1990) Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar
31.Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. (London: Sage).Google Scholar