Data infrastructure: research on the depth of hidden affordance

MA Zhonghong, HU Liangyi

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (8) : 6-27.

PDF(1638 KB)
PDF(1638 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (8) : 6-27.
Research Articles

Data infrastructure: research on the depth of hidden affordance

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Internet platform is influencing people’s daily life and society development significantly. They enable people to meet their demands via providing services, while storing vast amounts of data from it also. During this process, platform and application software are actually further nourishing and optimizing technology themselves as well, from which contributes multiple interactions and co-evolution between “technology and technology” and “technology and human”. Based on the retrospect of affordance theory, this study discusses “data infrastructure” behind application software interface and hidden in the core position of platform ecosystem, as a dynamic and growing media, then explores the affordances and affordabilities of data infrastructure from four aspects: data infrastructure and intra-enterprise self-application software, cross-platform application software outside the enterprise, and the role of application software on people through itself; as well as the reverse affordance of data infrastructure by new technology environment constituted by “human*application software”. This paper basically sets up an analytical framework with the data infrastructure as media affordance, promotes the theory of media affordance theory in depth, and provides new perspective for platform and software research and media practice.

Key words

data infrastructure / platform ecosystem / hidden affordance / affordabilities

Cite this article

Download Citations
MA Zhonghong , HU Liangyi. Data infrastructure: research on the depth of hidden affordance[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2022, 44(8): 6-27

References

[1]
陈昌凤, 翟雨嘉(2018). 信息偏向与纠正:寻求智能化时代的价值理性. 《青年记者》,(13),21-24.
[2]
邓建星(2019). 什么样的中台才能促进领军企业的快速增长.检索于https://www.sohu.com/a/305740838_120015577
[3]
工业和信息化部(2021), 工业和信息化发展取得历史性成就、发生历史性变革, 为全面建成小康社会作出重要贡献.检索于https://wap.miit.gov.cn/gzcy/zbft/art/2021/art_2c3a8ad0b43640e598ae646f809c6ab2.html.
[4]
皇甫博媛(2021). “算法崩溃”时分:从可供性视角理解用户与算法的互动. 《新闻记者》,(4),55-64.
[5]
胡翼青, 马新瑶.(2022). 作为媒介性的可供性:基于媒介本体论的考察. 《新闻记者》,(1),66-76.
[6]
何塞·范·迪克, 孙少晶, 陶禹舟.(2021). 平台化逻辑与平台社会——对话前荷兰皇家艺术和科学院主席何塞·范·迪克. 《国际新闻界》,(9),49-59.
[7]
列文(2019). 阿里云峰会——数据中台实践.检索于https://www.bilibili.com/video/av60825460/?vd_source=f4e46a84b5ef1a118d250603809ccd74.
[8]
马中红, 吴映秋, 秦敏杰, 吴宇轩(2022年1月15日). 研究报告《“互联互通”用户认知和态度调查报告》,苏州大学东吴智库.检索于http://sutt.suda.edu.cn/2022/0106/c23316a481536/page.psp.
[9]
毛天婵, 闻宇(2021). 十年开放?十年筑墙?——平台治理视角下腾讯平台开放史研究(2010-2020). 《新闻记者》,(6),28-38.
[10]
潘忠党, 刘于思(2017). 以何为“新”?“新媒体”话语中的权力陷阱与研究者的理论自省——潘忠党教授访谈录. 《新闻与传播评论》,(1),2-19.
[11]
孙凝翔, 韩松(2020). “可供性”:译名之辩与范式/概念之变. 《国际新闻界》,(9),122-141.
[12]
束开荣(2020). 社交媒体研究的媒介物质性路径——以微信API开放与使用项目为个案的研究. 《新闻界》,(5),80-90.
[13]
唐士哲(2020). 海底云端:网际网路的基础设施探问. 《新闻学研究》(台湾),(145),1-48.
[14]
钱玉娟(2020年8月22日). “博弈”中的淘宝与抖音签订新一轮年框合作,双方表示:一直都是好朋友, 经济观察报.检索于https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1675722930925371211&wfr=spider&for=pc.
[15]
腾讯(2022a). First Quarter Result Presentation. 检索于https://static.www.tencent.com/uploads/2022/05/19/1501a739addd20a382dadeda55b3a7aa.pdf.
[16]
腾讯(2022b). 2022 微信公开课PRO 微信广告专场.检索于https://e.qq.com/latestnews/detail/?pid=6342.
[17]
腾讯广告(2022a). 数据策略与洞察.检索于https://e.qq.com/technology/.
[18]
腾讯广告(2022b). 全时全景覆盖.检索于https://e.qq.com/ads/.
[19]
腾讯开放平台(2012). 写给开发者的一封信.《中国互联网开放平台白皮书》.检索于 https://wiki.open.qq.com/wiki/%E8%85%BE%E8%AE%AF%E5%BC%80%E6%94%BE%E5%B9%B3%E5%8F%B0%E6%A6%82%E8%BF%B0.
[20]
腾讯科技(2016a). 微信张小龙首次公开演讲全文.检索于https://tech.qq.com/a/20160111/034681.htm.
[21]
腾讯科技(2011b). 腾讯殷宇:Q+ 开放将打造互联网基础服务平台.检索于https://tech.qq.com/a/20110615/000279.htm.
[22]
腾讯云(2019). 刘炽平:腾讯要以生态方式进行开放, 不做“颠覆者”.检索于 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/F2_oQf22AZux5AXxpNnjoA.
[23]
数据甄小白(2021). 什么是数据湖, CSDN(专业开发者社区).检索于https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_40417658/article/details/114085127.
[24]
王海燕, 范吉琛(2021). 数字新闻的时间可供性:一个研究框架的提出. 《国际新闻界》,(9),116-135.
[25]
张杰, 马一琨(2021). 语境崩溃:平台可供性还是新社会情境?——概念溯源与理论激发. 《新闻记者》,(2),27-38.
[26]
张雪(2020). 抱歉, “大数据杀熟”无药可救.检索于https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8h6zNDYGKWCZH3SVbDYvjQ.
[27]
张志安, 黄桔琳(2020). 传播学视角下互联网平台可供性研究及启示. 《新闻与写作》,(10),87-95.
[28]
朱鸿军, 周逵(2017). 伪中立性:资讯聚合平台把关机制与社会责任的考察. 《南昌大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(5),102-107.
[29]
Alaimo C., & Kallinikos J.(2017). Computing the everyday: Social media as data platforms. The Information Society, 33(4), 175-191.
[30]
Bærentsen K. B., & Trettvik J.(2002, October). An activity theory approach to affordance. In Proceedings of NordiCHI(pp.51-60). New York, NY: ACM.
[31]
Boase J.(2008). Personal networks and the personal communication system. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 490-508.
[32]
Bogost I., & Montfort N.(2009). Platform studies:Frequently questioned answers. UC Irvine: Digital Arts and Culture Conference.
[33]
Burgess J., & Baym N. (2016, October). @RT#:Towards a platform biography of Twitter. In J. Burgess, N. Baym, T. Bucher, A. Helmond, (Eds.), Platform Studies: The Rules of Engagement(pp.1-3). Panel Presented at AoIR 2016: The 17th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers.
[34]
Castells M.(2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology, 29 (5), 693-699.
[35]
Castells M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[36]
Chen J. Y., & Qiu J. L.(2019). Digital utility: Datafication, regulation, labor, and DiDi’s platformization of urban transport in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12 (3), 274-289.
[37]
Costa E.(2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641-3656.
Drawing on data gathered during ethnographic fieldwork in Mardin, a medium-sized town in southeast Turkey, this article shows that social media users actively appropriate online platforms and change privacy settings in order to keep different social spheres and social groups apart. Keeping different online social contexts distinct from each other is taken for granted as a way of using social media in Mardin. By contrast, social media scholars have extensively discussed the effects of social media in terms of context collapse. The article highlights how context collapse is the result of patterns of usage within Anglo-American contexts and not the consequence of a platform’s architecture or social media logic. It then suggests a theoretical refinement of affordances, and proposes the concept of affordances-in-practice.
[38]
Costantinides P., Parker G., & Henfridsson O.(2018). Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381-400.
In the last few years, leading-edge research from information systems, strategic management, and economics have separately informed our understanding of platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Our motivation for undertaking this special issue rests in the conviction that it is significant to discuss platforms and infrastructures concomitantly, while enabling knowledge from diverse disciplines to cross-pollinate to address critical, pressing policy challenges and inform strategic thinking across both social and business spheres. In this editorial, we review key insights from the literature on digital infrastructures and platforms, present emerging research themes, highlight the contributions developed from each of the six articles in this special issue, and conclude with suggestions for further research.
[39]
Edwards P. N.(2002). Infrastructure and modernity:Scales of force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg, (Eds.), Modernity and technology(pp.185-225). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[40]
Ettlinger N. (2018). Algorithmic affordances for productive resistance. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 1-13.
[41]
Evans S. K., Pearce K. E., Vitak J., & Treem J. W.(2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22 (1), 35-52.
[42]
Gaver W.(1991). Technology Affordances. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, CA: New Orleans.
[43]
Gerlitz C., & Helmond A.(2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New media & society, 15(8), 1348-1365.
The paper examines Facebook’s ambition to extend into the entire web by focusing on social buttons and developing a medium-specific platform critique. It contextualises the rise of buttons and counters as metrics for user engagement and links them to different web economies. Facebook’s Like buttons enable multiple data flows between various actors, contributing to a simultaneous de- and re-centralisation of the web. They allow the instant transformation of user engagement into numbers on button counters, which can be traded and multiplied but also function as tracking devices. The increasing presence of buttons and associated social plugins on the web creates new forms of connectivity between websites, introducing an alternative fabric of the web. Contrary to Facebook’s claim to promote a more social experience of the web, this paper explores the implementation and technical infrastructure of such buttons to conceptualise them as part of a so-called ‘Like economy’.
[44]
Gibson J. J.(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
[45]
Gillespie T. (2010). The Politics of ‘Platforms’, New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
Online content providers such as YouTube are carefully positioning themselves to users, clients, advertisers and policymakers, making strategic claims for what they do and do not do, and how their place in the information landscape should be understood. One term in particular, ‘platform’, reveals the contours of this discursive work. The term has been deployed in both their populist appeals and their marketing pitches, sometimes as technical ‘platforms’, sometimes as ‘platforms’ from which to speak, sometimes as ‘platforms’ of opportunity. Whatever tensions exist in serving all of these constituencies are carefully elided. The term also fits their efforts to shape information policy, where they seek protection for facilitating user expression, yet also seek limited liability for what those users say. As these providers become the curators of public discourse, we must examine the roles they aim to play, and the terms by which they hope to be judged.
[46]
Gray J., Bounegru L., Milan S., Ciuccarelli P. (2016). Ways of Seeing Data:Toward a Critical Literacy for Data Visualizations as Research Objects and Research Devices. In Kubitschko, S., & KaunA.(Eds.). Innovative Methods in Media and Communication Research(pp. 227-251). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[47]
Graves L.(2007). The Affordances of blogging: A case study in culture and technological effects. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31(4), 331-346.
Informed by Carey's cultural approach to communication, this article revisits the debate about the historical impact of new communication technologies. Several studies have pointed to technology “affordances” as offering a useful middle ground between determinist and social constructivist perspectives. This article explores how the concept of affordance might be tweaked to emphasize what an emerging technology suggests in time to the cultures using and developing it. The second half of the article illustrates the discussion with a close examination of the affordances of blogging technology and especially of a novel communications genre: news-related blogs.
[48]
Haraway D.(1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London, UK: Free Routlege.
[49]
Haugeland J.(1993). Mind Embodied and Embedded, Mind and Cognition:1993 International Symposium. In Yu-Houng H. Houng & J. Ho (Eds.). Academica Sinica(pp.233-267).
[50]
Helmond A., & van der Vlist F. N. (2019). Social media and platform historiography: Challenges and opportunities. TMG-Journal for Media History, 22(1), 6-34.
[51]
Hutchby I.(2001). Conversation and Technology:From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
[52]
Langlois G & Elmer G. (2019). Impersonal subjectivation from platforms to infrastructures. Media, Culture & Society, 41(2), 236-251.
[53]
Majchrzak A., Faraj S., Kane G. C., & Azad B.(2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (1), 38-55.
[54]
McVeigh-Schultz J., & Baym N. K. (2015). Thinking of you: Vernacular affordance in the context of the microsocial relationship app, Couple. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 1-13.
[55]
Nagy P., & Neff G. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 1-9.
[56]
Nielsen K., & Cleal B.(2010). Predicting Flow at Work: Investigating the Activities and Job Characteristics that Predict Flow States at Work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 180-190.
Flow (a state of consciousness where people become totally immersed in an activity and enjoy it intensely) has been identified as a desirable state with positive effects for employee well-being and innovation at work. Flow has been studied using both questionnaires and Experience Sampling Method (ESM). In this study, we used a newly developed 9-item flow scale in an ESM study combined with a questionnaire to examine the predictors of flow at two levels: the activities (brainstorming, planning, problem solving and evaluation) associated with transient flow states and the more stable job characteristics (role clarity, influence and cognitive demands). Participants were 58 line managers from two companies in Denmark; a private accountancy firm and a public elder care organization. We found that line managers in elder care experienced flow more often than accountancy line managers, and activities such as planning, problem solving, and evaluation predicted transient flow states. The more stable job characteristics included in this study were not, however, found to predict flow at work.Copyright 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
[57]
Norman D. A.(1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.
[58]
Scarlett A., & Zeilinger M. (2019). Rethinking affordance. Media Theory, 3(1), 1-48.
[59]
Schrock A. R.(2015). Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9(18), 1229-1246.
[60]
Sharma D., Saha B., & Sarkar U. K. (2016, December). Affordance Lost, Affordance Regained, and Affordance Surrendered. In Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations (pp.73-89). Springer.
[61]
Tiwana A.(2013). Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy. UK: Newnes.
[62]
Parchoma G.(2014). The contested ontology of affordances: Implications for researching technological affordances for collaborative knowledge production. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 360-368.
[63]
Parikka J. (2015). A geology of media (Vol.46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
[64]
Plantin J. C., & Punathambekar A.(2019). Digital media infrastructures: pipes, platforms, and politics. Media, Culture & Society, 41(2), 163-174.
[65]
Reed E. S.(1996). Encountering the World:Toward an Ecological Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[66]
Sengers P., & Gaver W.(2005). Designing for Interpretations, In the Proceedings of HCI International. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ.
[67]
Van Dijck J., & Poell T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and communication, 1(1), 2-14.
Over the past decade, social media platforms have penetrated deeply into the mech­anics of everyday life, affecting people's informal interactions, as well as institutional structures and professional routines. Far from being neutral platforms for everyone, social media have changed the conditions and rules of social interaction. In this article, we examine the intricate dynamic between social media platforms, mass media, users, and social institutions by calling attention to social media logic—the norms, strategies, mechanisms, and economies—underpin­ning its dynamics. This logic will be considered in light of what has been identified as mass me­dia logic, which has helped spread the media's powerful discourse outside its institutional boundaries. Theorizing social media logic, we identify four grounding principles—programmabil­ity, popularity, connectivity, and datafication—and argue that these principles become increas­ingly entangled with mass media logic. The logic of social media, rooted in these grounding principles and strategies, is gradually invading all areas of public life. Besides print news and broadcasting, it also affects law and order, social activism, politics, and so forth. Therefore, its sustaining logic and widespread dissemination deserve to be scrutinized in detail in order to better understand its impact in various domains. Concentrating on the tactics and strategies at work in social media logic, we reassess the constellation of power relationships in which social practices unfold, raising questions such as: How does social media logic modify or enhance ex­isting mass media logic? And how is this new media logic exported beyond the boundaries of (social or mass) media proper? The underlying principles, tactics, and strategies may be relat­ively simple to identify, but it is much harder to map the complex connections between plat­forms that distribute this logic: users that employ them, technologies that drive them, economic structures that scaffold them, and institutional bodies that incorporate them.
[68]
Van Dijck J. (2021). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance. New Media & Society, 23(9), 2801-2819.
Abstract
The complexities of platforms are increasingly at odds with the narrow legal and economic concepts in which their governance is grounded. This article aims to analyze platformization through the metaphorical lens of a tree to make sense of information ecosystems as hierarchical and interdependent structures. The layered shape of the tree draws attention to the dynamics of power concentration: vertical integration, infrastructuralization, and cross-sectorization. Next, the metaphor helps to revision the current patchwork of European regulatory frameworks, addressing the power asymmetry between citizens and the data-driven systems through which their daily practices are governed. Finally, the platformization tree serves to identify points of intervention that may inform European regulatory bodies and policy-makers to act as agents of change. Taking a holistic approach to platformization, this visual metaphor may inspire a set of principles that reshapes the platform ecosystem in the interest of society and the common good.
[69]
Vitak J. (2015, May). Social media affordances: Enhancing or disrupting relationships. In Proceedings of the 65th annual international communication association (ICA) conference.
[70]
Wellman B., Quan-Haase A., Boase J., Chen W., Hampton K., Díaz I., & Miyata K. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 8(3), JCMC834.
[71]
Willems W. (2021). Beyond platform-centrism and digital universalism: The relational affordances of mobile social media publics. Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1677-1693.

Funding

a phased achievement of the National Social Science Fund project “Research on the Practice of Youth Women’s Digital Media Culture”(19BXW112)
Jiangsu Province Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Plan project “Research on the Phenomenon of Youth Culture ‘Coming out of Circle’ from the Perspective of Network Platform Availability”(KYCX21_2912)
PDF(1638 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/