In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016), 1277–1293 1932–8036/20160005
Copy igh © 2016 (Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell). Licensed unde he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion Non-
comme cial No De i a i es (by-nc-nd). A ailable a h p://ijoc.o g.
Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience:
Me hodological Conside a ions Conce ning
People’s Uses o Media in U ban Space
SIMONE TOSONI
Uni e si à Ca olica del Sac o Cuo e, I aly
SEIJA RIDELL
Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland
Media s udies schola s a e in i ed oday o add ess he pe asi e media ion o
con empo a y ci ies, oge he wi h esea che s om human geog aphy, u ban s udies,
science and echnology s udies, and mobili y s udies. Cu en s udies o people’s uses o
media in u ban space, in pa icula , could play a cen al ole in shedding ligh on he
media edness o u ban daily li e. D awing on a e iew o his speci ic s and o esea ch
wi hin he b oade ield o “u ban media s udies,” he a icle a gues ha pa icipa ion in
he in e disciplina y endea o uns he isk o being hinde ed by o e ly media-cen ic
me hodological p ocedu es. Thei es ic i e implica ions a e mos p oblema ic in he
aken- o -g an ed employmen o “u ban audience” and “u ban media use ” as key
concep s in he s udy o how people use media in u ban space. Wha we p opose ins ead
is o dema ca e he esea ch objec by p oceeding om he p ima y impo ance o u ban
p ac ices. This me hodological decen e ing o media necessi a es he “ e bing” o he
no ion o audience, he eby shi ing he esea ch ocus o he ac i i y o “audiencing”
(media- ela ed o no ) and i s in e ela ions wi h o he u ban ac i i ies.
Keywo ds: audiencing, me hodology, p ac ices, u ban space, uses o media
In oduc ion
In he pas ew yea s, he p oli e a ion o po able ne wo ked de ices and ambien media has
p omp ed media s udies schola s o ecognize he cen ali y o u ban space as a con ex o media
ecep ion and use. Resea ch agendas a e now inc easingly accommoda ing people’s media- ela ed
ac i i ies in squa es, s ee s, and o he public and semi-public places, including shopping malls and pubs.
These s udies eed in o an e ol ing schola ly sub ield, whe e he la gely disjoin ed issues o media and
ci ies a e add essed oge he .
Simone Tosoni: simone. osoni@unica .i
Seija Ridell: seija. idell@u a. i
Da e submi ed: 2015–06–08
1278 Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016)
This b oade sub ield, which we call he e “u ban media s udies,”
1
esona es wi h he ongoing
wo k in human geog aphy, u ban s udies, science and echnology s udies, and mobili y s udies ha aims
o ackle, om di e en angles, he pe asi e media ion cha ac e izing con empo a y ci ies. O e all, due
o he inc easing cen ali y o media in any u ban p ac ice, media s udies schola s a e inc easingly in i ed
o con ibu e o his b oade in e disciplina y endea o . In pa icula , esea ch on people’s uses o media
in u ban space could ha e a pi o al ole. As S ephen G aham al eady s a ed a decade ago, he p esen
o ms o wha he calls “ emedia ion o u ban li e” canno be unde s ood wi hou paying a en ion o how
media a e “adop ed and shaped wi hin he ine-g ained p ac ices o e e yday u ban li e,” and how, in u n,
hey a e “s a ing o in luence he o ms, p ocesses, expe iences and ideas o u ban li e in a wide a ie y
o con ex s ac oss he wo ld” (2004, pp. 17–18). Mo e ecen ly, Sco Rodge s, Cli e Ba ne , and Allan
Coch ane ha e unde lined how a en ion o p ac ices no only “has he po en ial o d aw oge he media
and u ban s udies” (2014, p. 1066), bu also helps o “ econcep ualize he implici and explici ela ions o
powe enac ed h ough pe asi e media ed u ban en i onmen s” (2014, p. 1063). Thei p oposal is o
ex end he ocus ad oca ed by G aham o “ins i u ionalized media ac i i ies— o example, p oducing
ele ision, designing so wa e, o making he news— . . . as o ganized-ye -e e yday p ac ical ields in
hei own igh ” (2014, p. 1063).
In his a icle, ou ocus will be on cu en esea ch on u ban uses o media—an e e escen
s and o u ban media s udies ha has p o en ecep i e o inspi a ion om neighbo ing ields (human
geog aphy and science and echnology s udies, in pa icula ). Howe e , his s and s ill appea s a a
p elimina y phase, and one inds e y li le sys ema ic discussion on how o conduc esea ch in he new
in e disciplina y si ua ion. Hence, while he p esen upsu ge o empi ical case s udies sheds impo an
ligh on u ban media engagemen s, hese s udies a ely anscend he singula cases add essed. This
p e en s schola s om p o iding a b oade iew o people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in u ban space and
he eby con ines hei indings o he bounda ies o media s udies.
I is agains his backg ound ha we ind he main challenge in s udying people’s media- ela ed
u ban ac i i ies o be me hodological in na u e. One o he main issues o be ackled in his espec
conce ns he ways in which he empi ical in es iga ions in his speci ic ield a e guided by p ocedu es
embedded in he p e ious disciplina y adi ions, mos p ominen ly in cul u al audience s udies. Wha is
no able is ha schola s a ely add ess he adequacy o he ea lie amewo ks ha in o m hei esea ch
p ocedu es in he u ban spa ial con ex . Ou con en ion, in con as , is ha a eassessmen o hese
p ocedu es and amewo ks is necessa y o pa icipa ing ui ully in he ongoing in e disciplina y deba e
on media ed u banism. This is because a common g ound be ween di e en disciplines, in ou iew,
canno e en be p obed unless esea che s i s e lec on how hei concep s and app oaches ela e o
con ibu e o he cons uc ion o he social eali y hey claim o s udy (see Bal, 2002; Blume , 1969).
The pu pose o ou a icle is o os e his kind o me hodological e lec ion by sc u inizing he
p ocedu es h ough which he objec o esea ch is de ined in he s udy o people’s u ban uses o media.
1
U ban geog aphe S ephen G aham (2004) coined his a ea o esea ch “u ban new media s udies.” In
ou iew, he dis inc ion be ween old and new media, howe e , is no decisi e o he de ini ion o he
sub ield.
In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016) Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience 1279
In pa icula , we will ocus on how schola s in his speci ic esea ch s and dema ca e he bounda ies o
hei esea ch objec s. As media s udies schola Klaus B uhn Jensen poin s ou , “ o design an empi ical
s udy is o iden i y and delimi a po ion o eali y—which is o be examined wi h e e ence o a
heo e ically in o med pu pose, o concep ualiza ion, and acco ding o a sys ema ic p ocedu e o da a
collec ion and analysis” (2002, p. 237). The way in which his p ocedu e is conduc ed ies in wi h he
adop ion o esea ch me hods. In e hnog aphic app oaches, o example, we usually selec a po ion (o
po ions) o space in which o ca y ou obse a ion (see Ami , 2000; o mul i-si ed e hnog aphy, see
Ma cus, 1995). As o o he me hods, he p ocedu e may consis in he selec ion o ei he a co pus o
ex s o be analyzed o a numbe o in o man s o be in e iewed, obse ed, o included in a sample. In
any case, he ope a ions o bounda y dema ca ion a e ne e me e echnicali ies; a he , hey a e
connec ed in undamen al ways—explici ly o implici ly— o he concep ual amewo k h ough which he
esea che app oaches he wo ld.
A cen al a gumen in ou a icle is ha cu en s udies o people’s uses o media in u ban
con ex s end o delimi hei esea ch objec in a s ic ly media-cen ic way, cons uc ing his objec as
“u ban media audiences” o “u ban media use s.” Wi hou e lec ing on he implica ions o his
me hodological p ocedu e, howe e , he e is a isk o o e looking how people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies
and u ban daily li e mu ually shape one ano he . As a esul , we may lose he oppo uni y o ge a ine-
g ained empi ical g asp o his p ocess. Simul aneously, cons uc i e pa icipa ion in deba es ac oss
disciplina y bounda ies emains di icul .
In wha ollows, we will p oceed in ou s eps. In he second sec ion, we p o ide an o e iew o
cu en esea ch on people’s uses o media in u ban space. We e iew he heo e ical issues add essed
mo e sys ema ically in he s udies, discuss he esea ch me hods employed in hem, and assess he
p ocedu es h ough which he s udies ma k he bounda ies o hei esea ch objec s. In his way, we
highligh hei me hodological implica ions and make isible how esea che s’ a achmen o he
es ablished ways o unde s anding he key concep s o “audience” and “use ” in he ield o cul u al
audience s udies s ill in o ms hei me hodological p ocedu es.
In he hi d sec ion, we illus a e how he “disciplina y bu den” discussed in he second sec ion
isks hinde ing esea che s om ge ing a sensi i e g asp o people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in u ban
space.
In he ou h sec ion, we ou line a me hodological ou e o ci cum en ing he discussed
limi a ions. Wha we ad oca e is a decen e ing o u ban media s udies by p oblema izing he implici
assump ion o he no ions o “u ban media audience” and “u ban media use ” as s a ing poin s o he
dema ca ion o he bounda ies o he esea ch objec . Ou own p oposal is o ake as he poin o
depa u e he p ac ices and ou ines ha , in ou iew, cons i u e u ban daily li e. As we will show, his
shi necessi a es he “ e bing” o he no ion o audience as a me hodological lens (see Fiske, 1992; Fiske
& Dawson, 1996). This, in u n, has p o ound consequences o he empi ical s udy o people’s media-
ela ed ac i i ies in u ban space. Fu he mo e, we s ess he impo ance o accoun ing o he complex
ways in which audiencing and o he media- ela ed ac i i ies in e wine wi h one ano he and wi h non-
media- ela ed ac i i ies in he cons i u ion o u ban p ac ices and ou ines. The me hodological mo e we
1280 Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016)
p opose esona es wi h he so-called “p ac ice u n” in media s udies (Fiske, 1992; see also Could y,
2004, 2011), as well as wi h non-media-cen ic app oaches o media (see, e.g., K ajina, Moo es, &
Mo ley, 2014; Moo es, 2012; Mo ley, 2009).
In conclusion, we will discuss some o he majo implica ions o “decen e ing media s udies” and
“ e bing he audience” o he s udy o u ban p ac ices in an e a o pe asi e echnological media ion o
bo h space and human (in e )ac ion.
S udying Uses o Media in U ban Space
The dispe sed s a e o u ban media s udies ende s he delinea ion o he en i e sub ield
p oblema ic and makes i di icul o p o ide an exhaus i e map o cu en wo k on people’s uses o media
in u ban space. Ne e heless, when aking he me hodological no ion o “a heo e ically in o med pu pose”
(Jensen, 2002, p. 237) as a ya ds ick, i is possible o disce n h ee majo and in e ela ed clus e s o
esea ch. S udies in he i s o hese clus e s a e in e es ed in di e en ypes o media use in u ban
space. The second clus e e ol es a ound he ela ionships be ween media usage and u ban sociabili y.
The hi d esea ch clus e ocuses on he ela ionships be ween uses o media and u ban space.
S udies in he clus e ha deals wi h people’s ways o using media app oach he issue om wo
di e en pe spec i es. One o hem ocuses (mos o en compa a i ely) on how di e en cul u al and
c oss-cul u al no ms shape uses o po able media in u ban space, in e ms o bo h pu poses and s yles o
usage (see, e.g., Ba on & a Sege s ad, 2010; Ka z & Aakhus, 2002; Sugiyama, 2013). Sa omi Sugiyama
explains how, in Tokyo, he cus om o keeping he mobile phone mu ed in public places signi ies
“domes ica ing he medium” in a way ha excludes “sound based elephone con e sa ion” (2013, p. 116).
Hence, in Japan, he mobile phone would mainly be used in public o isual and ex ual communica ion.
The o he pe spec i e shi s he ocus om gene al cul u al no ms o he ela ionship be ween
uses o media and he u ban p ac ices in which hey a e embedded. On he one hand, media use is
app oached om a mic o-sociological and pe o ma i e angle ha emphasizes i s en anglemen wi h o he
ac i i ies, media- ela ed o no , in he o e all ex u e o u ban p ac ices o ou ines (see Esbjo nsson,
Juhlin, & Weilenmann, 2007; Hadding on & Rauniomaa, 2011; Relieu 2009). Fo example, Licoppe and
Figeac (2015) add ess ac i i ies ha a e pe o med in he mobile use o social ne wo king pla o ms in
“ anspo si ua ions” (including public anspo a ion o p i a e ca s), while Tobin (2012) ocuses on he
ac i i ies o “sa ing” and “pausing” in he usage o he po able game console Nin endo DS. On he o he
hand, some schola s in es iga e how hese ac i i ies, and he use o po able media mo e gene ally, shape
di e en u ban p ac ices. In his ega d, a en ion is dedica ed o di e se social mic o-coo dina ions
acili a ed by he “pe pe ual con ac ” ha mobile media a o d (Ling, 2004; Ling & Y i, 2002). Robin an
den Akke , o example, in oduces he no ion o chance o ches a ion—which di e s om bo h o ganized
and andom sociospa ial encoun e s— o illus a e how “geo-social ne wo ks” like Fou squa e inc ease he
use s’ “abili y o ake ad an age o he momen s o occasions ha a e bo n o he e e yday and wi hin he
e e yday” (2015, p. 44).
In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016) Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience 1281
The second esea ch clus e , dealing wi h o ms o u ban sociabili y ha a e suppo ed and
p omo ed by u ban uses o media, likewise con ains wo kinds o app oaches. The i s o hem di ec s
a en ion o he occasions o socializa ion ha a ise om he di usion o ambien and pe sonal media,
o en add essing expe imen al o a is ic media ins alla ions in u ban space (such as Zada ’s p omenade in
K ajina, 2014, o he expe imen al sc een deploymen in Ba h in Fa ah gen. Schieck, B iones, & Mo am,
2008) o in es iga ing pa icula ea u es o mo e mundane communica ion echnologies (such as he
p oximi y-based game encoun e s in D agon Ques 9 desc ibed in Licoppe & Inada, 2012).
The o he app oach aims o unde s and how di e en mobile pla o ms and se ices bo h sus ain
and ans o m exis ing o ms o u ban socializa ion. Rode ic C ooks (2013), o example, s esses how a
mobile applica ion like G ind media es he socializa ion p ac ices ha cha ac e ize a gay illage. In a
simila ein, Lee Humph eys (Humph eys, 2010; Humph eys & Liao, 2013) discusses how loca ion-based
social ne wo ks, such as Fou squa e, can p omo e and ex end he chances o u ban “pa ochial
ela ionships,” simila o hose ha a ise be ween people who a e epea edly in ol ed in he same
ou ines. Bo h hese and o he simila app oaches demons a e how u ban media uses a e in o med by
es ablished pa e ns o socializa ion p e alen in u ban con ex s, and also how hese pa e ns, in u n, a e
pa ly shaped in he p ocess. Consequen ly, esea che s dismiss any hypo hesis o social a omiza ion
ela ed o he widesp ead di usion o po able media.
This, howe e , does no indica e a enouncemen o a c i ical ake on he media ion o
socializa ion pa e ns. On he con a y, schola s e e o po en ially p oblema ic implica ions o he
mu ually shaping p ocess and emind us ha hey canno be es ic ed only o new o ms o he di ide
be ween he ha es and he ha e-no s (Su ko & de Souza e Sil a, 2011). C ooks (2013), o example,
wa ns abou he isk o sel -seg ega ion as a side e ec o he “empowe ing” use o G ind : The
applica ion ep esen s a so o “backs age” whe e he ypical socializa ion p ac ices o a gay illage un
he isk o being excluded om public sigh , and his a e yea s o poli ical s uggle o isibili y (see also
Blackwell, Bi nhol z, & Abbo , 2014). Simila ly, Humph eys (2010) cau ions agains he “homophilous
endencies” ha a e p omo ed in u ban space by “ il e ing” ou pa icula kinds o use s (see also
C aw o d, 2008).
Finally, he hi d clus e o s udies aims o illumina e he ela ionship be ween media uses and
u ban space. D awing on a phenomenological ake on space inspi ed by he domes ica ion app oach in
cul u al audience s udies in he 1990s (see Tosoni, in p ess), schola s ep esen ing his clus e ocus on
he ans o ma ions o he “expe ience” o “pe cep ion” o u ban public space ha a e igge ed by
people’s engagemen s wi h po able and ambien media. While emphasizing he possibili y o a
“p i a iza ion” o space h ough mobile media usage (Bull, 2008, 2013; C aw o d, 2008), schola s
gene ally e use de e minis ic hypo heses o media-gene a ed placelessness (Moo es, 2012; Özkul, 2013,
2015) and claims o disconnec ion om physical u ban space (de Souza e Sil a & F i h, 2012; Go don &
de Souza e Sil a, 2012). Ins ead, hey a gue ha he same communica ion echnologies ha can be used
o “media cocooning” can equally con ibu e o p ac ices o engagemen wi h u ban space and he
a ibu ion o symbolic meanings o his space (Hamp on & Gup a, 2008; I ō, Okabe, & Ande son, 2010).
Mo eo e , and in dialogue wi h non- ep esen a ional heo ies in human geog aphy, a mo e ecen in e es

1282 Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016)
in he ole played by bodily habi ua ion in he p ocesses o place-making ein oduces he ques ions o
pe o ma i i y and ma e iali y in o his clus e o esea ch (Moo es, 2012; Su he land, 2012).
The me hods o empi ical esea ch employed in hese h ee clus e s a e mul iple and a ied, wi h
a gene al endency o de elop objec - and si e-speci ic app oaches (e.g., K ajina, 2014). In o de o
accomplish his, e hnog aphic obse a ion and quali a i e in e iews play a key ole, o en suppo ed by a
gene ous a ay o complemen a y esea ch me hods ha ange om ocus g oups and su eys o he
analysis o ideo and audio exce p s eco ded by esea che s o in o man s. In some cases, esea che s
e en ha e de eloped ad hoc expe imen al eco ding de ices, especially when dealing wi h he
pe o ma i e aspec s o media- ela ed u ban ac i i ies (Licoppe & Figeac, 2015). Ye i can be a gued ha
he di e si y o esea ch me hods conceals a a he con en ional and s anda dized se o choices ha
ac ually ma k he bounda ies o he phenomenon as a esea ch objec .
In e ms o me hodological choices, in ac , nea ly all o he abo e examples (we will discuss
some excep ions in he nex sec ion) p oceed in a simila , media-cen ic way. The linchpin o hese s udies
is a p io , s a egically mo i a ed selec ion o a echnological medium deemed ele an o he
“ heo e ically in o med pu pose” o he esea ch. The “medium” in ques ion can be a communica ion
de ice (e.g., he mobile phone in Sugiyama, 2013, o he MP3 playe in Bull, 2008, 2013), a pla o m
(e.g., G ind in C ooks, 2013, o Fou squa e in Humph eys, 2010; Humph eys & Liao, 2013), o a se ice
( he SMS se ice in Kasesniemi & Rau iainen, 2002). Engagemen wi h hese de ices/pla o ms/se ices
unc ions as he undamen al c i e ion o he selec ion o a numbe o in o man s (o a sample o people),
whose ac i i ies ela ed o he selec ed medium a e hen s udied empi ically. These selec ions a e o en
na owed down u he based on an age ypology, o ins ance (e.g., child en and eenage s in Kasesniemi
& Rau iainen, 2002), o by es ic ing he obse a ion o engagemen wi h a medium o a speci ic place
(e.g., Wi-Fi ca és in Hamp on & Gup a, 2008).
In sum, he abo e p ocedu es in a iably p oduce as hei esea ch objec s “(u ban) audiences” o
agg ega es o “(u ban media) use s” ha a e cons uc ed in ela ion o ce ain de ices, pla o ms, o
se ices. F om he poin o iew o his me hodological p ocedu e, he concep s o audience and use a e
la gely in e changeable, and he p e e ence o he e m “use ” in he e iewed s udies seems simply o
ollow om “ he pa icula seman ic in elici y o applying he e m ‘audience’ o compu e -based media”
(Li ings one, 2012, p. 263). Audience s udies schola Sonia Li ings one wa ns agains “ he inexo able ise
in . . . popula i y” o he e m “use ” no only because i “lacks any necessa y ela ion o he p ocess o
communica ion,” bu also because “i is di icul o concei e o use s collec i ely” (2012, p. 263).
Rega ding cu en app oaches o people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in u ban space, howe e , he p oblems
o he e m ela e i s and o emos o he me hodological p ocedu e i implies, and also conce n
“audience” as a me hodological lens.
“U ban Audience” and “U ban Media Use ” as Me hodological Lenses
The d awbacks inhe en in he cons uc ion o an agg ega e o media use s as he esea ch objec
in he s udy o people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in u ban space ha e hus a no been sc u inized in
dep h. Howe e , he e a e schola s who ha e add essed some o he mos e iden limi a ions ha esul
In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016) Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience 1283
om he me hodological p ocedu e we desc ibe in he p eceding sec ion, o who ha e a emp ed
al e na i e ou es o dema ca ing hei esea ch objec . C i ical obse a ions p esen ed by Didem Özkul
(2013, 2015), as well as me hodological choices made by Mizuko I ō, Daisuke Okabe, and Ken Ande son
(2010), se e as illus a i e examples.
In he s udies o “loca ional in o ma ion sha ing” and place-making, Özkul (2013, 2015) sides
wi h schola s who wo k on geo-loca i e social ne wo ks (like Fou squa e) when hey claim ha he use o
hese pla o ms can os e use s’ a achmen , amilia i y, and a ibu ion o symbolic meaning o places.
Fo he , howe e , i is “ he ac o sha ing such loca ional in o ma ion as pa o keeping in ouch wi h
people who ma e o us” (2013, pa a. 45; emphasis added) ha enhances ou a achmen o places.
Acco ding o Özkul, his ac can be pe o med no only h ough geo-loca i e pla o ms, bu also h ough
o he sma phone pla o ms and se ices, such as blogs (2015, p. 110) o “Facebook s a us upda es,
phone calls, o pho os” (2015, p. 105). Consequen ly, Özkul ul ima ely dismisses he ini ial plan o “limi
he unde s anding o loca ional in o ma ion only o loca ion-based applica ions” (2015, p. 105), and
ins ead ad oca es a me hodological e hinking o app oaches o loca ional in o ma ion sha ing. She a gues
ha , “in addi ion o analysing di e en uses o pa icula mobile and loca ion-based applica ions by
di e en g oups o use s, employing a holis ic app oach owa ds he unde s anding and analysis o
loca ional in o ma ion sha ing would be bene icial o u u e schola ly wo ks” (2015, p. 105).
In ou e ms, Özkul aims o ake in o accoun all he di e en se ices and pla o ms h ough
which he use s o he sma phone as a de ice can pe o m he ac o sha ing loca ional in o ma ion. By
add essing he sample o in o man s as use s o a de ice (“sma phone use s”), a he han as use s o a
speci ic pla o m o se ice (“mobile and loca ion-based applica ions use s”), he au ho is able o accoun
o he in ol emen o he sma phone in people’s u ban place-making p ac ices in a way ha is
simul aneously comp ehensi e and a icula e. Fo example, Özkul desc ibes how speci ic elemen s o he
same place-making p ac ice—like e iewing he pic u es o a place sha ed wi h iends—can be pe o med
no only h ough di e en se ices and pla o ms, bu also ac oss a plu ali y o spaces and imes (Özkul,
2015).
Ne e heless, while acknowledging he me hodological ele ance o a p ac ical ac i i y (“sha ing
loca ional in o ma ion”) o e he means by which he ac i i y is pe o med, Özkul s ill a aches he
esea ch objec o a de ice (“sma phone use s”). A he same ime, howe e , she poin s o ac i i ies ha
a e cons i u i e pa s o p ac ices o place-making h ough loca ional in o ma ion sha ing, bu which do
no seem o be es ic ed o sma phones. This pa icula ly conce ns he p e iously men ioned ac i i ies o
e iewing pho os as ways o “ enew he meanings o places and he eelings hey e oke, which s eng hen
ou a achmen o places” (2015, p. 109). Hence, one can spo a dissonance be ween he “ heo e ically
in o med pu pose” o ocusing on loca ional in o ma ion sha ing as a p ac ice on he one hand, and he
cons uc ion o an agg ega e o use s o a de ice as he esea ch objec on he o he hand. We ind ha
his dissonance con ains he isk o losing he g asp o he complex di e si y o media- ela ed ac i i ies
ha co-cons i u e u ban daily li e.
The p e ious example helped us o demons a e ha an “agg ega e o use s” is oo na ow a
esea ch objec when in es iga ing he mul i ude o ways in which media a e embedded in u ban daily li e.
1284 Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016)
A b ie look a I ō, Okabe, and Ande son’s 2010 s udy o people’s place-making p ac ices allows us o
highligh ha hese same agg ega es a e, pa adoxically, also oo b oad, and hus mus be na owed
down. In line wi h Özkul’s call o holism, he au ho s claim ha “no jus he mobile phone, bu also he
whole ange o po able objec s ha people use o inhabi , na iga e h ough, and in e ace wi h u ban
en i onmen s” (2010, p. 67)—including “media playe s, books, keys, c edi and ansi ca ds, as well as
iden i y and membe ca ds” (2010, p. 67)—media e hei ela ionships wi h u ban space. In pa icula , he
au ho s wan o add ess “ inancial ansac ions and wo k- ela ed uses” o wha hey call “mobile ki s”
“among a popula ion ha ha e he esou ces and eedom o make ull use o u ban space” (2010, p. 69).
Fo his pu pose, I ō e al. explo e a me hodological ou e ha pa ially di e ges om he one
commonly used in he ield. While hey s ill concei e o hei esea ch objec as an agg ega e o use s
(“leading edge use s o new mobile echnologies”; 2010, p. 69), hey do no a ach i s de ini ion o a
speci ic de ice, bu ins ead o an occupa ional g oup: young p o essionals in he a ea o new media, wi h
“a subs an ial p opo ion o eelance s . . . engaged in wo k ou side o he home o o ice” (2010, p. 69).
In his way, he agg ega e o use s is na owed down o hose subjec s who a e (likely) in ol ed in hose
wo k- ela ed p ac ices in u ban space ha he au ho s a e in e es ed in. Ano he g oup o leading-edge
use s, eens, is o his eason excluded om he s udy. In his way, he au ho s can a oid he pi alls o
he po en ial dissonance be ween he “ heo e ically in o med pu pose” o ocusing on a p ac ice, and he
cons uc ion o an agg ega e o use s as hei esea ch objec . Howe e , i he in en ion is o ocus on
speci ic p ac ices, selec ing in o man s on he basis o s a egic age o p o essional ypologies is no he
only a ailable me hodological ou e.
Wi h hese wo examples, we sough o illus a e how he cons uc ion o “agg ega es o use s”
(o “audiences”) o a gi en de ice, pla o m, o se ice isks missing he mul iplici y o people’s ac i i ies
in he “ ine-g ained p ac ices” and ou ines ha cons i u e u ban daily li e and ha shape—and a e shaped
by— he uses o media. Explo ing his issue u he would equi e an explica ion o he concep o
“p ac ice” ha is mos ly le unde ined in his s and o esea ch. We use he e m p ac ice he e o e e o
a bodily pe o mance, as well as, ollowing Theodo e Scha zki, o “a empo ally un olding and spa ially
dispe sed nexus o doings and sayings . . . linked in ce ain ways.” These ways encompass
“unde s andings,” “explici ules, p inciples, p ecep s, and ins uc ions,” as well as “‘ eleoa ec i e’
s uc u es emb acing ends, p ojec s, asks, pu poses, belie s, emo ions, and moods” (1996, p. 89) and
“casual chains.” F om his pe spec i e, a p ac ice is an a angemen o joined ac i i ies (Scha zki calls he
la e “doings and sayings” o “ac ions”) ha can be media- ela ed o no (hence he soundness o I ō e
al.’s “ adical” holism). A ou ine, in u n, is a succession o ac i i ies ins i u ionalized and na u alized
p ima ily h ough epe i ion.
Wha we pa icula ly wish o emphasize is ha he cons uc ion o an agg ega e o media use s
o an audience as he esea ch objec in he u ban con ex ends o lead esea che s o dis ega d some
ac i i ies, media- ela ed o no , e en when hese ac i i ies belong o he same p ac ices o ou ines.
Simul aneously, his me hodological p ocedu e isks ocusing on ac i i ies ha po en ially belong o
di e en p ac ices o ou ines. Fo example, “Fou squa e use s” may include people in ol ed in di e se
p ac ices o ou ines (such as shopping o commu ing). Media- ela ed ac i i ies o u ban shoppe s and
commu e s, in u n, a e no limi ed o using Fou squa e. O e all, he sepa a ion o ac i i ies om he
In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016) Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience 1285
p ac ices in which hey a e ac ually included has se e e empi ical epe cussions i , like Scha zki, we hink
ha “an ac ion [in ou e ms, an “ac i i y,” media- ela ed o no ] is he ac ion i is as pa o a p ac ice”
(1996, p. 97).
The discussed p oblems mani es when he me hodological lenses o “audience” and “media use ”
a e adop ed om he p e ious disciplina y adi ion o media s udies—pa icula ly om he media
e hnog aphic s and o cul u al audience esea ch (see Li ings one, 2006)—and applied wi hou a
sys ema ic me hodological conside a ion o analyze people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in he u ban con ex .
In cul u al audience s udies, adi ionally, he disc epancy be ween “audiences” and e e yday p ac ices as
esea ch objec s could be o e looked, due o he unique cha ac e o he household, whe e he ocus o
esea ch was la gely es ic ed. The concep o “household” e e s o bo h a de ini e physical space and
he g oup o people dwelling in i (Sil e s one, 1994). This social g oup is mo e han a me e agg ega e o
people, howe e , because i sha es he same domes ic p ac ices and daily ou ines while also po en ially
ep esen ing a “na u al” segmen o a wide audience (Mo ley, 1986). This con e gence o a spa ial
con ex , o pa icipa ing in he same p ac ices and ou ines, and o po en ially engaging in a simila way
wi h a medium (o wi h an ensemble o media) can ha dly be aced in u ban space. In ac , he inc easing
hyb idiza ion o space and social si ua ions b ough abou by he p oli e a ion o loca ion-awa e and
ne wo ked media de ices has ende ed e en ea ing he household as a clea -cu spa ial con ex o media
use p oblema ic (see, e.g., Mo ley, 2006). O e all, a di e en p ocedu e o dema ca ing he esea ch
objec is necessa y o adequa ely add ess he complex ela ions be ween media, media uses, and u ban
p ac ices.
Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience
In o de o ge a i m empi ical hold o people’s uses o media as pa s o he p ac ices and
ou ines ha cons i u e u ban daily li e, we a gue ha in ol emen in hese e y p ac ices should be aken
no only as he s a ing poin o heo izing, bu also as he main c i e ion o he dema ca ion o he
esea ch objec . In u ban geog aphy, such a me hodological p ocedu e has been applied, o example, by
Monica Degen, Gillian Rose, and Begum Basdas, who in hei case s udy o he own cen e s o Mil on
Keynes and Bed o d add ess he “ a iable ela ionships be ween en i ies in u ban space” (2010, p. 72;
wi h he en i ies in his case including u bani es’ bodies). Fo he au ho s, hese ela ionships depend
p ima ily on he p ac ices in which people a e in ol ed. This is why hey cons uc he esea ch objec by
selec ing in o man s on he basis o hei pa icipa ion in he ollowing ou e e yday p ac ices iden i ied as
p ominen in a p elimina y su ey: “shopping,” “ca ing,” “socialising,” and “main aining.” They used
mul iple me hods in he s udy, including, o example, shadowing.
Degen e al. “ ocussed speci ically on ela ions be ween human bodies and he ‘o e s’ made o
hem by elemen s o he buil en i onmen ” (2010, p. 72). In o he wo ds, hey did no di ec ly add ess
he di e en o ms o media usage ha we e po en ially en wined in hese p ac ices. None heless, hei
me hodological p ocedu e by no means excludes he ele ance o media. Qui e o he con a y, i can be
ui ully adop ed by media s udies schola s in e es ed in people’s media- ela ed ac i i ies in u ban
en i onmen s. In ac , we ind ha he p ocedu e conc e izes he plea o “non-media-cen ic” media
1292 Simone Tosoni & Seija Ridell In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016)
The social use o media: Cul u al and social scien i ic pe spec i es on audience esea ch (pp. 18–
35). Chicago, IL: In ellec .
Ridell, S. (2014). Explo ing audience ac i i ies and hei powe - ela edness in he digi alised ci y: Di e si y
and ou inisa ion o people’s media ela ions in he iply a icula ed u ban space. In F. Zelle , C.
Pon e, & B. O’Neill (Eds.), Re i alising audiences: Inno a ions in Eu opean audience esea ch (pp.
236–260). London, UK: Rou ledge.
Ridell, S., & Zelle , F. (2013). Media ed u banism: Na iga ing an in e disciplina y e ain. In e na ional
Communica ion Gaze e, 75(5–6), 437–451.
Rodge s, S., Ba ne , C., & Coch ane, A. (2014). Media p ac ices and u ban poli ics: Concep ualizing he
powe s o he media-u ban nexus. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y and Space, 32(6),
1054–1070.
Scha zki, T. R. (1996). Social p ac ices: A Wi gens einian app oach o human ac i i y and he social.
Camb idge, UK: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Sil e s one, R. (1994). Tele ision and e e yday li e. London, UK: Rou ledge.
Sugiyama, S. (2013). The mu ed mobile in Tokyo. In S. Tosoni, M. Ta an ino, & C. Giacca di (Eds.), Media
and he ci y: U banism, echnology and communica ion (pp. 105–119). Newcas le Upon Tyne,
UK: Camb idge Schola s Publishing.
Su he land, I. (2012). Connec ion and inspi a ion: Phenomenology, mobile communica ions, place. In R.
Wilken & G. Goggin (Eds.), Mobile echnology and place (Kindle loca ions 3815–4154). London,
UK: Rou ledge.
Su ko, D. M., & de Souza e Sil a, A. (2011). Loca ion-awa e mobile media and u ban sociabili y. New
Media & Socie y, 13(5), 807–823.
Ta an ino, M., & Tosoni, S. (2013). Media and he social p oduc ion o u ban space: Towa ds an in eg a ed
app oach o he con o e sial na u e o u ban space. In S. Tosoni, M. Ta an ino, & C. Giacca di
(Eds.), Media and he ci y: U banism, echnology and communica ion (pp. 2–31). Newcas le Upon
Tyne, UK: Camb idge Schola s Publishing.
Tobin, S. (2012). Time and space in play: Sa ing and pausing wi h he Nin endo DS. In N. A ceneaux & A.
P. Ka oo i (Eds.), The mobile media eade (pp. 135–147). New Yo k, NY: Pe e Lang.
Tosoni, S. (in p ess). Add essing “cap i e audience posi ions” in u ban space. F om a phenomenological o
a ela ional concep ualiza ion o space in u ban media s udies. Sociologica.

In e na ional Jou nal o Communica ion 10(2016) Decen e ing Media S udies, Ve bing he Audience 1293
Tosoni, S., & Ta an ino, M. (2013a). Media e i o ies and u ban con lic : Explo ing symbolic ac ics and
audience ac i i ies in he con lic o e Paolo Sa pi, Milan. In e na ional Communica ion Gaze e,
75(5–6), 573–594.
Tosoni, S., & Ta an ino, M. (2013b). Space, ansla ions and media. Fi s Monday, 18(11). Re ie ed om
h p:// i s monday.o g/ojs/index.php/ m/a icle/ iew/495
an den Akke , R. (2015). Walking in he hyb id ci y: F om mic o-coo dina ion o chance o ches a ion. In
A. de Souza e Sil a & M. Shelle (Eds.), Mobili y and loca i e media: Mobile communica ion in
hyb id spaces (pp. 33–47). London, UK: Rou ledge.
Willis, K. S. (2007). Sensing place: Mobile and wi eless echnologies in u ban space. In F e s, L.
& Meie , L. (Eds.), Encoun e ing u ban places: Visual and ma e ial pe o mances in he
ci y (pp. 155–169). Hampshi e, UK: Ashga e.