1 New Media Are Complex

Today, new media are considered digital communication technologies. In the past, however, new media was understood to be any channel or platform of communication that introduced a qualitatively significant change. Since the spread of the Internet, new media has also been identified with the Internet itself. Regardless of the definition, the spread of the new media implies significant transformations at all stages and levels of communication.

The advances in the area of new media have brought about a time of multi-level convergence, hybridisation of the communication practice, and consequently more intricate research methods. New media are complex. At the macro level, they have a network structure, at the meso level they are characterised by structural complexity and at the micro level they are bound by the diversity of affordances (Hopkins, 2020) and content. This has many consequences. Firstly, monomedia practice is no longer commonplace although it still exists. The media now create a converging environment, in which the user is immersed. The users live their lives in media and not only with media (Deuze, 2012). This not only refers to the classic broadcaster or producer but even more so to the recipient or the consumer. Secondly, from the research perspective, the analysis escapes mono-disciplinary and mono-methodology approaches. The nature of the media and the consequences of its existence are too multi-faceted to be explained simply by looking at them from a single perspective and applying classic tools. New media call for multi-faceted research with regard to the disciplines, methodology, methods and theory as well as to day-to-day analytical activities. To research media is to live with the media and there are certain consequences to that.

This study aims to present three aspects of the new media complexity, which have been ordered by the level at which the media reality is perceived. It begins with the meta-level of perceiving the world, then moves to analytical structures and ends with communication practice. Firstly, this study points to methodological complexity, which on the one hand refers to the diversity of ways of looking at the same issue and the criss-crossing of various approaches, which brings about the emergence of a new discipline, or rather trans-discipline. Research into new media contributes much more greatly to the multidisciplinary character of media and communication studies than research into traditional media. Secondly, this study describes the complexity of research into new media resulting from their network and algorithmic structure, language and clear distinctiveness. Finally, the complexity of the new media communication practice is analysed. How is the era of linear monothematic and often single-authored communication through words, pictures and sound coming to an end? What consequences does it cause? This paper highlights the emergence of a new (pre-)paradigm.

2 Methodological Complexity

A handbook might be considered a type of publication, which as a compendium of knowledge, embraces the most relevant issues regarding its subject and so gives the reader an overview of a given subject. Even a perfunctory look through handbooks on new media makes one realise the complexity of the nature of those media and of their tendency to become even more complex (particularly through hybridity and convergence). This trend by representatives of multiple disciplines can be illustrated by the evolution of new media handbooks.

We can start with Andrew Dewdney and Peter Ride’s 2014 The Digital Media Handbook, which is an update on 2006 The New Media Handbook. The change in the title itself is significant: it is hard to talk of new media when the old and new media have become converged. The handbook exclusively discusses digital media but it is worth noting that convergence also applies to analogue media, such as the press. The first version of the handbook had four chapters: Frames of New Media, New Media Practice, Forms of New Media (including such issues as the interface, interactivity and code) and New Media Theory and Practice (which only included four pages on convergence). The 2014 version has five chapters: Networks, Convergent Media, Creative Industries, Digital Media, Media Histories and Theories. In only a few years, the media reached a new stage of development which resulted in a complete shift in analytical perspective. It is this media complexity that now has the most significance – its network structure and convergence on various levels (whether economic, technological or cultural) and interdisciplinary phenomena, such as the expansion of creative industries. The media are no longer a synonym for a broadcaster (which was the case in classic media concepts, e.g. the role of television). The media are an environment in which producers and consumers, or prosumers (Toffler, 1997) and producing users (produsers) (Burns, 2008) operate.¹

Let us now look at a handbook published a dozen years later, the 2021 Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Communication edited by Leah Lievrouw and Brian Loader. The table of contents covers 27 chapters in a three-part framework: Artifacts, Practices and Arrangements. What we are confronted with in attempting this synthesis of key themes, topics and issues is an enormous dispersion and diversity of levels of understanding and analysis. From issues emphasising technology (specific infrastructures, mobile media, social media), through the main categories characterising contemporary new media (big data and algorithms, ubiquity, surveillance, hybridity, mediatization, globalization), to key new media practices (hacking, archiving, identity building) and their contexts (democracy, economics and finance, technology, war, government, the public sphere). Understanding new media nowadays requires an intersection of orders and a truly interdisciplinary reflection.

There are many indications that the next iterations of technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence, will further expand and fragment new media discourse. But at the same time, such a complex phenomenon as new media cannot be researched in a single-track fashion as this would result in an incomplete explanation of the situation. It is becoming increasingly common for representatives of multiple disciplines to research one issue (such as privacy and surveillance on the web, blurring distinctions between free time and work online, etc.) and confront the results, or for single researchers to carry out interdisciplinary projects. The key to media research complexity is the search for new theories and concepts from diverse disciplines, which would be applicable in the research into a given issue. Just as mathematic theories were used in the past to create communication models,² today informatics is used to explain the specificity of new media. New media cause media studies to branch out in many different directions. Their technological background as well as cultural, social, political and economic significance are related to notions from such fields of study as psychology, education or linguistics (to name only a few disciplines, which are significant for media studies). Formally, in countries such as Poland, it makes media studies a multidiscipline or an inter-discipline, which has certain administrative and legal implications (Jabłonowski & Gackowski, 2012).

The methodological complexity not only refers to the diversity of disciplines and research perspectives but also to the very theory of media and communication studies. Media studies are of hybrid-like as its history and tradition were born at the crossroads between science and the humanities. The methodology of new media research is an example of an interdisciplinary methodology. It applies IT terminology, humanist, social and economic theory, artistic visualisations as well as quantitative and qualitative methods and tools. There are many examples of interdisciplinary methodologies, i.e. Lev Manovich’s approach (2006) incorporating elements of poetics, film studies and IT; or Henry Jenkins’ (2006), which combines sociology, marketing and culture studies. We can therefore claim that due to the application of the complex systems theory, the new media methodology and theory are in themselves complex systems which, due to the nature of the research subject, are in a state of perpetual emergence, balancing between order and chaos.

3 Analytical Complexity

We consider analytical complexity as being indirect or direct. Indirect analytical complexity means the necessity to ‘break down’ a new medium to basic elements and factors for an in-depth analysis of its structure, functionalities, content and the impact coming from all those elements melting together. This also refers to the examination of processes, such as the production/creation and consumption/use of media, which are two basic, but not only, media processes. These processes are of a multi-stage character and depending on the assumed strategy and the model of value generation they are linear, non-continuous or network-like.³ The multitude of concepts, terminologies and in particular typologies, makes it hard to reach a consensus on the terminology and analytical categories to be used. It is particularly the emergence of new media phenomena that results in new proposals being put forth.

The analytical complexity results directly from the complex nature of the media. On the one hand, a digital medium is a technology with a physical side (such as hardware and infrastructure) and a virtual side (such as the interface, software and content); on the other, it is a cultural artefact, but it may also be treated as an institution, organisation, consumer product, social environment, living space, etc. Depending on the notion being examined, different analytical categories will be applied but their specificity will remain similar. It is impossible to run an analysis without combining what used to be separate orders. Research of new media users analyses produsage (productive usage) (Bruns 2008), which is an analysis, blending elements of economics (production) and technology (usage); or work through play (playbour) (Kücklich, 2005). ‘Clear-cut’ analytical categories no longer reflect contemporary reality and fail to grasp the complexity of new media.

Analytical complexity may also be direct and mean the direct application of the complex systems theory, regarding for instance networks. Network theories perfectly match the specificity of contemporary media. The network structure is heterarchical (Kontopoulos, 1993). Unlike the hierarchy, the lower levels do not contain themselves within the higher levels but intersect with them. This is what networks, including communication networks, do. They connect the different levels giving flexibility to the whole (Van Dijk, 2006). Such is the network structure of e.g. content flow, the presence of media personalities or marketing relations between organisations. Additionally, all those networks create more complex networks of metarelations.

This makes network tools applied in media and communication studies justified and effective. Communication studies research stresses the significance of interpersonal networks for shaping opinions and relations between social networks and so-called mass media. What contributed to the growing interest in network phenomena has undoubtedly been the development of computer networks. Media and communication studies use the classic network analysis, which focussed on relations between people and market entities although it may also be used to analyse relations between IT texts (Schenk, 1995; after: Quandt, 2008). The application of network theories for Internet studies seems obvious. We have observed illustrating the structure (‘the appearance’) of the internet with graphs and sociological studies, including social network analysis, on relations in social media or strict media studies, e.g., research of media contents (Kopecka-Piech, 2011, 2013). During the last decade many IT-based methods and tools have been developed opening up an unlimited field of research not only into the structures of the network, nodes and relations but above all into its consequences. Nowadays it is difficult to imagine modern media and communication studies without the analysis of big data flow and its relationship with communicative actors, which include human and non-human subjects. The situation is becoming increasingly complicated putting posing the question and the limits of media studies.

While indirect analytical complexity is inevitable and its inclusion seems to be a necessity, direct complexity is a matter of choice and like stripping each methodology, causes certain effects. Limiting oneself to network analysis involves all kinds of constraints. Network analysis focuses on connections and not on what caused a particular configuration and hence needs to be supplemented with another perspective. This is where the issue of the necessary methodological complexity returns. A network is a special diagram providing topological information on the connected nodes, rather than information regarding them (Berry 2008). According to Beery (2008), networks favor synchronous perception at the expense of diachronic perception, level the importance of the past in favor of the present, and further accentuate what is in the network, i.e., what is connected, while somewhat ignoring what is outside the network, what is disconnected.

4 The Complexity of Communication Practice

New (and traditional) media form networks, not only in the form of the hypertextual construction of the Internet but also as network structures shaped by the flow of content and discursive, marketing and market practices (Kopecka-Piech, 2013). Network formation is an essential form of the cooperation strategy, image building carried out by media organisations and – in the era of hybridity and datafication (Meijas & Couldry, 2019) – creation and distribution of data and content. For professional creators of media content, this means converged practices while for the user ‘reception’ becomes a multi-platform, transmedia, and often multi-purpose and simultaneous experience (reading, listening and watching different media happens (virtually or actually) simultaneously, while creating one’s content is a common activity, whether additional or primary) (Kopecka-Piech, 2011).

The aforementioned produsage is a good example to illustrate the complexity of communication practices, which requires the application of comprehensive analysis for its research. A good case in point are social media. They are means of communication between users as well as a marketing tool, which may be applied to such operations as building a brand. A distinctive way of categorising content on social media is the hashtag (#). Aggregating content makes it easier to reach the users interested in the subject and increases the number of recipients of the content created by the user.

What does productive usage look like for social media users? Let’s take the example of Instagram to illustrate this. After downloading the application, the user can view the content created by their (added) friends or strangers disseminating their content, including owners of brands, products, services, etc. Productive usage already happens at this stage: by viewing content, commenting and clicking on the heart icon to show approval the user participates in the complex, and in a way ‘massive’ act of producing a platform that is a source of income for its owners (e.g., through advertising). Actions taken by ‘ordinary’ users are also beneficial to brand owners. This stage and this aspect call for research involving such fields of study as economics, management (particularly marketing), sociology, culture studies and sometimes also linguistics and psychology. To obtain a complete picture, it should encompass an analysis of its technical, textual and visual layer, as well as research into the social, cultural and economic significance of the users’ activity.

Noticeably, a more advanced form of productive usage is the creation of content. This process is technologically complex because in addition to the basic ability to operate the smartphone or tablet (downloading and launching the application, using mobile internet, etc.) it requires the user to operate the pre-installed camera. To create a message, the user first needs to take a photo or make a video, then edit it using available filters, name it and tag the contents. Next, the user may add their location (using the GPS), pinning the photo to a place on the map and giving it a geographical aspect. Later, the user may tag their friends (to be recognised by other users) and publish the post on Instagram and possibly elsewhere. At this stage, the user’s activity enters the more complex dimension of the interconnectedness of applications. The post may be also published on Facebook or X (former Twitter) and then, using the share feature, be included in the content ‘created’ by other users.

This exemplifies the network structure of online businesses, relations and technological links as well as the practice of stimulating consumption (or more precisely, prosumption) and building one’s image through individual profiles. The content loses some of its single-authored characters and becomes more multi-authored, or even public. Research into this type of phenomenon is highly complex as it goes beyond the world of applications, the internet and other new media and into the user’s living space, public and business sphere, etc. It is then that the effects and consequences of a particular structure and content are revealed. If a user starts to run their profile as a business, the content is no longer spontaneously created but becomes a methodical strategy. The trend of influencers forming opinions is growing, which has greatly redefined traditional sources of information and led to the emergence of the social media opinion leaders, so-called influencers. This shows how layers of media technologies, contents and activities overlap and form a variety of networks. The main outcome of this is the emergence of a new communication paradigm, or preparadigm, of multi-layered, multi-directional, non-linear, multi-authored and multi-purpose communication.

5 Complexity, Hybridisation, Dynamisation

The complexity of new media can therefore be considered widespread and present in many areas of their operation. It is accompanied by a multidimensional hybridisation of both the technology itself (between the online and offline worlds, materiality and virtuality) and various aspects of users’ lives. It is increasingly based on balancing processes involving mediated human-to-human communication, human-to-machine communication, and communication with or based on artificial intelligence, increasingly becoming the communicative actor.

The activity is complex and complicated by nature, which does not necessarily entail difficulties in its implementation. Communication tools are becoming more and more intuitive and suited to people’s needs and senses. Touch screens on smartphones, for example, have activated the sense of touch much more than hearing and sight. Moreover, new media are undergoing permanent dynamic transformation, perpetual evolution. This leads the way towards ever greater possibilities and means, e.g. at the technical level, growing complexity, but on the user’s level more intuitiveness and adaptation to a wider range of users’ daily activities. This offers great opportunities, but at the same time poses many ethical, ideological and political challenges. The nature of new media calls for a complex research methodology and tools from other disciplines and theories to fit the new areas of life being embraced by new omnipresent media, increasingly based on artificial intelligence. Consequently, media and communication studies will also evolve in new directions, resulting permanently in new, evolving (pre-)paradigms.