Communication Theory, 2023, 33, 82–91

https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad005
Advance access publication 21 June 2023
Original Article

Public connection repertoires and communicative

figurations of publics: conceptualizing individuals’
contribution to public spheres
1,
Uwe Hasebrink *, Lisa Merten1, Julia Behre1
1
Leibniz Institute for Media Research, Hans-Bredow-Institut, Hamburg, Germany
*Corresponding author: Uwe Hasebrink. Email: u.hasebrink@leibniz-hbi.de

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023

Abstract
As public sphere(s) have been ascribed core functions for democratic societies, correlating theories have a long tradition in communications re-
search. Yet they often fail to bridge the conceptual gap between the macro level of public sphere(s) and the micro level of individual citizens. In
this article, we propose a conceptual approach that helps to describe and explain the contribution of individuals to the construction of publics.
Following Elias’ figurational approach, we propose a framework for the analysis of different kinds of publics as communicative figurations. To
capture individuals’ contribution to these publics, we introduce the concept of public connection repertoires which represent individuals’ struc-
tured patterns of connection to different publics. This results in the figurational analysis of publics, based on the public repertoires of all individu-
als who connect to that public. We discuss implications of this approach for theoretical work on public spheres in changing media environments.
Keywords: public connection, figurations, public sphere(s), repertoire, audiences/media use

Introduction
Democratic theory positions the public sphere as a central
component of a functional democratic model of society
(Dahlgren, 2009; Ferree et al., 2002; Habermas, 1989 [1962];
Lunt & Livingstone, 2013). In terms of the constitution of
public spheres, different versions of democratic theory—e.g.,
liberal, participatory, and deliberative (Ferree et al., 2002)—
share a normative approach to citizens and their contribution
to the functioning of public spheres. While the expectations of
how exactly citizens should contribute to public spheres differ
between the theories (Beaufort, 2020), the ideal of an
“informed” or “engaged” citizen provides a common ground
in theoretical writings. As demonstrated in recent research
(e.g., Ytre-Arne & Moe, 2018), this vague ideal falls short of
capturing the complexity and diversity of the role of citizens
in the construction of public spheres and of understanding re-
cent societal developments that challenge normative expecta-
tions. For instance, substantial parts of the population seem
to turn away from public issues and to avoid news (Gurr &
Metag, 2021; Newman et al., 2022). In many countries, voter
turnout is declining (International IDEA, 2016, p. 25). The
emergence of highly differentiated social milieus elicits con-
cerns about an increasing fragmentation of public spheres and
a loss of their integrative function (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017;
Webster & Ksiazek, 2012). The assumed consensus that pub-
lic spheres are inclusive spaces for the exchange about and the
deliberation of issues of public concern is denounced by some
societal groups that distrust the media in a fundamental way
(Flew, 2021; Newman et al., 2022). Finally, due to the emi-
nent role of the media in the construction of public spheres,
there are intense debates about the implications of current
changes in the media environment that question key assump-
tions of former public sphere theories (Habermas, 2022;
Staab & Thiel, 2022). One important aspect of these changes
is the new role of individual citizens: In the digital world,
those who were previously conceptualized mainly in their role
as (mass) audiences, have become active participants in public
debates—at least some of them (Rosen, 2006).
To better understand recent transformations of public
spheres, this article focuses on the role of individuals, often
conceived on the aggregate level of “citizen audiences” or
“the public.” We develop a conceptual approach that helps to
describe and understand how individuals: (a) connect them-
selves to different public spheres; and (b) by doing so, contrib-
ute to the construction of these public spheres. In the first
part, we will briefly review the research on public spheres
concerning the respective conceptualizations of the role of
individuals and, on this basis, specify the objectives of our ap-
proach. In the second part, we apply a figurational approach
to the analysis of public spheres, conceptualizing them as
communicative figurations. In the third part, within this gen-
eral framework, we conceptualize individuals’ practices of re-
lating themselves to publics as “public connection
repertoires” and discuss options for the empirical operational-
ization of these repertoires. In the fourth part, we demonstrate
how this conceptual approach can help to describe the consti-
tution of public spheres. Finally, we discuss the implications
of our approach for public sphere theory in general.
The individual in public sphere theories
The aggregated “public” of the public sphere
Given our objective to develop a conceptual framework for
analyzing the contribution of individual citizens to public
spheres, we begin with a brief outline of relevant lessons to be
learnt from academic debates. One common ground for dif-
ferent approaches is the postulation that public spheres are

Received: 16 October 2022. Revised: 30 April 2023. Accepted: 5 May 2023

C The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Communication Association.
V
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Communication Theory (2023), Vol. 33, No. 2-3
based on interactions, on communicative practices, and on
discourse (Habermas, 1989 [1962]). Deviating from a primar-
ily normative understanding of the public sphere, which has
been criticized for limiting the concept to spaces for well-
educated, male citizens in Western democracies, a more open
approach to existing public spheres has been proposed
(Fraser, 1990; Lunt & Livingstone, 2013). As communicative
constructions, public spheres are highly dynamic; therefore,
we need an approach that allows us to empirically capture dif-
ferent forms of public spheres and their changes. This is even
more important because recent media developments have led
to blurring boundaries between “the public” and “the
private” (Klinger, 2018). Furthermore, the approach has to
be sensitive not only to the factors that assure the homogene-
ity and coherence of a public sphere, but also to inner disso-
nances and conflicts (Pfetsch et al., 2018). Therefore, research
on public spheres requires an actor-centered approach that
takes different types of actor roles into account.
Existing research on public spheres focuses primarily on in-
stitutionalized actors, such as the political-administrative sys-
tem, interest groups as well as media organizations and
journalism, who define and distribute issues for public debate
(Donges & Jarren, 2010). Surprisingly enough, the role of in-
dividual citizens and media users has not been the focus, al-
though the everyday understanding of “the public” refers to
citizen audiences. It is the individual citizen, who observes
politics and all other domains of public interest, who makes
use of media coverage on public issues, and who participates
in private and public conversations and debates about these
issues. Compared to a wide range of normative expectations
concerning the citizens and their expected contribution to
public spheres, there is a lack of theoretical work that takes
the perspective of citizens as individuals within their everyday
lives.
In most cases, citizens are characterized by aggregate indi-
cators, e.g., the reach of certain media or the prevalence of
certain ways to participate in public life. Following the
repertoire-oriented approach to media use (Bjur et al., 2014;
Hasebrink & Popp, 2006), research on public spheres should
not be limited to one particular type of media, for instance,
“television” (Aufderheide, 1991; Price & Price 1995), or
“digital media” (Cohen & Fung 2021; Papacharissi, 2002)
but should analyze the interplay between different types of
media. This will help to overcome a research gap as intra-
individual differences have largely been neglected—for in-
stance, the possibility that an individual can perform different
ways of engaging with the public world in everyday life. The
recent “audience turn” in journalism studies (Swart et al.,
2022) has led to increasing evidence of how audiences make
use of journalistic content; but it still tends to focus on aggre-
gates—“audiences”—instead of individuals and on the use of
news media instead of a wider range of communicative practi-
ces in everyday life. In following Swart et al. (2022) and their
plea for a more radical audience turn in journalism studies,
we regard the perspective of individuals and their contribu-
tion to public spheres as a particularly relevant element in the-
orizing (transformations of) public spheres.
The plurality of public spheres
The “public sphere” is often constructed as a singular phe-
nomenon with the national public sphere as the (implicit)
point of reference. However, there are many reasons to argue
that there are different kinds of public spheres (Dahlgren,
83
2005). While the idea of plural public spheres has been in-
creasingly proposed in theoretical writings (Breese, 2011;
Dahlgren, 2005; Fraser, 1990), it is often linked with the as-
sumption that this leads to societal fragmentation (Downey &
Fenton, 2003; Galston, 2003). However, the underlying as-
sumption that individuals relate themselves to only one public
sphere, needs to be questioned: Empirical research that sets
out to reconstruct individuals’ practices in their everyday life
suggests that individuals engage in several publics (Breese,
2011), often through their practices of media use. Through
their everyday media use, individuals may become members
of different publics in our current media environment of mul-
tiple choices (Van Aelst et al., 2017). Research on the overlap
of issue agendas across networked public spheres has shown
that issues travel from the traditional press to social media
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
and vice versa, but also across social media communities,
reaching members of different publics and thus connecting in-
dividual media users to communities beyond a single public
(Mao et al., 2022; Rogstad, 2016). Moreover, existing con-
ceptualizations neglect inter-individual differences in how citi-
zens engage with public spheres; the narrow focus on some
normative criteria of civic engagement and their assessment—
for instance, do individuals engage in political discussions, or
not? (Boulianne, 2015; Ohme, 2019; Theocharis &
Quintelier, 2016)—obstructs the view on empirical observa-
tions that there is a wide range of practices to engage in and
contribute to public spheres.
Against the background of these arguments, our conceptual
approach to public spheres is intended to help describe and
understand individuals’ contributions to the construction of
publics. In the first step, we propose a conceptual framework
for analyzing different types of publics. In the second step, we
turn to the individual level of analysis and elaborate on the
concept of public connection.
A figurational approach to the analysis of
public spheres
Towards a figurational definition of publics
In order to develop our approach, we step back from the par-
ticularities of existing concepts of public spheres and their un-
derlying normative models of democracy. Therefore, in the
following, we will use the more abstract term “publics” in-
stead of the rather theory-loaded term “public spheres.” The
idea is to develop a conceptual framework that allows for the
empirical analysis of any public from the perspective of indi-
viduals involved in that public. For this purpose, we refer to
Elias’ concept of “figurations” (1978): We regard publics as
social domains that are communicatively constructed and can
be analyzed as communicative figurations (Hepp &
Hasebrink, 2018). This figurational approach makes it possi-
ble to carry out empirical analyses of publics that reflect their
structure and process dynamics. From this point of view, each
public is: (a) constructed by a certain constellation of actors
with different roles; (b) it includes certain frames of relevance
that define what this public means to the actors involved; and
(c) it is made up of ongoing communicative practices.
Ad (a): Each public is constructed by a particular constella-
tion of actors who play a variety of roles, e.g., journalists, sci-
entists, amateur experts on certain topics expressing their
opinions, and the various audience roles a public might adopt
(Ferree et al., 2002). A public’s constellation of actors
84
typically includes three types of actors: (1) those who are ob-
served because, for a variety of reasons, they are generally
considered to be influential, e.g., politicians, public adminis-
trators, companies, intellectuals, “stars” in the areas of sports
or popular culture; (2) those who observe the first type of
actors on a professional basis and publish their observations
to inform the public, e.g., journalists; and (3) those who ob-
serve the first type of actors, often based on the information
imparted by professional observers, in order to inform them-
selves about topics of public concern and form an opinion.
The third set of actors is in the focus of our article. However,
we have to stress that this distinction is an analytical one: It
refers to basic roles and not to actual individuals. Any individ-
ual can play a variety of roles. As mentioned above, current
changes in the media environment tend to blur the boundaries
between these roles: “the people formerly known as the audi-
ence” (Rosen, 2006) can easily become publishers themselves
or perform a role that is observed by a public (Loosen &
Schmidt, 2012). The examination of publics from the perspec-
tive of this third group—the non-professional observers—
needs to consider the extent, to which roles can be switched
and how members of this public perceive its actor constella-
tion, who they regard as actors of public interest, who they
consider trustworthy professional observers, and who they re-
late to as their co-audience.
Ad (b): A public includes certain frames of relevance that
define what this public means for the actors involved. The
frame of relevance for the “general” public sphere as origi-
nally conceptualized, e.g., in a Habermasian understanding,
refers to a space in which all citizens inform themselves and
deliberate about issues of public concern (Lunt &
Livingstone, 2013). Concerning individual citizens, this frame
includes the normative expectation to be informed about
issues of public concern; thus, it goes along with the so-called
duty to keep informed (McCombs & Poindexter, 1983).
Beyond these general publics, a large number of specific pub-
lics with specific frames of relevance have been investigated
from a variety of academic perspectives, for instance, counter
publics representing marginalized groups, or specialized pub-
lics of people who share a strong interest in a specific topic,
e.g., certain policy areas, scientific disciplines, forms of cul-
ture, or hobbies (Fossum & Schlesinger, 2007; Korobkova &
Rafalow, 2016; Mourao et al., 2015; Risse, 2014; Sha, 2006;
Sandvoss, 2007).
Figure 1. Illustration of a public as communicative figuration.
Public connection repertoires
Ad (c): A public is made up of ongoing communicative
practices that are entangled with a much broader media en-
semble than they used to be only a few years ago (Hasebrink
& Hepp, 2017). For those publics that go beyond the local,
research assumes an eminent role for journalistic media out-
lets offered by television, radio, newspapers, printed maga-
zines, and, for the past two decades, the Internet (Hölig et al.,
2022; Newman et al., 2022). Modern societies are complex,
this complexity means that citizens will rely on journalists to
keep them informed on current affairs. However, there is
plenty of research that emphasizes the important role of
interpersonal communication in individuals’ information-
gathering practices concerning current issues of public con-
cern (Newman et al., 2022).
Using these three categories that constitute figurations, we
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
arrive at a general definition of publics. The characteristics of
publics that distinguish them from other social entities are: (a)
an actor constellation that extends beyond the sphere of per-
sonally known people; (b) the objective to identify, discuss,
and solve issues of shared concern as a frame of relevance;
and (c) communicative practices that go, at least partly, be-
yond interpersonal communication. Figure 1 illustrates this
first element of our conceptual framework.
Three types of publics
The general definition of publics leaves room for a wide range
of different publics with different figurations. For the purpose
of our conceptual approach, we distinguish three types of
publics that are characterized by specific principles that lead
to the construction of publics: polities, topics, and groups.
Polity publics refer to a geo-political space and a political
system, in which citizens inform themselves and deliberate on
issues that are regarded as relevant to that respective geo-
political space (Lunt & Livingstone, 2013). They can be
differentiated along the scale of geo-political entities, for ex-
ample, (sub-)local, regional, national, transnational, or even
global publics. They are based on constitutional and adminis-
trative rules and definitions that specify the actor constellation
(e.g., who is a citizen of the political entity, and who can par-
ticipate in elections?), the frames of relevance (political objec-
tives and values of that entity, e.g., constitutional rules, or the
expectation that all individuals keep themselves informed and
build their own opinion), and the (communicative) practices
(e.g., the use of certain media, elections, conventions, and
other forms of participation related to the political entity). In
Communication Theory (2023), Vol. 33, No. 2-3
previous research, theoretical discourses about public spheres
often referred to this kind of public. One important character-
istic of these publics is the normative assumption that all indi-
viduals are part of the public of the city, or state, in which
they live. In this sense, it is not an issue of individual choice to
belong to the respective polity publics. Taking up the distinc-
tion between different levels of information needs, individu-
als’ information practices within polity publics are mainly
based on “undirected information needs” (Hasebrink, 2017).
These needs represent people’s desire to stay informed about
the news agenda that is relevant to their polity public.
Undirected information needs do not lead to seeking particu-
lar information, but to the monitoring of the environment for
upcoming new issues that are relevant to the individual’s rele-
vant polity public(s). In complex societies, journalism is the
main instrument for satisfying this need—providing news on
issues that are considered relevant to the respective public, in-
dependent of individual interests and orientations.
Topic publics are based on individual orientations and pref-
erences concerning certain topics or subject areas; any aspect
that might be relevant to this topic and contribute to expertise
in this subject area defines the frame of relevance. The actor
constellation includes all individuals who share interest and
expertise in this topic. Their communicative practices are
mainly based on all kinds of media that specialize in the re-
spective topic. While polity publics are, at least in a normative
sense, inclusive and open to all citizens of a geo-political en-
tity, topic publics are an expression of selectivity: Individuals
differ in their interests; thus, a topic public is defined by the
distinction between those who are interested in the topic, and
those who are not. Therefore, according to the classification
of information needs mentioned above, topic publics are
mainly based on “thematic interests” (Hasebrink, 2017)
which leads individuals to seek out specific information media
dealing with their respective field of interest. These are active
orientations towards certain topics and aspects of life. In this
respect, people tend to specialize, to acquire certain expertise,
and to distinguish themselves from others. In this area, people
differ dramatically and as a result, many different forms of
targeted communication and specialized media channels have
been developed.
Group publics are based on specific aspects of an individu-
als’ identity (e.g., gender, ethnic background, or a particular
chronic disease or disability) that are so relevant that individ-
uals have strong feelings of belonging to the group of people
who share this aspect of their identity. With this actor constel-
lation, any aspect that might be relevant to this group and
strengthen the respective identity defines the frame of rele-
vance. Again, this kind of public is based on specific informa-
tion needs: “Group-related needs” (Hasebrink, 2017)
emphasizes people’s desire to know what their reference
groups think about the world and themselves. The exchange
within these groups, including the discussion of common
interests and objectives leading to trust and feelings of belong-
ing, is a core factor of community-building and thus an im-
portant prerequisite for an individual’s identity and position
in society. Before the digital age, this kind of information
need was mainly fulfilled through personal networks, face-to-
face communication, or personal forms of media-based
communication, such as letters and phones. The new commu-
nication services offered by social media significantly increase
the opportunities for communications practices that serve
group-related needs and the constitution of group publics.
85
Hybrid publics
We must emphasize that the three types of publics presented
here are based on analytical distinctions. In the empirical
world, polity publics, topic publics, and group publics may
overlap and form hybrid publics. For instance, the so-called
“issue publics,” which have been extensively studied in the field
of political communication (Bennett et al., 2015; Bolsen &
Leeper, 2013; Krosnick, 1990), represent a combination of
characteristics of polity publics and topic publics. When cur-
rent issues of public concern prove to be particularly relevant
and secular, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Merten et al.,
2022b), a specific issue public emerges from the general polity
public; as long as the issue is unresolved, the issue public
includes members of the local, regional, national, and global
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
polity publics who develop a specific interest in the topic, and
members of existing topic publics who were already interested
in the scientific, social, economic, and political details of pan-
demics in general. Depending on the respective issue, issue pub-
lics can also emerge from group publics; for instance, the issue
“Black Lives Matter” combined group publics of the groups
concerned, and polity publics around the world (Dunklin &
Jennings, 2022; Edrington, 2022). As the examples illustrate,
our distinction does not correspond to the distinction between
political and non-political issues. The area of interest of a topic
public can be a specific policy area; the salient characteristic of
a group public can be highly political, for instance, belonging
to a minority group that fights for recognition.
Scalability of publics
One of the affordances of the concept of communicative figura-
tions is its scalability: It allows for analyzing “figurations of figu-
rations” (Hepp & Hasebrink, 2018). As for publics as
figurations, an illustrative example is the relationship between
polity publics on the level of boroughs, cities, regions, national
states, and supranational entities. Publics on one specific level
are constituted in part by publics at the higher and/or lower lev-
els, which bring in their actor constellations, frames of relevance
and communicative practices. This reflects the political, adminis-
trative, and social interrelations between different geo-political
spaces. Likewise, figurations of topic and group publics are influ-
enced by polity publics and at the same time influence them.
One might consider a progressing process of abstraction that
leads to a “general public,” that is, a figuration that includes all
other publics on more specific levels. This abstract figuration of
figurations comes close to the idea of “the public” as a singular
phenomenon that has been discussed above.
Regarding the objective of this article, the proposed concep-
tualization of publics as communicative figurations shall help
to reconstruct individuals’ contribution to the construction of
publics. We assume that each individual can contribute to dif-
ferent types of publics and that these multiple belongings have
important implications for the construction of specific pub-
lics, and of the abstract general public. Before we discuss these
implications, we need to specify the ways in which individuals
contribute to publics.
Individuals’ contribution to the construction
of publics
Public connection
One type of actor in the actor constellation of publics are indi-
viduals who, as citizens of a polity public, or as members of a
86
particular topic or group public, are in some way involved in
these publics. To conceptualize the role of individuals in the
construction of publics, we refer to the concept of public con-
nection (e.g., Hovden and Moe, 2017; Kaun, 2012; Moe &
Ytre-Arne, 2022; Swart et al., 2017a, 2017b). As Couldry
et al. (2007, p. 3) have argued, “as citizens, we share an orien-
tation to a public world where matters of shared concern are,
or at least should be, addressed.” The concept of public con-
nection operates as an umbrella term for any orientation or
practice by means of which individuals relate themselves to
“what lies beyond [their] private worlds” (Swart et al.,
2017b, p. 906; Couldry & Markham, 2008). As such, it
allows for the inclusion of orientations and practices that are
not explicitly based on media, e.g., face-to-face conversations
about political issues; and it includes more specific concepts
of communicative practices, for example, “reception”
(Livingstone & Das, 2009), “produsage” (Bruns & Schmidt,
2011), “engagement” (Dahlgren 2009), and “participation”
(Carpentier, 2011). In our understanding, public connection
includes all orientations and practices through which an indi-
vidual relates to some kind of public, i.e., a social entity that
exists beyond the individual’s private world. To operational-
ize this concept for empirical research, we need to specify it in
two steps.
Connection to multiple publics
A key argument of our approach is that individuals connect
to different publics in their everyday lives (Couldry et al.,
2007; Ytre-Arne & Moe, 2018). For instance, individuals
may connect to the polity publics of their home country, and/
or the more localized public of their hometown, to an interest
group dedicated to a specific topic, and/or to a group of peo-
ple who share a particular aspect of identity. From this
individual-centered perspective, an individual’s public connec-
tion is a structured pattern of connections to different publics.
Therefore, by adapting the repertoire-oriented approach to
patterns of media use (Hasebrink & Popp, 2006), we concep-
tualize individuals’ patterns of connection to publics as their
“public connection repertoire.” This approach is character-
ized by three key principles (Hasebrink & Domeyer, 2012).
Firstly, it takes an individual-centered perspective; rather than
taking a public-centered perspective that asks which individu-
als a particular public includes, this concept emphasizes the
question to which publics a particular person connects.
Secondly, the approach stresses the need to consider the
whole variety of publics to which a person connects. And
thirdly, it stresses the relationality among these publics; within
the repertoire-oriented approach, the interrelations, and spe-
cific functions of the components of a public connection rep-
ertoire are of particular interest since they represent the inner
structure or coherence of the repertoire. Taken together, these
principles allow for a holistic view of an individuals’ public
connection as a structured pattern of references to different
publics.
Regarding empirical studies of public connection reper-
toires, this approach requires collecting data on all or at least
the most relevant publics in which the individual is involved.
Qualitative interviews are very well suited to obtain a compre-
hensive overview of relevant publics and to capture an indi-
vidual’s understanding of publics in general. Presenting
participants with the three types of publics as presented above
helps to elicit individuals’ responses on the overall concept
and their repertoire of relevant publics. While this kind of
Public connection repertoires
procedure provides detailed information that reflects individ-
uals’ everyday life, the drawback might be the high variance
of relevant publics and the challenge to aggregate the findings
across individuals. Therefore, in a recent pilot study we com-
bined qualitative interviews which gave insight into the vari-
ety of potential publics with a standardized survey to capture
how connections to relevant publics are distributed among
the population. In the survey, we asked all respondents to re-
port on their connection to the public of the city or region
where they live, to the national public, to their most relevant
topic public, and to their most relevant group public. To re-
duce the number of highly specific topic and group publics,
we classified them into a number of broader topic areas (e.g.,
politics, sports, culture, etc.) and of group categories (e.g.,
gender, migration, religion, etc.). After this first step of identi-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
fying relevant publics, to which individuals connect them-
selves, we need to specify the concept of public connection
itself.
Levels of public connection
As outlined in the previous paragraph, public connection rep-
ertoires are structured along the particular publics in which
the individuals are involved in. For a more elaborate descrip-
tion of these repertoires, we need to specify what it means to
be involved in a public. To operationalize the concept of pub-
lic connection for empirical research, we conceptualize an
individual’s connection to a particular public as a relationship
that can be described on four basic conceptual levels that
have been established in psychology (McGrew, 2022): the af-
fective, cognitive, motivational, and conative level.
At the affective level, individuals experience a stronger or
weaker sense of belonging to a public (Anthias, 2008), they
“feel connected” with the other members of this public, and
the public matters to them (Lünenborg, 2020). While the
strength of the relation between the individual and the respec-
tive public is the most important aspect for the empirical as-
sessment of an affective connection, there might be nuances of
emotional orientations, e.g., harmonious, or conflict-laden,
sentimental or prosaic.
At the cognitive level, individuals have certain perceptions
of the public and their position in it. They know about rele-
vant actors in this public and their respective roles, about
frames of relevance that characterize the public, and about
communicative practices that constitute this public.
Prominent examples of individuals’ perceptions of a public
are self-efficacy regarding their own role in a public (Caprara
et al., 2009) and the perceived duty to keep informed regard-
ing normative expectations in the respective public
(McCombs & Poindexter, 1983).
At the motivational level, individuals are more or less inter-
ested in information about the public and in actively partici-
pating in the construction of the public. Key indicators for
this level are interest in news (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2018) and
interest in politics (Bimber et al., 2015). At this level, also the
various gratifications-sought as analyzed in uses-and-
gratifications research (Ruggiero, 2000) can be used as indica-
tors for individuals’ motivation to connect to a particular
public.
At the conative, action-oriented level, individuals use spe-
cific media that help to establish and to maintain the connec-
tion to certain publics on the informative and communicative
level; thus, these media represent relevant parts of individuals’
media repertoires (Hasebrink & Hepp, 2017). Furthermore,
Communication Theory (2023), Vol. 33, No. 2-3
they participate in other activities that constitute the respec-
tive public, for instance, elections, assemblies, or demonstra-
tions. Thus, as indicated above, this level refers to the range
of actions that have been defined and investigated as “media
usage” in the narrow sense (Hasebrink & Domeyer, 2012)
and as “participation” (Boulianne, 2015; Carpentier, 2011)
in the broader sense.
Indicators for public connections on these four levels are
obviously correlated. People who have a strong sense of be-
longing to a certain public tend to know more about this pub-
lic, to be more interested in it, and to be more engaged in
practices related to this public. However, as many studies
show, these indicators are not fully correlated. There are peo-
ple who feel strongly attached to their respective polity public,
but do not actively participate in public-related activities, e.g.,
voting (Knight Foundation, 2020). Others are very interested
in receiving information about this public and in participating
in its activities without feeling a strong sense of belonging.
Thus, we do not regard the connection to a certain public as a
one-dimensional phenomenon between a very weak and a
very strong connection. Instead, we consider different quali-
ties of connection that are characterized by a specific
Figure 2. Illustration of an individual’s public connection repertoire.
87
combination of affective, cognitive, motivational, and action-
related aspects.
Figure 2 presents an illustration of a public connection rep-
ertoire. The visual design refers to the method we have been
using to collect empirical data about media repertoires
(Hasebrink & Domeyer, 2012; Merten, 2020); similar to ego-
centered network maps, we ask respondents to name relevant
components of their repertoire, in this case, the polity, topic,
and group publics that are relevant to them. They then posi-
tion these publics on a map of concentric circles, with the
most relevant publics very close to the center, and the less rel-
evant publics at the periphery. Furthermore, through different
kinds of interview techniques we collect data on the level of
connection to these publics. As a result, we get maps as illus-
trated in Figure 2, showing the relevant publics and the level
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
of connection to them.
As indicated above, this empirical approach is based on
methods of qualitative interviewing. Thus, it is particularly
helpful for investigating public connection repertoires from
the individuals’ perspective: It provides information on what
publics individuals themselves regard as relevant. Beyond
that, the proposed conceptual framework allows for other
88
kinds of empirical approaches. For instance, if the research in-
terest focuses on the respondents’ connection to a pre-defined
set of publics, public connection repertoires can be investi-
gated by means of standardized surveys. Furthermore, it is
possible to reconstruct public connection repertoires through
the analysis of digital traces with regard to individuals’ con-
nections to specific actors, organizations, and networks
(Christner et al., 2021; de Vreese & Neijens, 2016; Merten
et al., 2022a; Prior, 2009). A measurement of digital traces
could complement self-reported data in our current media en-
vironment shaped by incidental and ubiquitous exposure that
makes self-reported media use less reliable (Parry et al. 2021,
Stier et al. 2020). Especially retrospective data donations
from individual users that combine mobile and desktop web
browsing data and/or data takeouts from various social media
platforms and/or search engines have the potential to capture
digital public connection repertoires more comprehensively
(Merten, forthcoming; Araujo et al., 2022).
In this respect, the conceptual framework offers an analyti-
cal perspective on the whole range of public communication,
including practices in fluid digital network publics that might
be hard to investigate through direct questions or other self-
reported data.
To sum up, we conceptualize public connection repertoires
as a structured pattern of different kinds of relationships to a
set of publics. These public connection repertoires can be used
in two ways. At the individual level we analyze which publics
an individual connects to through what kinds of affective,
cognitive, motivational, and conative characteristics. These
descriptions are interpreted, for instance, against the back-
ground of the individual’s social position and personal values.
On this basis, it is possible to identify types of individuals
with similar public connection repertoires. On the level of
publics, and across different individuals, our approach allows
for an empirical analysis of the communicative figuration of
specific publics as the following section will demonstrate.
Analyzing the communicative figurations of publics
In order to meet the core objective of our approach, i.e., to ex-
amine how individuals contribute to the construction of the
publics in which they are involved, the final step of our con-
ceptual approach integrates the two levels that have been dis-
cussed in the previous sections, the level of publics, and the
level of individuals: Communicative figurations of publics can
Figure 3. Communicative figuration of publics as constituted by individuals’ public connection repertoires.
Public connection repertoires
be described by the social characteristics and public connec-
tion repertoires of those individuals who are involved in these
publics. At the same time, in line with Elias’ dynamic and in-
teractive understanding of figurations, individuals’ public
connection repertoires can be described by the publics, to
which they connect themselves (see Figure 3).
Starting from empirical observations on the individual level
as outlined in the previous section, one analytical strategy is
to focus on one specific public as illustrated in Figure 3. The
actor constellation of a specific public includes all individuals
who are connected to this public; its frame of relevance is
characterized by the meanings that these individuals attribute
to this public within their public connection repertoire; and it
is constructed by the respective practices that these individuals
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
apply to connect to this public. Furthermore, regarding the ac-
tor constellation we can ask whether the social background of
the individuals who connect to this public is rather homoge-
neous, or rather diverse. Regarding the frame of relevance,
the public connection repertoires provide evidence of the de-
gree of consensus or conflict within the figuration. And with
regard to the communicative practices, we can analyze the
contribution of specific media to the construction of this pub-
lic. Answers to these questions are highly relevant for discus-
sions, e.g., on the fragmentation of societies, on social
cohesion within different publics, and on the role of different
types of media for public communication. And they can be
interpreted from the perspective of different democratic theo-
ries with their specific normative expectations towards indi-
vidual citizens.
Another analytical strategy goes beyond single publics and
examines the relationships between different publics. To what
extent do their actor constellations overlap? What are com-
monalities and differences concerning the respective frames of
relevance and communicative practices? Observations on the
interplay of different publics can help us to get deeper insights
into the “general public” that we regard as the overall figura-
tion of single publics’ figurations.
Conclusion
What are the implications of the proposed conceptual ap-
proach for the empirical analysis of individuals’ contribution
to the construction of publics?
Communication Theory (2023), Vol. 33, No. 2-3
This approach can help to strengthen empirical research on
(transformations of) publics. We conceptualize publics as so-
cial domains that can be analyzed as communicative figura-
tions constituted by an actor constellation, frames of
relevance, and communicative practices. Our approach offers
a general heuristic that can be applied to a wide range of re-
search designs. Empirical observations along this framework
can be used for comparative—across different publics—and
longitudinal—within a certain public—analyses. This will
complement rather normative conceptualizations of public
spheres and contribute to a more fruitful interplay between
theory and empirical observations. This advantage is linked
with an important limitation of our approach: It does not ex-
plain the constitution of a certain public or the ongoing
changes of publics, nor does it offer normative criteria for the
functioning of publics; it provides just a conceptual tool to de-
scribe publics and their transformation. Thus, specific studies
on individuals’ contribution to publics need to contextualize
their observations by linking them to more specific theoretical
models and frameworks. For instance, empirical data on the
communicative practices that constitute the figuration of a
public should be interpreted in the light of different theoretical
models of democracy as more or less consistent with the lib-
eral, participatory, or deliberative model. Findings with re-
gard to the homogeneity or heterogeneity of single publics
and to overlaps between different publics should be discussed
against the background of theoretical work on social cohesion
and fragmentation.
Our approach allows for a more appropriate understanding
of individual citizens as one type of actor that is involved in
the construction of publics. This focus on individuals is due to
the observation that: (a) there is a particular lack of theoreti-
cal and empirical work on these non-professional actors; and
(b) recent developments towards a more digital media envi-
ronment affect the role of individual media users in a substan-
tial way. To analyze individual citizens’ contribution to
publics we have proposed to identify their public connection
repertoire, i.e., the structured pattern of relations to different
publics. Our emphasis on individuals as actors does not imply
that other actors that belong to the actor constellation of pub-
lics, are less important. On the contrary, the figurational ap-
proach provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the
entire actor constellation, including individual citizens.
With our approach, we put a strong emphasis on the fact
that individual citizens usually connect to more than one pub-
lic. This has several important implications. The observation
that an individual is not connected to a specific public, e.g.,
the national public, does not necessarily mean that this indi-
vidual is completely disconnected from the public world; he
or she might be closely connected to other publics, for in-
stance, the local public or specific topic or group publics.
Furthermore, from our perspective, the existence of manifold
publics in a society does not necessarily mean that this society
is fragmented or lacks cohesion. Individuals’ connections to
many publics lead to overlaps of different publics’ actor con-
stellations and consequently overlaps in frames of relevance,
communicative practices but also issues addressed within
these publics. The figurational approach allows for analyzing
these overlaps and their implications for the functioning of
different publics.
In our view, while the general concept of the public sphere
has proven fruitful to stimulate debates and research on the
communicative aspects of societies, evidence-based analyses
89
of the communicative figurations of publics that include all
actors involved in these publics are an indispensable prerequi-
site for understanding current transformations of public com-
munication and of societies as a whole.
Conflicts of interest: None declared.
Funding
This research has been funded by Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Foundation) – no. 413631218. The authors thank the
reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on ear-
lier versions of this manuscript.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
References
Anthias, F. (2008). Thinking through the lens of translocational posi-
tionality: An intersectionality frame for understanding identity and
belonging. Translocation: Migration and Social Change, 4(1), 5–20.
Araujo, T., Ausloos, J., van Atteveldt, W., Loecherbach, F., Moeller, J.,
Ohme, J., . . . Welbers, K. (2022). OSD2F: An open-source data do-
nation framework. Computational Communication Research, 4(2),
372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2022.2.001.ARAU
Aufderheide, P. (1991). Public television and the public sphere. Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 8(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15295039109366789
Beaufort, M. (2020). Medien in der Demokratie – Demokratie in den
Medien [Media in democracy - democracy in the media]. Universität
Hamburg. ediss.sub.hamburg. Retrieved from https://ediss.sub.uni-
hamburg.de/bitstream/ediss/8998/1/Dissertation_Beaufort_Publ_f.
pdf
Bennett, W. L., Lang, S., & Segerberg, A. (2015). European issue publics
online: The cases of climate change and fair trade. In T. Risse (Ed.),
European public spheres: Politics is back (pp. 108–137). Cambridge
University Press.
Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2015). Digital
media and political participation: The moderating role of political in-
terest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review,
33(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559
Bjur, J., Schrøder, K., Hasebrink, U., Courtois, C., Adoni, H., &
Nossek, H. (2014). Cross-media use: Unfolding complexities in con-
temporary audiencehood. In N. Carpentier, K. Schrøder, & L.
Hallett (Eds.), Audience transformations. Shifting audience positions
in late modernity (pp. 15–29). Routledge.
Bolsen, T., & Leeper, T. J. (2013). Self-interest and attention to news
among issue publics. Political Communication, 30(3), 329–348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737428
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A
meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication &
Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.
1008542
Breese, E. B. (2011). Mapping the variety of public spheres.
Communication Theory, 21(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-2885.2011.01379.x
Bruns, A., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2011). Produsage: A closer look at continu-
ing developments. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia,
17(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2011.563626
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009).
Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applica-
tions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1002–1020.
Carpentier, N. (2011). The concept of participation: If they have access
and interact, do they really participate? CM, Communication
Management Quarterly, 21, 13–36.
Christner, C., Urman, A., Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2021). Automated
tracking approaches for studying online media use: A critical review
90
and recommendations. Communication Methods and Measures,
16(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.1907841
Cohen, J., & Fung, A. (2021). Democracy and the digital public sphere.
In L. Bernholz, H. Landemore, & R. Reich (Eds.), Digital technology
and democratic theory (pp. 23–61). University of Chicago Press.
Couldry, N., Livingstone, S. M., & Markham, T. (2007). Media con-
sumption and public engagement. Beyond the presumption of atten-
tion. Palgrave.
Couldry, N., & Markham, N. (2008). Troubled closeness or satisfied
distance? Researching media consumption and public orientation.
Media, Culture & Society, 30(1), 5–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/
9780230800823
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political commu-
nication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication,
22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Citizens, commu-
nication and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
de Vreese, C. H., & Neijens, P. (2016). Measuring media exposure in a
changing communications environment. Communication Methods
and Measures, 10(2–3), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.
2016.1150441
Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (2010). Politische Kommunikation – Akteure
und Prozesse [Political Communication—Actors and processes]. In:
H. Bonfadelli, O. Jarren, G. Siegert (Eds.) Einführung in die
Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft [Introduction to jour-
nalism and communication studies] (3rd ed. pp. 405–432). Haupt.
Downey, J., & Fenton, N. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the
public sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444803005002003
Dunklin, M., & Jennings, P. (2022). Where’s the outrage? An analysis
of #BlackLivesMatter and #BlackTransLivesMatter Twitter counter-
publics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(3),
763–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221109236
Edrington, C. L. (2022). Social movements and identification: An exami-
nation of how Black Lives Matter and March for our Lives use iden-
tification strategies on Twitter to build relationships. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(3), 643–659. https://doi.org/
10.1177/10776990221106994
Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? Hutchinson.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four
models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and
Society, 31(3), 289–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016284431021
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are news audiences increasingly
fragmented? A cross-national comparative analysis of
cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication: Are
news audiences increasingly fragmented? Journal of
Communication, 67(4), 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.
12315
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to
news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media &
Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448177
24170
Flew, T. (2021). The global trust deficit disorder: A communications
perspective on trust in the time of global pandemics. The Journal of
Communication, 71(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/
jqab006
Fossum, J. E., & Schlesinger, P. R. (Eds.) (2007). The European Union
and the public sphere: A communicative space in the making?.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203960851
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the
critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80.
https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Galston, W. A. (2003). If political fragmentation is the problem, is the
Internet the solution?. In D. M. Anderson, & M. Cornfield (Eds.),
The civic web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 35–44).
Rowman & Littlefield.
Gurr, G., & Metag, J. (2021). Examining avoidance of ongoing political
issues in the news: A longitudinal study of the impact of audience
Public connection repertoires
issue fatigue. International Journal of Communication, 15,
1789–1809.
Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]). The structural transformation of the public
sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2022). Ein neuer Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und
die deliberative Politik [A new transformation of the public sphere
and deliberative politics]. Suhrkamp.
Hasebrink, U. (2017). Audiences and information repertoires. In B.
Franklin, & S. Eldridge II (eds.), The Routledge companion to digital
journalism studies (pp. 364–374). Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of
behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to
media use in converging media environments. Participations:
Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2), 757–783.
Hasebrink, U., & Hepp, A. (2017). How to research cross-media practi-
ces? Investigating media repertoires and media ensembles.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New
Media Technologies, 23(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354
856517700384
Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selec-
tive media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of
exposure. comm, 31(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1515/
COMMUN.2006.023
Hepp, A., & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Researching transforming communi-
cations in times of deep mediatization: A figurational approach. In
A. Hepp, A. Breiter, & U. Hasebrink (Eds.), Communicative figura-
tions. Transforming communications in times of deep mediatizations
(pp. 15–48). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hölig, S., Behre, J., & Schulz, W. (2022). Reuters Institute Digital News
Report 2022 – Ergebnisse für Deutschland [Reuters Institute Digital
News Report 2022 – Findings for Germany]. Hans-Bredow-Institut.
https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.79565
Hovden, J. F., & Moe, H. (2017). A sociocultural approach to study
public connection across and beyond media: The example of
Norway. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies, 23(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1354856517700381
International IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance) (2016). Voter turnout trends around the world.
International IDEA.
Kaun, A. (2012). Civic experiences and public connection. Media and
young people in Estonia. Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 67,
Örebro: Örebro universitet.
Klinger, U. (2018). Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale
Perspektive [Rise of the semi-public: A relational perspective].
Publizistik, 63(2), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-018-
0421-5
Knight Foundation (2020). The 100 Million Project: How media habits
relate to voter participation. Knight Foundation.
Korobkova, K. A., & Rafalow, M. (2016). Navigating digital publics
for playful production: A cross-case analysis of two interest-driven
online communities. Digital Culture & Education, 8(1), 77–89.
Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study
of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12(1),
59–92.
Livingstone, S., & Das, R. (2009). The end of audiences? Theoretical
echoes of reception amidst the uncertainties of use. Paper presented
at Transforming Audiences 2, 3–4 September 2009, University of
Westminster. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25116/.
Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience.
The relationship between journalism and audience in networked dig-
ital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6),
867–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.665467
Lünenborg, M. (2020). Affective publics: Understanding the dynamic
formation of public articulations beyond the public sphere. In A.
Fleig & C. von Scheve (eds.), Public spheres of resonance:
Constellations of affect and language (pp. 30–48). Routledge.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Media studies’ fascination with the
concept of the public sphere: Critical reflections and emerging
Communication Theory (2023), Vol. 33, No. 2-3
debates. Media Culture & Society, 35(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0163443712464562
McCombs, M., & Poindexter, P. (1983). The duty to keep informed:
News exposure and civic obligation. Journal of Communication,
33(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02391.x
McGrew, K. S. (2022). The cognitive-affective-motivation model of
learning (CAMML): Standing on the shoulders of giants. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.
1177/08295735211054270
Mao, Y., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Cronin, J. (2022). Communicating
environmental issues across media: An exploration of international
news flows between twitter and traditional media. The Journal of
International Communication, 29(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13216597.2022.2149605
Merten, L. (2020). Contextualized repertoire maps: Exploring the role
of social media in news-related media repertoires. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 21(2). https://
doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.2.3235.
Merten, L. (forthcoming): Researching information exposure using com-
putational methods. In S. A. Eldridge, S. Banjac, D. Cheruiyot, J.
Swart (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies
(2nd ed.) Routledge.
Merten, L., Metoui, N., Makhortykh, M., Trilling, D., & Moeller, J.
(2022a). News won’t find me? Exploring inequalities in social media
news use with tracking data. International Journal of
Communication, 16(1). https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/
17068
Merten, L., Wagner, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2022b). Crisis-induced
changes in media use and their implications for public communica-
tion: A comparison of public connection repertoires before and dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic. Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association (ICA), Paris/France, May
29th, 2022.
Moe, H., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2022). The democratic significance of every-
day news use: Using diaries to understand public connection over
time and beyond journalism. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 43–61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1850308
Mourao, R. R., Yoo, J., Geise, S., Araiza, J. A., Kilgo, D. K., Chen, V.
Y., & Johnson, T. (2015). European public spherej online news, so-
cial media and European Union attitudes: A multidimensional analy-
sis. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3199–3222. https://
ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2990
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., & Nielsen, R. K.
(2022). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Ohme, J. (2019). Updating citizenship? The effects of digital media use
on citizenship understanding and political participation.
Information, Communication & Society, 22(13), 1903–1928.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1469657
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public
sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/
14614440222226244
Parry, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Sewall, C. J., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski,
H., & Quintana, D. S. (2021). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digi-
tal media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), 1535–1547. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5
Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M., & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante
Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher
Theoriebildung [Dissonant public spheres as a perspective of theory
building in communication studies]. Publizistik, 63(4), 477–495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-018-0441-1
91
Price, M. E., & Price, D. (1995). Television, the public sphere, and na-
tional identity. Clarendon Press.
Prior, M. (2009). Improving media effects research through better mea-
surement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 893–908.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090781
Risse, T. (2014). No demos? Identities and public spheres in the Euro
crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(6),
1207–1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12189
Rogstad, I. (2016). Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting
between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19331681.2016.1160263
Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Blog en-
try: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/
27/ppl_frmr.html.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/33/2-3/82/7204735 by guest on 08 August 2023
Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37.
Sandvoss, C. (2007). Public sphere and publicness: Sport audiences and
political discourse. In R. Butsch (Ed.), Media and Public Spheres (pp.
58–70). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978023
0206359_5
Sha, B.-L. (2006). Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An
emerging theory of intercultural public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 18(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/s153275
4xjprr1801_3
Staab, P., & Thiel, T. (2022). Social media and the digital structural
transformation of the public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society,
39(4), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103527
Stier, S., Breuer, J., Siegers, P., & Thorson, K. (2020). Integrating survey
data and digital trace data: Key issues in developing an emerging
field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503–516. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439319843669
Swart, J., Kormelink, T. G., Costera Meijer, I., & Broersma, M. (2022).
Advancing a radical audience turn in journalism. Fundamental
dilemmas for journalism studies. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 8–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.2024764
Swart, J., Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (2017a). Repositioning news and
public connection in everyday life: A user-oriented perspective on in-
clusiveness, engagement, relevance, and constructiveness. Media,
Culture & Society, 39(6), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344
3716679034
Swart, J., Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (2017b). Navigating cross-media
news use. Media repertoires and the value of news in everyday life.
Journalism Studies, 18(11), 1343–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14
61670X.2015.1129285
Theocharis, Y., & Quintelier, E. (2016). Stimulating citizenship or
expanding entertainment? The effect of Facebook on adolescent par-
ticipation. New Media & Society, 18(5), 817–836. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444814549006
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C.,
Matthes, J., . . . Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a
high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals
of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience frag-
mentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of
Communication, 62(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-24
66.2011.01616.x
Ytre-Arne, B., & Moe, H. (2018). Approximately informed, occasion-
ally monitorial? Reconsidering normative citizen ideals. The
International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(2), 227–246.