Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, 2013, volume 2

The refereed papers contained in this volume of conference proceedings were among those presented at the 2nd International Conference on Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, hosted by the Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, QUT, from 8 – 11 July 2013. The conference attracted an impressive list of speakers from Australasia, Europe, North America and Latin America. These seven papers can be viewed at the Crime and Justice Research Centre’s website at http://crimejusticeconference.com/publications/ as can Volume 1 representing another 26 selected papers from the conference. As with the papers contained in the first volume, this set of papers raises important questions about the links between crime, justice and social democracy, and continues the contribution that the Crime and Justice Research Centre makes towards engaging with these topics. We thank all those who submitted papers for review for this second volume of proceedings, as well as the peer reviewers for taking the time to review the papers, often within very tight timelines.

Audiencing through social media : a brief overview

Notwithstanding the problems with identifying audiences (c.f. Hartley, 1987), nor with sampling them (c.f. Turner, 2005), we contend that by using social media, it is at least possible to gain an understanding of the habits of those who chose to engage with content through social media. In this chapter, we will broadly outline the ways in which networks such as Twitter and Facebook can stand as proxies for audiences in a number of scenarios, and enable content creators, networks and researchers to understand the ways in which audiences come into existence, change over time, and engage with content. Beginning with the classic audience – television – we will consider the evolution of metrics from baseline volume metrics to the more sophisticated ‘telemetrics’ that are the focus of our current work. We discuss the evolution of these metrics, from principles developed in the field of ‘sabermetrics’, and highlight their effectiveness as both a predictor and a baseline for producers and networks to measure the success of their social media campaigns. Moving beyond the evaluation of the audiences engagement, we then move to consider the ‘audiences’ themselves. Building on Hartley’s argument that audiences are “imagined” constructs (1987, p. 125), we demonstrate the continual shift of Australian television audiences, from episode to episode and series to series, demonstrating through our map of the Australian Twittersphere (Bruns, Burgess & Highfield, 2014) both the variation amongst those who directly engage with television content, and those who are exposed to it through their social media networks. Finally, by exploring overlaps between sporting events (such as the NRL and AFL Grand Finals), reality TV (such as Big Brother, My Kitchen Rules & Biggest Loser), soaps (e.g. Bold & The Beautiful, Home & Away), and current affairs programming (e.g. Morning Television & A Current Affair), we discuss to what extent it is possible to profile and categorize Australian television audiences. Finally, we move beyond television audiences to consider audiences around social media platforms themselves. Building on our map of the Australian Twittersphere (Bruns, Burgess & Highfield, 2014), and a pool of 5000 active Australian accounts, we discuss the interconnectedness of audiences around particular subjects, and how specific topics spread throughout the Twitter Userbase. Also, by using Twitter as a proxy, we consider the career of a number of popular YouTuber’s, utilizing a method we refer to as Twitter Accession charts (Bruns & Woodford, 2014) to identify the growth curves, and relate them to specific events in the YouTubers career, be that ‘viral’ videos or collaborations, to discuss how audiences form around specific content creators.

Everyone’s watching it : the role of hype in television engagement through social media

Social media is playing an ever-increasing role in both viewers engagement with television and in the television industries evaluation of programming, in Australia – which is the focus of our study - and beyond. Twitter hashtags and viewer comments are increasingly incorporated into broadcasts, while Facebook fan pages provide a means of marketing upcoming shows and television personalities directly into the social media feed of millions of users. Additionally, bespoke applications such as FanGo and ZeeBox, which interact with the mainstream social networks, are increasingly being utilized by broadcasters for interactive elements of programming (c.f. Harrington, Highfield and Bruns, 2012). However, both the academic and industry study of these platforms has focused on the measure of content during the specific broadcast of the show, or a period surrounding it (e.g. 3 hours before until 3 am the next day, in the case of 2013 Nielsen SocialGuide reports). In this paper, we argue that this focus ignores a significant period for both television producers and advertisers; the lead-up to the program. If, as we argue elsewhere (Bruns, Woodford, Highfield & Prowd, forthcoming), users are persuaded to engage with content both by advertising of the Twitter hash-tag or Facebook page and by observing their network connections engaging with such content, the period before and between shows may have a significant impact on a viewers likelihood to watch a show. The significance of this period for broadcasters is clearly highlighted by the efforts they afford to advertising forthcoming shows through several channels, including television and social media, but also more widely. Biltereyst (2004, p.123) has argued that reality television generates controversy to receive media attention, and our previous small-scale work on reality shows during 2013 and 2014 supports the theory that promoting controversial behavior is likely to lead to increased viewing (Woodford & Prowd, 2014a). It remains unclear, however, to what extent this applies to other television genres. Similarly, while networks use of social media has been increasing, best practices remain unclear. Thus, by applying our telemetrics, that is social media metrics for television based on sabermetric approaches (Woodford, Prowd & Bruns, forthcoming; c.f. Woodford & Prowd, 2014b), to the period between shows, we are able to better understand the period when key viewing decisions may be made, to establish the significance of observing discussions within your network during the period between shows, and identify best practice examples of promoting a show using social media.

Neoliberal social inclusion? The agenda of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance

University–community engagement (UCE) represents a hybrid discourse and a set of practices within contemporary higher education. As a modality of research and teaching, ‘engagement’ denotes the process of universities forming partnerships with external communities for the promised generation of mutually beneficial and socially responsive knowledge, leading to enhanced economic, social and cultural developments. A critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge) of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance’s (AUCEA) ‘Position Paper’(2008 Universities and community engagement (Position paper 2008–2010)), as reported in this article, suggests that its uneasy synthesis of neoliberal, social inclusion and civic engagement discourses into a hybrid UCE discourse semantically privileges neoliberal forms of engagement. Perhaps, as a result, the AUCEA seems to have missed an opportunity to influence the Australian ‘widening participation’ debate on securing access and opportunity for marginalised students at universities and building social and cultural capital within their communities of origin.