Last week I presented at the annual Media, Communication and Cultural Studies (MeCCSA) conference at the University of Leicester. I thoroughly enjoyed the panels I attended, catching up with folk (including several from when I worked at Leicester over ten years ago!), and participated in my first MeCCSA pub quiz (‘The Team With No Name’ held their own ;). Many congratulations to Julian Matthews and the team for organising a great conference.
The abstract for my paper is below:
Social media, entangled conflict memories, and peacebuilding in post-violence societies
Social media are increasingly integral to how we both remember and forget conflict. These highly personalised newsfeeds present a challenge to peacebuilding initiatives in ‘post-violence’ societies. While online platforms provide the architecture for a more inclusive and pluralistic conflict memory politics, they also algorithmically amplify hate speech and mis-and disinformation, that undermines community relations. The durability of collective conflict memories, previously synonymous with physical archives and legacy media coverage, is undermined by the sheer number of agents and platforms involved in its production today. In this paper, I focus on how these entanglements between mnemonic agents and platforms produce conflict memories in post-violence societies like Cyprus and Northern Ireland. I argue that the role of legacy media in providing materials for the public remembrance of conflict has been usurped by digital technologies, which enable users to bear witness to atrocities by searching for and sharing survivor testimonies. What was once a shared reality experienced through ‘mainstream’ media has been replaced by personalized war feeds accessible via apps like TikTok, where the legitimacy of conflicts is contested and their legacies debated. This undoubtedly raises questions about the role of online platforms in curating conflict memory materials, especially when many appear to hide behind ‘free speech’ whilst refusing to remove online hate and misinformation. However, it is expedient for political elites to blame platforms for the persistence of antagonistic modes of remembering conflict rather than address the structural factors and conflict legacy issues that divide communities in post-violence societies.
The slides from my presentation are here
ECREA
This week I am attending the 11th European Communication Conference (ECC2026) in Brno, Czechia. My paper, co-authored with Suay Özkula, draws on our previous systematic review of empirical Digital Activism research. This paper explores how ethics is narrated in DA research to date. We will present some preliminary insights from our systematic review of the literature.
The abstract can be read below:
Non-maleficence without institutional gatekeeping? How ethical issues are addressed in empirical digital activism research
While early studies played down ethical concerns about online research, there has been a shift towards more formal systems governing social media research over the past decade. Institutional regulatory structures like Research Ethics Boards have increasingly scrutinised these projects, with ethics forms becoming ‘gatekeepers’ for how universities organise research culture. There has been a concurrent growth in ethical guidelines for online research from organisations like the Association of Internet Researchers. Yet, there remain doubts as to how seriously ethics is treated in research, above all in studies employing data mining techniques. This is particularly salient for Digital Activism (DA) studies, where activists might be exposed to harm through their identification in publications. In response to this issue, our paper provides a critical discussion of how ethical issues are addressed in empirical DA research. We draw on data gathered from a systematic review of journal articles published between 2009 and 2024. In the first instance, mentions of research ethics were searched in protest literature more broadly (N= 264) and then in DA articles specifically (N=59). Coding categories included how ethics were narrated (e.g., popular approaches or the mention of formal procedures) as well as what attributes characterised articles discussing research ethics, for example the platform(s) studied, method(s) of data collection and analysis, authors’ institutional affiliations and their respective disciplines. We tested specifically whether empirical DA research included ethics statements i.e. outlining whether ethics approval had been obtained prior to the study beginning and what measures were taken to protect participants, and whether articles were more likely to address ethical issues if they drew on traditional rather than digital data sources. Results indicate that very few DA articles published during this period included ethics statements. Nevertheless, there was much evidence of non-maleficence in the corpus, including those studies using digital methods. These are often rendered opaque by the submission requirements of journals and the norms of certain disciplines.
Our paper is scheduled for Thursday 10th (11:15), in room K2:200.
If you are at the conference this week please do say hi – looks like a great programme!
