Responses to the reviewers’s comments, see below.
Reviewer B:
This is a very important and stimulating paper. The argument is put very
well and the empirical data is relevant. I have only two recommendations:
1. From my point of view it would be a help to see ‘media generations’
more in a ‘process perspective’. That means that they are not stable
phenomena but shift in the progress of life course. This idea is implicit
there in the paper; however, I would recommend to work this out in better
way. The analysis would benefit a lot from that.
I have tried to make this clearer (p. 4 in manuscript).
2. I am a bit unsure about the concept of ‘subjective media landscape’.
While I understand the general concept of ‘media landscape’ (more or
less the ‘media environment’ at a certain moment of time) I am not
really sure what in detail ‘subjective media landscape’ means. Is this
the typical ‘media repertoire’ of a generation? If yes, it might make
sense to refer to this concept. Or is it rather the subjective perception of
the media landscape / environment? Then it would be a help to work this out
more detailed / in contrast to the concept of ‘media repertoire’.
It is already established in the text, at first mention: " It is the techno- and socio-historical
circumstances into which the respondents were born, and shall later be set in relation to the subjectively
perceived media landscape, that is, the landscape as it is remembered and perceived of by the
respondents “ (p. 5).
I have tried to make it a bit clearer, as this can be missed.
However, these are minor terminological clarifications. In all s strong
piece of work and I recommend the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------Reviewer E:
This paper is an important and origignal contribution to mediatization
theory and the ongoing discussions about its analytical and methodological
applications. It adresses the issue of mediatization as a long-term
historical process and how we can analyse emprical data in this perspective
by introducing the notion of generations and the different 'rythms' of
generations.
Furthermore the paper introduces thoughts on the relevance of the cross
cultural perspective altough I have a few comments on this element of the
article that I will return to below.
I really like the idea of looking at cohorts when understanding
mediatization processes and the waves which with social change occurs. But
also how change is experienced and lived differently for different cohorts.
The author may consider being a bit bolder in this method's analytical
application. For example, by suggesting the application and relevance to a
number of the established areas of interest within mediatization theory such
a s politics, religion, conflict etc. What could we learn that we don't
already know by applying this method to these areas?
Thanks for this comment! I have added some sentences in the conclusions about the applicability
of this approach.
The writing in the article is very clear (with a few minor misspellings etc
here and there, but I'm assuming they will be picked up in the proof reading
process) and the structure is three fold and easy to follow: introduction of
the problem (with analysing mediatization process with basis in empirical
data), presenting the theory, testing the theory on empirical material
(primarily the focus group interviews from Estonia and Sweden) and
discussing the implications of this method.
Overall, I see the idea as original and important and well-executed, but I
have a few comments that the author may consider.
My largest concern has the to the with role of the cross cultural for the
method of using generations to analyse mediatization processes. In
particular in the abstract and the beginning of the paper I find the
argument for including the cross-cultural aspect underdeveloped and I
sometimes got the impression that it's there, becuase that the data that was
available. Certainly the question of the culturally specific is relevant in
mediatization, but why is it relevant for the methodological approach of
understanding mediatization through the lense of generations? How does, for
example, the cross cultural perspective inform us about mediatization
processes in this particular method?
This is a good observation, and a valid point. I have tried to justify this dual focus (the crossgenerational and the cross-cultural) with a new paragraph on p. 5.
And along similar lines, I find the balance between the cross cultural
considerations and the generational considerations a bit askew given the
articles title. Should the title rather be: 'Analysing mediatization through
the lens of generations and across culture'? In the analysis, for example,
the generational aspect comes second to the cross cultural aspect and is
awarded the same or even less exploration. There's an imbalance in the
argument there, and I suggest either etsablishing a better argument for the
strong inclusion of the cross-cultural or, and this would be my prefered
route, to further develop the notion of 'generational rythms' further and
develop it's relationship with mediatization processes in both the theory
and analysis sections of the paper better. It is in the generational aspect
that I see this paper's original contribution to the field.
I have tried to remedy this imbalance, and also changed the title. Good tip. I do hold the crosscultural as a contextual feature for the diachronic generational analysis, though.
Here are some smaller comments:
On the bottom of page 5 the author writes '...the rythms that are produced
as a result of the meeting between the technological and social' - this is
such an interesting notion, but it's left hanging in this section of the
paper. I think an expansion on this thought would be highly relvant and lift
the argument.
I have tried to return to this in the end of the article.
The figures in the paper aids understanding of the generational aspect and
cohorts very well.
I like the divide of the 'indirect generational relations' and 'direct
inter-generation relations', but I wish the author took more space to
develop these two notions and how they can help us understand mediatization
processes. In other words, what conclusions can be drawn from the way in
which generations understand their own media use in relation to other
generation's media use? And how may this help us registre societal changes
on a broader (meso or meta) level? In the last section in the paper on
'Generational rythms and mediatisation' the author argues 'that the
distancing by the young towards the previous generation of parents is what
produces the generational rythms by which social change if not occur, then
at least is percieved to occur'. I think, there's a trap here to regard the
changes in media use as equal to social change (it may just be a lingistic
trap that can be fixed with more precise wording) and a more in depth
discussion about how this method brings light to, not only changes in media
use, but also social changes on a broader scale would make the argument for
the method stronger.
Good point - I have tried to re-phrase. It is the perception of change I refer to, but I can see that
the following sentence is leading away from that. I have also extended the text about
direct/indirect generational relations.
Overall, it was a pleasure to read the paper and I look forward to being
able to cite it in future work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reviewer F:
This is an interesting article with a valuable discussion about media and
generation. Theories on the relationship between abstract ideas, such as
age, time, life course and generation are not rare within media and cultural
studies, but combining discussion of these ideas, as is the case in this
article, with interviews with people of different ages and countries
represents a new and very interesting approach. However, it also represents
a particular challenge to combine the two levels in an analysis that,
moreover, is said to be inspired by mediatization theory. This very wide
perspective also entails several problems.
First, I find that the theoretical introduction to mediatization doesn’t
have a clarifying function to the rest of the article; it seems rather
disconnected to the analysis and the author does not return to the concept
to sum up its relevance to the analysis. Instead of using the mediatization
concept, which is moreover defined unprecisely (e.g. three positions that
are not, in the way the author does, comparable at the same level) and
un-operationally, I would recommend the author to skip this theoretical
approach and, instead, underline the generation-time-media perspective.
Well, this cannot be done since the special theme of the issue is mediatization. Instead I have
tried to clarify the relevance of the argument for mediatisation theory.
Moreover, if the concept of rhytm is to have a clear relevance both
theoretically and analytically, it has to be further elaborated; as it is
presented here, it seems opaque to the extent of mystifying things. Please
clarify how rhytm is a fruitful concept to have in mind at the empirical and
analytical level? As far as the analytical part of the article is concerned,
the description of historical and geo-political differences between Sweden
and Estonia is relevant, informing and necessary; the figures are very
illustrative for that purpose. Unfortunately, differences are only to a
lesser extent underlined in the empirical analysis of the focus groups of
the two countries. These differences could be highlighted in order to give
empirical evidence that media matter in these respects. A further analytical
problem is that quotations from the Estonian informants are quite few
compared to the Swedish informants. This causes a disproportion that affects
the results of the analysis according to the overall cross-cultural and
historical agenda of the article. We need to hear more about the Estonians;
if there are no differences between the countries when it comes to
informants’ memories, the author should address this explicitly. Are there
any differences, it is an important result of the study and has to be
underlined and unfolded. I recommend the author to have a reference to an
article of Weibull & Westlund, Generation, life course and news media use in
Sweden 1986-2011, as it has a quite elaborated discussion of defining and
studying ‘generation’ and ‘life course’; Moreover, it is based on a
Swedish study.
The points about rhythm and the empirical imbalance is a valid one, and I have tried to remedy
that. However, this is not a study aiming at generalisations in that sense, and I have picked the
quotes that best illustrate the more general conclusions. there are 3 Estonian block quotes, and 5
Swedish). There are also Estonian quotes inside the text.
I am very familiar with Westund & Weibull’s article (I edited the volume in which it is published).
The problem is that I do not agree with their use of the concept of generations as I think they use
Zukin et al’s model of generation in an unreflected way. In short, they make the mistake I have
tried to remedy by pointing to the cross-cultural, that is, they take a generational concept and
periodisation developed for US generations - that is developed in relation to US historical
happenings, and uncritically adopts it to Swedish generations (there is nothing wrong with Zukin
et al - they often point to the fact that their cohorts are really “potential generations”). That said, if
I should refer to that study, I would have to make a long detour where I highlight the problems
with their analysis. Their article has many merits, and as a cohort analysis it is strong, but they fall
short when it comes to the cultural dimension in the analysis that is neede for a generational
analysis.
Despite the article’s many merits I recommend its submission with major
revisions.
------------------------------------------------------