The Effects of Transformation of Public Sphere with the New Media in Academy
Ömer Yetkinel 1  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Cyprus International University, N. CYPRUS
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Ömer Yetkinel   

Department of Communication, Cyprus International University, N. Cyprus
Online publish date: 2017-08-11
Publish date: 2017-08-11
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):5009–5018
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
When technology has successfully penetrated in all aspects of life, a discussion on public sphere and its relevance in today’s scenario is becoming more complicated. It is needless to say that opinions will differ as the post-modern critics dissect Habermas’ concept of public sphere with full acuity. As the mass media is being dominated by the Information and Communications Technology industry, the perceptible change and the aspect of critical publicity that Habermas emphasized on with a higher sense of responsibility is worth discussing. Computer-mediated communication and its uses in education is dominating today’s age and the issue like commercialization, commodification, media ownership, instructional technologies are sometimes considered to be challenging the power of free, rational thinking and freedom of speech. This age of digitalization is definitely getting dependent to cyberspace more for every reason or the other, but what needs to be assessed is if this dependency is effecting the freedom of democratic discussion.
 
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Adorno, T. W., Noerr, G. S., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
 
2.
Ben, M. (2012). To What Extent Does Facebook Function as a Public Sphere? Unpublished master’s thesis.
 
3.
Biesta, G. (2012). Becoming public: public pedagogy, citizenship and the public sphere. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(7), 683-697. doi:10.1080/14649365.2012.723736.
 
4.
Boeder, P. (2005). Habermas’ heritage: The future of the public sphere in the network society. First Monday,10(9).
 
5.
Buckingham, D. & Martínez, J. B. (2013). Interactive Youth: New Citizenship between Social Networks and School Settings. Comunicar, 40, 10-14. doi:10.3916/C40-2013- 02-05.
 
6.
Bugeja, M. (2006). Facing the Facebook. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/F.... Accessed 14 January 2013.
 
7.
Castells, M. (2011). A Network Theory of Power. Sociology Compass, 3(3), 381-393.
 
8.
Dahlgren, P. (2000). Television and the public sphere: citizenship, democracy and the media. London: Sage.
 
9.
Edwards, G. (2009). Habermas and Social Movement Theory. Internation Journal of Communication, 5(2011), 773-787.
 
10.
Fernback, J., & Thompson B. (1995). Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity: The Dimensions of Community Within Cyberspace. Paper presented at the International Communication Association.
 
11.
Geiger, R. S. (2009). Does Habermas Understand the Internet? The Algorithmic Construction of the Blogo/Public Sphere (October 1, 2009). Gnovis. A Journal of Communication, Culture, and Technology, 10(1), 1-29.
 
12.
Gewerc, A., Montero, L., & Lama, M. (2014). Colaboración y redes sociales en la enseñanza universitaria. Comunicar, 21(42).
 
13.
Gómez-Aguılar, M., Roses, S. & Farías, P. (2012). El uso acadé- mico de las redes sociales en universitarios. Comunicar, 38, 131- 138. doi:10.3916/C38-2012-03-04.
 
14.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory,1, 201.
 
15.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
 
16.
Habermas, J. (n.d.). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
 
17.
Kellner, D. (2002). Theorizing Globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 285-305. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00165.
 
18.
Marcuse, H. (1992). One-dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. London: Routledge.
 
19.
Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: the cyberspace “revolution”. London: SAGE.
 
20.
McQuail, D. (1998). Mass communication theory: an introduction. London: Sage.
 
21.
Neal, C. T. (2015, February 07). The Public Sphere and the New Media. Retrieved from http://www.socialmediatoday.co....
 
22.
Piscitelli, A., Adaime, I. & Binder, I. (2010). El proyecto Facebook y la postuniversidad. Sistemas operativos sociales y entornos abiertos de aprendizaje. Buenos Aires: Ariel-Fundación Telefónica.
 
23.
Ractham, P. & Firpo, D. (2011, January 4). Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook. In 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.479.
 
24.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.
 
25.
Robert, D. (2014, November 1). 2013 Year in Review. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/Trends/....
 
26.
Sunstein, C. (2013, January 29). The Daily We. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/cass-s....
 
27.
Strydom, P. (1990). Habermas and New Social Movements. Telos,1990(85), 156-164. doi:10.3817/0990085156.
 
28.
Whittle, D. B. (1997). Cyberspace: the human dimension. New York: Freeman.
 
29.
Zizi, P. (2005). The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. Unpublished master’s thesis. Temple University.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215