Search results

In human-machine communication, people interact with a communication partner that is of a different ontological nature from themselves. This study examines how people conceptualize ontological differences between humans and computers and the implications of these differences for human-machine communication. Findings based on data from qualitative interviews with 73 U.S. adults regarding disembodied artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (voice-based AI assistants, automated-writing software) show that people differentiate between humans and computers based on origin of being, degree of autonomy, status as tool/tool-user, level of intelligence, emotional capabilities, and inherent flaws. In addition, these ontological boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred as technologies emulate more human-like qualities, such as emotion. This study also demonstrates how people's conceptualizations of the human-computer divide inform aspects of their interactions with communicative technologies.

This study traces the evolution of U.S. news media frames of participants in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, part of the Arab Spring. Critical discourse analysis reveals that CNN.com and FoxNews.com employ frames previously applied to Muslims and the Middle East—U.S. friend/enemy and rational/irrational—to explain the anti-government protesters, president Hosni Mubarak and Mubarak's government, and the Muslim Brotherhood to U.S. audiences. Media frames of certain groups fluctuate during the revolution and between CNN and Fox News, but, overall, these frames predominantly reflect U.S. political ideology that favors people seeking democracy over authoritarian rule and remains wary of Islam.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and people's interactions with it—through virtual agents, socialbots, and language-generation software—do not fit neatly into paradigms of communication theory that have long focused on human–human communication. To address this disconnect between communication theory and emerging technology, this article provides a starting point for articulating the differences between communicative AI and previous technologies and introduces a theoretical basis for navigating these conditions in the form of scholarship within human–machine communication (HMC). Drawing on an HMC framework, we outline a research agenda built around three key aspects of communicative AI technologies: (1) the functional dimensions through which people make sense of these devices and applications as communicators, (2) the relational dynamics through which people associate with these technologies and, in turn, relate to themselves and others, and (3) the metaphysical implications called up by blurring ontological boundaries surrounding what constitutes human, machine, and communication.

As research fields, mediatization and Human-Machine Communication (HMC) have distinct historical trajectories. While mediatization research is concerned with the fundamental interrelation between the transformation of media and communications and cultural and societal changes, the much younger field of HMC delves into human meaning-making in interactions with machines. However, the recent wave of "deep mediatization," characterized by an increasing emphasis on general communicative automation and the rise of communicative AI, highlights a shared interest in technology's role within human interaction. This introductory article examines the trajectories of both fields, demonstrating how mediatization research "zooms out" from overarching questions of societal and cultural transformations, while HMC tends to "zoom in" to approach the concrete situatedness of the interaction between humans and machines. It is argued that we need to combine both perspectives to better understand how the automation of communication transforms the social construction of culture and society. This article offers an overview of the key themes explored in this thematic issue, highlighting the productive intersection of HMC and mediatization within each article. Additionally, it identifies potential avenues for future research emerging from this fruitful intersection.

En el texto se analizan las concepciones que tienen los maestros sobre el currículo y la gestión curricular en las escuelas, y cómo esas concepciones se representan en sus prácticas pedagógicas cotidianas. Para ello, se partió de la perspectiva del enfoque cualitativo de investigación y desde un abordaje narrativo; se aplicaron entrevistas a profundidad a dos maestros que trabajan en instituciones educativas en el Departamento de Córdoba, Colombia, teniendo en cuenta sus representaciones y creencias de carácter intuitivo acerca del currículo y su gestión. Los resultados muestran que existe entre los maestros objeto de este estudio una concepción curricular reflexiva orientada a la mejora continua de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje, así como unas dinámicas de gestión curricular colectivas e individuales que facilitan la compresión de la realidad educativa, una postura. . que, aunque teóricamente no está claro por parte de los maestros, tiene correspondencia con las teorías críticas y dialógicas del currículo.