Marketplace Of Ideas Research Articles

Dynamics of the social construction of knowledge: an empirical study of Zhihu in China

This study examined how the knowledge market promotes knowledge construction on question-and-answer (Q&A) websites. Data were collected from Zhihu, one of the largest Q&A sites in China. Hierarchical linear modeling was employed to estimate the dynamics of information accumulation, that is, the provision of informative content as factual construction. By employing information accumulation as the objective measure of knowledge construction, we determined that online knowledge construction was facilitated by a competitive marketplace of ideas. In addition, participation, temporal, and discourse features affected the dynamics of information accumulation. In specific, active users contributed significantly less to information accumulation than did ordinary users. Information accumulation shows a naturally decaying process represented as a function of answer order. The time interval between answers at the two preceding time points reduced the informativeness of answers at the subsequent time point. Answers with a higher readability score reduced the informativeness of subsequent answers. The results indicate that knowledge construction on Q&A sites unfolds as a process of mass collaboration among users.

Measuring news media frame building during an Australian industrial dispute

News media play a crucial role in supporting liberal democracy by holding the powerful to account and facilitating a diverse, balanced and equal marketplace of ideas. In this marketplace of ideas, groups and interests like unions and employers compete for attention and to have their ideas legitimated by journalists. Although framing theory is used extensively to understand how news media represents different issues, due to its theoretical ambiguity and the methodological challenge of determining how and why frames are built by journalists, it is difficult to quantify how effectively news media delivers equity between competing perspectives. Entman, Matthes and Pellicano’s diachronic process model of political framing helps to overcome these challenges by providing a theoretical model, which is used in this article to investigate a case study of Australian media representation of competing industrial dispute narratives. The article identifies and compares two of the model’s framing junctures: industrial spokespeople’s narratives during the contemporary Australian case of the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) in dispute with firefighter members of the Victorian United Firefighters Union; and their alignment with news media reports about the CFA dispute. The findings reveal inequity between the representation of workers and their union as compared to the employer, and thus present a case of imbalanced or biased frame building in the marketplace of ideas. These findings are applied to discussions of conscious and unconscious bias to theorize why this inequity occurred.

Committees or Markets? An Exploratory Analysis of Best Paper Awards in Economics

Despite the general usefulness of citations as a sort of test of the value of one’s work in the marketplace of ideas, journals and publishers tend to use alternative bases of judgment, namely committees, in selecting candidates for the conferral of journals’ best paper awards. Given that recognition—sometimes in the form of compensation and on other occasions in the form of awards—in academe is geared toward incentivizing the production of impactful research and not some less desirable goal or outcome, it is important to understand the sensitivity in the outcomes of best paper award selection processes to the types of processes used. To that end, this study compares the selection of best paper awards for journals affiliated with several of the world’s top economic associations by committees to a counterfactual process that is based on citations to published studies. Our statistical exploration indicates that in most cases and for most awards, the most cited paper was not chosen. This requires further discussion as to the core characteristics that quantitatively represent the highest impact.

‘Lost in the marketplace of ideas: Towards a new constitution for free speech after Trump and Twitter?’

Democracy is in crisis and one core feature is a communications crisis: a failure of institutions to reliably generate and curate the circulation of information and communications. Capitalism, the internet and Covid have all been unkind to journalism: newspapers and their reporters have been decimated. Newer media – such as Facebook, Twitter and Google – have amassed enormous power in a remarkably short time. They are the new gatekeepers of free expression, as witnessed by the Twitter ban of Donald Trump. Social media platforms are also the bullhorns of disinformation: they seem to exacerbate polarization, sow distrust, speed the spread of misinformation and encourage conspiracist thinking. Can the media companies be trusted to self-regulate? What alternatives do we have? I argue in the end that the Facebook Oversight Board offers a hopeful model.

Introduction: epistemic contestations in the hybrid media environment

ABSTRACT “Post-truth era” and “fake news” have been the talk of the day for around 10 years now. In our understanding, these terms are used to refer to the contestations of epistemic hierarchies in Western liberal democracies experiencing political shifts toward populist political style and polarization. The contestation takes many forms but is mainly expressed through digital media technologies and related social practices that contribute to the epistemic instability. In this introductory article for the special issue of Epistemic contestations in the hybrid media environment, we argue that the experienced “epistemic crisis” is not only a crisis of epistemic hierarchies and worldviews but also a crisis of knowledge production within epistemic institutions, including the academia. The aim of the special issue is to explore how a multiplicity of competing epistemologies interact and compete in the “post-truth” marketplace of ideas in online popular communication.

The International Criminal Justice Marketplace of Ideas

Abstract The field of international criminal justice is supported and legitimized by a distinct marketplace of norms and ideas. Within this marketplace, stakeholders compete to define dominant norms, conceptual frames and the practical direction of international criminal justice. Building on the relational sociology of Bourdieu, this article examines how this competition plays out by studying the relational agenda-setting practices of central stakeholders. To this end, the analysis draws on an original dataset of annual reports produced by international criminal tribunals, academic articles and non-governmental organization reports published between 1994 and 2018. Employing Structural Topic Modelling, the article contributes a data-driven and empirically informed analysis of core developments and agenda-setting in the marketplace of ideas in international criminal justice. Zooming in on the topic of sexual violence which was placed on the agenda by NGOs in the early 2000s before becoming prevalent in the outputs of academics and international criminal tribunals, the article illustrates how normative agendas spearheaded by specific stakeholders can have broader effects in the field.

Conservative advocacy journalism: Explored with a model of journalists’ influence on democracy

The democratic role of news media in Western society is usually analysed through the lens of the dominant liberal model of media. This model assumes that journalists play a positive part in democracy by monitoring those with power and facilitating a diverse marketplace of ideas. Within this model, journalistic professionalism emphasises objectivity, neutrality, pluralism, balance and independence. There are, however, two types of advocacy journalism which, despite receiving less attention, nonetheless are present in Western media and exhibit characteristics contrary to these liberal values: radical journalism and collaboration between journalists and the state. Through a case study comparing Australian Murdoch media coverage of an industrial dispute to that of non-Murdoch media, this paper proposes a third type of advocacy journalism: conservative advocacy. Through the development of a model of journalistic influence on democracy, conservative advocacy is proposed as the least democratic form of journalism due to its suppression of voices that challenge power.

Market Failure and Censorship in the Marketplace of Ideas

Market Failure and Censorship in the Marketplace of Ideas

Lost in the Marketplace of Ideas: Toward a New Constitution for Free Speech After Trump and Twitter?

Lost in the Marketplace of Ideas: Toward a New Constitution for Free Speech After Trump and Twitter?

Legal Dilemma of Fake News Management after ‘Marketplace of Ideas’

The ‘marketplace of ideas’ metaphor has gone over a whole century since its birth, and its significance is far-reaching. The protection of freedom of speech in its theory is now manifested as high tolerance of fake news. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Russia, and Malaysia are among the countries attempting to address the worldwide issue of false news. Many nations have included false news regulation into necessary measures such as government management and even legal systems, as can be shown. In the United States, it is difficult to control fake news by legal means, which can only be exerted through extremely limited litigation liability and industry self-discipline. In addition, the transformation of media technology has destroyed the theoretical basis of the ‘marketplace of ideas’. Due to the struggle between the two parties in the United States, fake news has become a ‘floating signifier’ and a discourse tool to attack political opponents. The century-old theory of ‘marketplace of ideas’ is in urgent need of reflection and reconstruction.

A Collapsing Academy, Part II: How Cancel Culture Works on the Academy

Examines how the concept of "cancel culture" will impact higher education. Cancel culture is particularly insidious with respect to higher education. The doors are closing on this marketplace of ideas.

Photographers of the Civil War Era: Frank H. Price of Elizabeth and Newark

This article is another about the generation of New Jersey photographers who began their career during the U.S. Civil War, initiated with the consideration of Theodore Gubelman in the Winter 2020 issue of New Jersey Studies. Please see that issue for a general introduction. This essay is a case study about Frank H. Price, who also served in the Union Army, and although, like Gubelman, Price had a successful business over a number of years, he had different personal and professional experiences that broaden our understanding of life in the Garden State in the second half of the nineteenth century. Experiencing many of the same events as his portrait subjects, Price is an exemplar of the ambitious young men who personified what Ralph Waldo Emerson characterized in 1844 as “the Young American,” who engaged in the marketplace of ideas and commerce in “a country of beginnings, of projects, of designs, and expectations.” Although Price did not live to old age, he made his mark among his contemporaries. His story includes typical and exceptional experiences, triumphs and tragedies. Note: You can find additional Frank Price photos here: https://web.ingage.io/Pfs9hng.

Digital Disinformation During Declared Disasters: a First Amendment Storm Warning

Digital Disinformation During Declared Disasters: a First Amendment Storm Warning

Justice Frankfurter's Contextual Marketplace

Justice Frankfurter is not known for foundational First Amendment opinions, like his mentors, Justices Holmes and Brandeis. He also is not known for helping to lay the groundwork for the modern First Amendment, like his rivals and contemporaries on the Court, Justices Black and Douglas. His lengthy, complex, and nuanced free-expression opinions, however, provide an alternative theoretical framework for how the marketplace of ideas can be conceptualized in the networked era. Drawing from his opinions, this article examines the historical development of marketplace theory, contending the theory has never had a monolithic meaning, and analyzes Justice Frankfurter’s First Amendment opinions, ultimately constructing the contextual marketplace. The contextual approach provides a more inclusive, malleable, and protective foundation for the marketplace in the twenty-first century, finding substantial support from Justices Holmes’s and Brandeis’s writings, modern Supreme Court decisions, and legal scholarship.

The Conservative Press and the Interwar Origins of First Amendment Lochnerism

In the 1930s and 1940s, the conservative newspaper industry argued that the First Amendment should shield them from New Deal economic regulations. This article uses these forgotten clashes about freedom of the press to provide a new history of the origins and trajectory of the anti-regulatory First Amendment. It shows that conservative newspaper attorneys were at the forefront of efforts to use civil liberties to protect their economic interests in the New Deal. But it argues that these efforts were only partially successful. The courts rejected these maximalist First Amendment claims, distinguishing between economic liberties and civil liberties. But maximalist claims were more successful in the political culture, where conservative newspapers helped legitimize a belief that a laissez-faire “marketplace of ideas“ was a liberal principle with deep roots in the past. The origins of First Amendment Lochnerism thus lie not in judicial precedent, but in contestation in the political culture. A clearer understanding of the dynamics of this long-running effort to deploy civil liberties claims for conservative purposes, the article concludes, will help us better navigate the contemporary crises of the First Amendment.

Framing China's rise in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract Optimism about China's rise has in recent years given way to deep concern in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Drawing on an original set of interviews with China experts from each country, and an array of primary and secondary sources, I show that shifting framings of China's rise reflect the dynamics of the US, Australian and UK national security fields. The article highlights three features specifically: first, the US field features a belief that China's rise can be arrested or prevented, absent in Australia and the UK. I root this dynamic in the system of professional appointments and the intense US ‘marketplace of ideas’, which gives rise to intense framing contestation and occasional sharp frame change. I then identify the key positions produced by each field, from which key actors have shaped the differing interpretations of China and its meaning. The election of Donald Trump, a strong China-critic, to the US presidency empowered key individuals across government who shifted the predominant framing of China from potential challenger to current threat. The smaller and more centralized fields in Australia and Britain feature fewer and less intense China-sceptical voices; responses have thereby remained largely pragmatic, despite worsening diplomatic relations in each case.

Marketing Ideas: How to Write Research Articles that Readers Understand and Cite

Academia is a marketplace of ideas. Just as firms market their products with packaging and advertising, scholars market their ideas with writing. Even the best ideas will make an impact only if others understand and build on them. Why, then, is academic writing often difficult to understand? In two experiments and a text analysis of 1,640 articles in premier marketing journals, this research shows that scholars write unclearly in part because they forget that they know more about their research than readers, a phenomenon called “the curse of knowledge.” Knowledge, or familiarity with one’s own research, exacerbates three practices that make academic writing difficult to understand: abstraction, technical language, and passive writing. When marketing scholars know more about a research project, they use more abstract, technical, and passive writing to describe it. Articles with more abstract, technical, and passive writing are harder for readers to understand and are less likely to be cited. The authors call for scholars to overcome the curse of knowledge and provide two tools—a website ( writingclaritycalculator.com ) and a tutorial—to help them recognize and repair unclear writing so they can write articles that are more likely to make an impact.

Dismantling The Professional Student Political Speech Minefield: Rejecting The Proliferation of Conduct Standards That Restrict Political Expression

Universities have discarded their role as institutions dedicated to the marketplace of ideas and the freedom of expression. The desire to shield students from ideas that make them uncomfortable has unfortunately spread to professional programs, as administrators have constructed student conduct policies that limit political speech. Although recent federal circuit decisions have permitted professional programs more discretion to punish speech than undergraduate or graduate students, courts have only applied those decisions to situations where student conduct clearly violates established professional standards. While professional programs possess a legitimate pedagogical purpose in preparing its students to enter a licensed profession, that purpose is not absolute and is limited by the First Amendment when applied to political speech. Courts should find that professional programs violate its students’ First Amendment rights when student conduct policies punish political speech that does not violate any written code of conduct or established professional standard. When a university punishes a professional student’s political speech without reference to existing professional standards, student discipline may become a pretext for discrimination against political beliefs. Accordingly, courts should hold that an administrator’s application of a student conduct policy against political speech is void for vagueness and overbreadth and risks viewpoint discrimination. When students are unaware of what political speech their universities may sanction, they may avoid engaging in frank discussions of politics over the fear of discipline. Professional students are the emerging leaders of our country, and their program administrations should not chill them from freely expressing their opinions on matters of public concern as the price of admission into the program. This article will take a novel approach to reject limitations on professional student political speech, using the Tenth Circuit’s analysis in Hunt v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico to demonstrate the threat of students’ First Amendment rights.

A positive future for futures and foresight science needs fierce competition in the marketplace of ideas: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack 2021

A positive future for futures and foresight science needs fierce competition in the marketplace of ideas: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack 2021

Fundamental Rights Protection Online: Curation v. Regulation?

Technology has transformative power – and it is generally a power for good. Knowledge transfer is cheaper and more accessible than ever before thanks to our increased connectivity. With the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, online teaching and videoconferencing served as substitutes for in-person meetings. Moreover, the virtual environment allowed for broader audiences to follow various events. While many believe that virtual interactions cannot fully replicate the physical world, not least since blue-collar jobs remain firmly rooted in the physical, the quick takeaways from the global health crisis (still ongoing at the moment of writing) are that the world did not stop spinning for one reason only: physical contacts could in many cases be creatively and effectively replaced by the use of the internet. The internet has also ostensibly created preconditions for unprecedented democratization of the public sphere, possibly a true “marketplace of ideas” or at least an open forum for the exchange of information providing the means for individuals to seek, receive and impart ideas, regardless of frontiers. By enhancing access to information and freedom of speech, the internet has also become a significant source of citizen empowerment and engagement, transforming the role of citizens, both in their private and public lives. In spite of all the excitement however, would today’s technical infrastructure lead to an actual democratization of knowledge spurring a possible decrease in social inequalities? Isn’t the marketplace of ideas an imperfect market just as any other? Can it give rise to the proliferation of disinformation and lead to new forms of censorship; can it inflict grave harm? Through the prism of fundamental rights, this book collection aims to engage with the broader questions framing the debate on online content curation while also looking at the legal nuts and bolts underpinning it.