政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/83525

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/83525

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51756947 Online Users : 547

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Communication > Department of Journalism > Theses > Item 140.119/83525

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/83525

Title:	人/物共構之社群媒體人際監控與抵抗——以Facebook為例 Co-construction of Social Media Interpersonal Surveillance and Resistance in Facebook
Authors:	蔡依桃 Chuah, Thoo
Contributors:	陳百齡蔡依桃 Chuah, Thoo
Keywords:	人／物共構社會物質政治性人際監控抵抗公開文本隱藏文本 co-construction sociomaterialitics interpersonal surveillance resistance official transcripts hidden transcripts
Date:	2016
Issue Date:	2016-04-01 10:38:51 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究以「社會物質政治性」觀點主張Facebook的人際監控是由人／物共構而產生的政治性現象。Facebook所打造的物質展現，因無法避免地鑲嵌了「連結」意圖，以及由「人」集體構成的「分享」規範，在人與物的互動交引纏繞之下，而意外構成了人際監控。本研究透過綜合式研究方法，包括田野觀察、半結構式深度訪談以及自我經驗書寫與分析，檢視Facebook使用者與Facebook之物質展現的互動關係如何構成監控與抵抗發現，人與物所產出的「網絡」及「個人脈絡」不但讓人們所設下的各種界線被無限擴張而構成了「無限擴張的網絡」、甚至因為「網絡」當中未曾消弭的各種權力關係，以及揭露人們所思所處所做的「個人脈絡」構成了「個人脈絡之曝露」，而成為了助長人際監控最重要的元素。因此人們針對「網絡」的抵抗進行了「多重舞台隱藏設定」，以及針對「個人脈絡」進行了「展演式公開演出」抵抗。由於在強調互動與分享的Facebook當中，人與人之間形成的「監控」已不再扮演以往的霸權角色，而是形成了溢散的一種可被意識的力量之時，人們的「抵抗」亦脫離規避強權之目的性，並成為「抵抗者」為了保持自身的可視性以創造與維持社會關係，而策略性地透過Scott（1990）提出的「公開文本」進行「展演式公開演出」，以及透過「隱藏文本」進行「多重舞台隱藏設定」規避式抵抗。因此，人們在社群媒體的「抵抗」為一種挪用「公開／隱藏文本」不斷進行切換與游移的抵抗演出，進行部分的掩蓋、部分的揭露來達到人們預期目的，藉以尋求不那樣地被牽制的可能性。透過「社會物質政治性」這樣的視野，本研究並非如以往具有科技決定色彩主張「物」牽制了人，也並未擁抱社會建構觀點，而是試圖提出由「人／物共構」的互動關係之下，因為意想不到的政治性例如物質的展現與特性、還有人們的互動實踐，皆可以扮演構成監控與抵抗的角色。 Based on the perspective of “sociomaterialitics” this study argued that Facebook interpersonal surveillance was the political result of co-construction of human and material. Connectivity intention that hide beneath the material presentation of Facebook as well as the collective sharing normativity, entangled through the interactivities between human and material have resulted the unintentional construction of interpersonal surveillance. By using field observation, in-depth interview and analysis of self-experience, this study is able to explore the interactive relationship between human and material to find out how surveillance and resistance are co-constructed in Facebook. Network(ed) and personal context are found to have damage various boundaries of users which caused them to face “unlimited network expansion”, and because of the “underlying still-existence of power relations” in the network(ed), as well as “personal context” that caused “exposure of context”, are believed to have augmented surveillance in Facebook. People resist to network(ed) with “hidden setting of multi-stages”, and resist to exposure of personal context with “official performance”. However, as resistance was no longer the direct opposition to the oppression of dominant power in Facebook, hence “resistors” maintain their visibility and social relations strategically through the performance of “official transcript” and hiding themselves from surveillance through the “hidden transcript” in order to avoid unwanted results simultaneously (Scott, 1990). Therefore resistance in social media has transformed into “official/hidden transcripts” in which people switching their “official/hidden transcripts” constantly, continuously and strategically in order to partially performance and partially hiding themselves. As Facebook is a place that people voluntarily disclosed themselves, and hence interpersonal surveillance is seen as a conscious force in diffusion form, and people’s resistance is a self-reflexive strategic actions in liquidity form. People appropriated resistance to achieve intentional goals in order to explore possibilities of less containment derived from the co-construction of surveillance in social media. Through the perspective of “sociomaterialitics”, this study is able to escape from technological determinism and social constructionism, in order to embrace the idea of co-construction.
Reference:	方俊育、林崇熙譯（2004）。〈技術物有政治性嗎？〉，《科技渴望社會》。吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟（編），台北：群學。（原書Winner, L. (1986). Do Artifacts Have Politics?. In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, Winner, L. (eds), pp. 19-39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.）王崇軒（2012）。《探討Facebook、網路論壇、官方討論區不同社群成員在虛擬品牌社群互動關係之比較》。政治大學國際經營與貿易研究所碩士論文。王志弘（2014）。〈文化治理的內蘊衝突與政治折衡〉，《思與言》，52（4）：65-109。王毓莉（2013）。〈新聞記者對於置入性行銷業配新聞的馴服與抗拒研究〉。中華傳播學會2013年年會論文。王毓莉（2014）。〈台灣新聞記者對「業配新聞」的馴服與抗拒〉，《新聞學研究》，119：45-79。石淑慧（2012）。《博物館Facebook粉絲專頁經營模式之探討》。政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。成令方、吳嘉苓（2004）。〈科技的性別政治〉，《婦研縱橫》，71：26-34。李宜安（2012）。《自我構念、自我監控及思考模式對自我表達產品之購買意願》。政治大學國際經營與貿易硏究所碩士論文。李芸珮（2013）。《媽在看我臉書?初探Facebook上的親子互動》。政治大學傳播學院碩士在職專班碩士論文。余碧平譯（2002）。《性經驗史》。上海：上海人民出版社。（原書：Foucault, M.[1976, 1984]. Histoire de la Sexualite. Paris: Gallimard）林崇熙（2004）。〈技術的權力祕密〉，吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟（編），《科技渴望社會》，頁123-125。台北：群學。徐江敏、李姚軍譯（1992）。《日常生活中的自我表演》。台北：桂冠。（原書: Goffman, E. [1959]. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday）郇建立（2007）。〈弱者的武器及其意義），《二十一世紀》，4／5月號：152-155。上網日期：2015年5月24日，取自http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/issue/articles/101_0704011.pdf 曾由佳（2013）。〈愛在監控年代－兩性在Facebook上的嫉妒與關係滿意度研究〉。中華傳播學會2013年年會論文。紀金慶（2015）。《論海德格現代技術危機與解救之道》。政治大學哲學系博士論文。邱勝濱（2008）。〈質性研究方法在教育上的應用〉，《網路社會學通訊期刊》，75，取自http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/75/index.htm 吳佩玲（2006）。《商業化新聞操作下的自主空間：記者的反抗策略》。政治大學傳播學院在職專班碩士論文。吳岱諭（2014）。《探討社群媒體行銷在旅遊業的影響》。政治大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。周碧娥（1981）。〈脈絡分析：美國社會學對個人行為研究的一個新構想〉，《歐美研究》，11（2）： 39-57。周俊男（2009）。〈生命政治、自我外化、界面管理：試以傅柯理論閱讀《關鍵報告》的後人類倫理〉。《中外文學》，38 （1）：37-81。郭于華（2002）。〈「弱者的武器」與「隱藏的文本」——研究農民反抗的底層視角〉，《讀書》，7：11-18。上網日期：2014年2月3日，取自http://linkwf.blog.hexun.com.tw/20469796_d.html 陳順孝（2003）。《新聞控制與反控制：「記實避禍」的報導策略》。台北：五南。翁秀琪（1993）。〈工作權與新聞記者之自主性〉，翁秀琪、蔡明誠（編），《大眾傳播法手冊》。台北：政治大學新聞研究所。張文強（2002）。〈媒體組織內部權力運作與新聞工作自主：封建采邑的權力控制與反抗〉。《新聞學研究》，73：29-61。張文強（2005）。〈新聞工作的常規樣貌：平淡與熱情的對峙〉，《新聞學研究》， 84：1-40。張文強（2009）。《新聞工作者與媒體組織的互動》。台北：秀威資訊科技。張君玫（2008）。《猿猴.賽伯格和女人 : 重新發明自然》。台北：群學。[原著：Harawy, D. (1991). Translation of: Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.] 蔡依桃（2014）。〈社群媒體之監控形成——「分享」意識形態之規訓〉。中華傳播學會2014年年會論文。黃淑芬（2011）。《觀察收視率在新聞室之權力移動: 以電視新聞編輯為例》。政治大學傳播學院在職專班碩士論文。黃書葦、蔡錦倫（2014年3月26日）。〈黑島青、核電歸零…　連詠心臉書都按讚〉，《ETtoday 新聞雲》。上網日期：2014年3月28日，源自http://www.ettoday.net/news/20140326/339327.htm#ixzz2xEwLCE88 賴文福譯（2000）。《民族誌學》。台北：弘智文化。（原書：Fetterman, D. M. [1989]. Ethnography: step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage）國際特赦組織新聞稿（2013年6月7日）。《美國政府監聽狀況令人質疑美國對隱私權的尊重》，上網日期：2014年3月28日，取自http://www.amnesty.tw/?p=1583 蔣逸民（2011）。〈自我民族誌：質性研究方法的新探索〉，《浙江社會科學》，4：11-19。劉燕青（2003）。〈網路空間的控制邏輯〉，《資訊社會研究》，5：283-303。劉倚帆（2011）。（初探智慧型手機如何改變社會時空經驗〉。中華傳播學會2011年年會論文。鄭瑞隆（2000）。〈符號互動論及其在教育研究上的應用〉。載於國立中正大學教育研究所主編，《質的研究方法》，頁77-94。高雄：麗文。鄭嘉瑩（2012）。《應徵者自我監控特質與國籍對應徵者防禦型印象管理戰術之影響》。政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 Aakhus, M., Ballard, D., Flanagin, J. A., Kuhn, T., Leonardi, P., Mease, J., Miller, K. (2011). Communication and materliaty: A conversation from the CM cafe. Communication Monographs, 78(4), 557-568. Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of online social networking behavior: The case of Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3, 62-83. Akrich, M. & Latour, B. (1992). A convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies, In W. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday, 13(3), retrieved on January 7, 2014, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949. Allen-Robertson, J. (2015). The materiality of digital media: The hard disk drive, phonograph, magnetic tape and optical media in technical close-up. New Media & Society: 1–16. Alt, C. (2011). Objects of our affection: How object orientation made computers a medium, pp.278-301. In E. Huhtamo & J. Paprokka (eds), Media Archaeology: Approaches, applications and implications. California: University of California Press. Althusser, L. (1970). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Monthly Review Press 1971, from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk and governance. Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 479-497. Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baker, P. (2010). Facebook`s Arrogance. Huffington Post, retrieved on 2015 July, 14 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-g-baker/facebooks-arrogance_b_580997.html Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the University Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauer, M. (1995). Resistance to new technology and its effects on nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. In Bauer, M. (1995). Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. UK: Cambridge University Press. Beidelman, T. O. (1993). Secrecy and society: the paradox of knowing and the knowing of paradox. Evanston, IL: Program of African Studies, Northwestern University, 5: pp. 6-7, retrieved on 2015 November 23, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/passages/4761530.0005.008/--secrecy-and-society-the-paradox-of-knowing-and-the-knowing?rgn=main;view=fulltext Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Boczkowski, P.J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Boczkowski P., & Lievrouw L. (2008) Bridging STS and communication studies: Scholarship on media and information technologies. In Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (2008). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Third edition). London, England: The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachsetts. Boersma, S. (2013). Civil resistance 2.0: How online resistance serves a tool to express societal dissatisfactions. Master dissertation New Media & Digital Culture of Utrecht University, retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/288166?_ga=1.185283369.1255168763.1443811608 Borden, L.S. (2000). A model for evaluating journalist resistance to business constraints. Journal of Mass Media Ethnics, 15(3), 149-166. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Tr. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Tr. Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community Into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday, 11(12), retrieved on 2015 February, 13, from http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418 boyd, d. & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as Conversation: Networked Identity Performance on Friendster, in Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 59–69. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. boyd, d. (2007). Social networking sites: Public, private or what? Knowledge Three, 13. Retrieved on 2014 May 5, from http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf boyd, d.m. & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. boyd, d. (2008). Taken out of context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. Phd Dissertation. University of California Berkeley, School of Information. boyd, d. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances dynamics, and Implications. In Papacharissi, Z. (eds). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, pp.39-58. New York: Routledge. boyd, d. & Marwick, A. (2011). Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies. Presented at the Privacy Law Scholar`s Conference, Berkeley, CA. Bruns, A. (2007). Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. In Proceedings Creativity & Cognition 6, Washington, DC. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. NY: Oxford University Press. Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J. L. & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press. Castells, M. (2011). A Network Theory of Power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787. Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths. In Clifford, J. and George, E. M. Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clegg, S.R. (1989). Radical revisions: power, discipline and organizations. Organization Studies, 10(1), 97-115. Clegg, S. (1994). Power relations and the constitution of the resistant subject. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance & power in organizations, pp274-335). New York: Routledge. Chan, A. (2000). Redirecting critique in postmodern organization studies: the perspective of Foucault. Organization Studies, 21(6), 1059-1075. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Personal experience mehods. In N, Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dant, T. (1999). Material Culture in the Social World: Values, Activities, Lifestyles. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Dawson, S. (2006). The impact of institutional surveillance technologies on student behaviour. Surveillance & Society, 4(1/2), 69-84. de Certeau (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. Retrieved on 2015 March, 14, from http://www.movementresearch.org/classesworkshops/melt/Walking_In_The_City.pdf Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Donath, J. & boyd, d. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal 22(4), 71–82. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in Social Supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231-251. Eler, A. (2012). Study: Your facebook personality is the real you. Readwrite.com, retrieved from http://readwrite.com/2012/01/11/study_your_facebook_personality_is_the_real_you Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). Retrieved on 2015 November 25, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095 Eryal, N. (2012). The next secrets of the internet. Nir and Far, retrieved from http://www.nirandfar.com/2012/06/the-next-secrets-of-the-web.html Fenwick, T. (2010). Re‐thinking the ‘thing’: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104 – 116. Fenwick, T. & Nimmo, G. R. (2015). Making visible what matters, In Researching Medical Education, Cleland, J. & Durning, S. J (2015). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Friedrichs, J. & Ludtke, H. (1974). Participant observation: Theory and practice. Westmead, UK: Saxon house. Friesen, N., Feenberg, A. & Smith, G. (2009). Phenomenology and Surveillance Studies: Returning to the Things Themselves. The Information Society, 25(2), 84-90. Fogg, B. J. & lizawa, D. (2008). Online persuasion in Facebook and Mixi: A cross-cultutal comparison. Persuasive Technology, pp. 35-46. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Vol.1. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Sheridan A. (trans.). New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1994). Power. New York: New Press. Fuschs, C., Boersma, K, Albrechtslund, A. & Sandoval, M. (2012). Internet and surveillance: The challenges of web 2.0 and social media. New York: Routledge. Gandy, O. (1993). The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Gandy, O. (2002). Data mining and surveillance in the post-9.11 environment. For presentation to the Political Economy Section, IAMCR Barcelona, July, 2002. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1985). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Vol. 2: The nation-state and violence. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ginzburg, C. (1990). Clues: Roots of an evidential paradigm. In Myths, Emblems, Clues, Tedeschi J and Tedeschi AC (trans.), pp.96-125. London: Hutchinson Radius. Gitelman, L. (1999). Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gershon, I. (2011). Un-Friend My Heart: Facebook, Promiscuity and Heartbreak in a Neoliberal Age. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(4), 865-894. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Goggin, G. (2006). Cell Phone Culture: Mobile Technology in Everyday Life. Abingdon: Routledge. Gray, A. (2003). Research practice for cultural studies: Ethnographic methods and lived cultures. London: Sage. Green, N. & Haddon, L. (2009). Mobile Communications: An Introduction to New Media. Oxford: Berg. Haggerty, K.D. & Ericson, R.V. (2000). The Surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. Hassan, R. (2008). The information society. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. Retrieved from http://simondon.ocular-witness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/question_concerning_technology.pdf Heidegger, M. (1966). Discourse on Thinking. Translated by Anderson, J. M & Freund, E. H. New York: Harper and Row, pp.41-57. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1308144.files/February%203/Heidegger%20-%20Memorial%20Address.pdf Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hollander, J.A. & Einwohner, R.L. (2004). Conceptualizing resistance. Sociological Forum, 19(4), 533-554. Holpuch, A. (2015). Facebook users plan protest against site`s `real name` policy at headquarters. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/30/facebook-real-name-policy-protest Hutchby, I (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Internet.org (2014). State of Connectivity: 2014. A Report on Global Internet Access, pp.4-5, 14-15. 30-35. Retrieved on 2015 May 1, from https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/state-ofconnectivity_3.pdf Jung, L. S. (2013). Why I said goodbye to Facebook. The Learned Fangirl (2013 January 16), retrieved on 2015 January 4, from http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2013/01/why-i-said-goodbye-to-facebook/ Jurgenson, N. (2010). Review of Ondi Timoner’s We Live in Public. Surveillance & Society, 8(3), 374-378. Kittler, F.A. (1999). Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, Winthrop-Young G and Wutz M (trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kline, R. (2003). Resisting consumer technology in rural America: The telephone and electrification. In Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds), How Users Matter: The c-construction of users and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Knights, D. & Vurdubakie, T. (1994). Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights & W. R. Nord (Eds), Resistance & power in organizations, pp167-198. New York: Routledge. Koskela, H. (2004). Webcams, tv shows and mobile phones: Empowering exhibitionism. Surveillance & Society, 2(2/3), 199-215. Retrieved from http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(2)/webcams.pdf Koopman, C. (2015, Sept 29). The algorithm and the watchtower. The New Enquiry, retrieved on 2015 Sept 30, from http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-algorithm-and-the-watchtower/. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. 1(993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harlow, England: Longman. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lauer, J. (2011). Surveillance history and the history of new media: An evidential paradigm. New media & society, 14(4), 566–582. Law, J. (1994). Organizing Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds). Actor Network Theory and After, pp. 1–14. Oxford: Blackwell. Leonardi, P. M. (2007). Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 813-831. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18, 159–176. Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, [S.l.], Jun. 2010. ISSN 13960466. Retrieved on 2014, Feb 6, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3036/2567. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51. Leornadi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In P. M. Leornadi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (eds), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, pp.25-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (2013). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lievrouw, L. A. (2014). Materiality and media in communication and technology studies: An unfinished project. In Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ and Foot KA (eds), Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, pp.21-52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Oxford: Open University Press. Lyon, D. (2002). Everyday surveillance: Personal data and social classification. Information, Communication & Society, 5(2), 242-257. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance technology and surveillance society. In Misa T. J., Brey, P. & Feenberg, A. (eds) Modernity and Technology, pp.161-183. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lyon, D. (2007a). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity. Lyon, D. (2007b). Surveillance, power, and everyday life. In Mansell, R., Avgerou, C. A., Quah, D. & Roger Silverstone, R. (eds.) The Oxford Hand Book of Information and Communication Technologies, pp 449-47. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Lyon, D. (2008). Surveillance Society. Talk for Festival del Diritto, Piacenza, Italia: September 28 2008. Retrieved from http://www.festivaldeldiritto.it/2008/pdf/interventi/david_lyon.pdf Mann, S., Nolan. J. & Wellman, B. (2003). Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 331-355. Marshall, T.C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 20, 1-22. Marwick, A. (2010). Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity and Self-Branding in Web 2.0. Dissertation, New York: New York University. Marwick, A. & boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114–133. Marwick, A. (2012). The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & society, 9(4), 378-393. Marx, G.T. (1985). The surveillance society: The threat of 1984-style techniques. The Futurist, June, 21-26. Marx, G. T. (2003). A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance. Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2), 369-390. Marx, G. T. (2007). Surveillance. In Encyclopedia of privacy, ed. William, G. Staples, pp. 535-544. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Mathiesen, T. (1997). The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘panopticon’ revisted. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215-234. Mathiesen, T. (2004). Panopticon and synopticon as silencing systems. In Silently silenced: Essays on the creation of acquiescence in modern society, pp. 98-102. Winchester: Waterside. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw Hill. Miller, D. (eds)(2005). Materiality. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Minsky, M, Kurzweil, R. & Mann, S. (2013). The Society of Intelligent Veillance, Proceedings of the IEEE ISTAS 2013, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp13-17. Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches. Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mokyr, J. (1992). Technological inertia in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 52(2), 325-328. Monahan, T. (2010). Surveillance in the time of insecurity. New Brunswick, New Jersey & London: Rutgers University Press. Morrison, S., & Gomez, R. (2014). Pushback: The Growth of Expressions of Resistance to Constant Online Connectivity. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, p.1-15. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & behavior, 12(4), 441-444. Muller, M. (2015). Assemblages and Actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space. Geography Compass, 9(1), 27-41. Murthy, S. R. & Mani, M. (2013). Discerning rejection of technology. Sage Open, 1-10. Neff, G. Fiore-Silfvast, B., Dossick, C. (2014). Material Challenges to Communication Research: Rethinking the Dynamic Roles of Materiality in Communication. In International Communication Association (ICA) 2013 Theme book. Opsahl, K. (2010a, May 4). Six Things You Need to Know About Facebook Connections. Electronic Frontier Foundation, retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/things-you-need-know-about-facebook Opsahl, K. (2010b, April 19). Updated: Facebook Further Reduces Your Control Over Personal Information. Electronic Frontier Foundation, retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-further-reduces-control-over-personal-information Oswald, K.F. & Packer, J. (2012). Flow and mobile media: broadcast fixity to digital fluidity. In: Packer, J. & Wiley, S.B.C. (eds). Communication Matters: Materialist Approaches to Media, Mobility and Networks. London: Routledge. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. Orlikowski, W. J. and S. V. Scott (2008). Chapter 10: Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals 2(1), 433-474. Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). The Sociomateriality of Organizational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 125-141. Picini, A. (2015). Media-Archaeologies: An Invitation. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2(1), 1–147. Pinch, T. (2008). Technology and institutions: Living in a material world. Theory and Society, 37, 461–483. Poster, M. (1990). The Mode of Information: Postructuralism and social context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Poster, M. (1996). Databases as discouse; or, Electronic interpellations. In Lyon, D. & Zureik, E. (eds). Computers, surveillance, and privacy, pp. 175–192. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. PRISM (n.d.). Wikipedia, retrieved on 28 March, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Rosenberg, J. & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1-18. Rule, J. B. (2007). Privacy in peril. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanchez, A. (2009). The Facebook Feeding Frenzy: Resistance-through-Distance and Resistance-through Persistence in the Societied Network. Surveillance & Society, 6(3), 275-293. Savolainen, R. (2007). Filtering and withdrawing: Strategies for coping with information overload in everyday contexts, Journal of Information Science, 33(5), 611-621. Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An introruction. London” Routledge. Schot, J. & de la Bruheze, A. A. (2003). The mediated design of products, consumption and consumers in the twentieth century. In Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds), How Users Matter: The c-construction of users and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.229-245. Scott, J. C., (1977). The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C., (2009). The Art of Not Being G overned: An A narchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press. Scott, S.V. & Orlikowski, W.J. (2012). Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(10), 26-40. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. Shaw, S.M. (2001). Conceptualizing resistance: Women’s leisure as political practice. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 186-201. Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67-75. Sigala, M. (2011). eCRM 2.0 applications and trends: The use and perceptions of Greek tourism firms of social networks and intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 655-661. Smith, A. (2014). 6 new facts about Facebook. Pew Research Center. Retrieved on 2015, August 22, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/ Sonvilla-Weiss, S. (2008). (In)visible: Learning to act in the metaverse. Austria: SpringWien New York. Spigel, L. (2001). Welcome to the Dreamhouse: Popular Media and Postwar Suburbs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Proceedings of the 2006 iDMAa and IMS Code Conference, Oxford, Ohio. Stutzman, F.,G rossy, R. & Acquistiz, A. (2012). Silent Listeners: The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 4(2), 7-41. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problems of human machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tokunaga, R.S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705-713. Törnberg, A. (2013). Resistance Matter(s): Resistance Studies and the Material Turn. Resistance studies magazine, retrieved from http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/204847/204847.pdf Trottier, D. (2011). A research agenda for social media surveillance. Fast Capitalism, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/8_1/ trottier8_1.html Trottier, D. (2012a). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate. Trottier, D. (2012b). Interpersonal Surveillance on Social Media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2536. Trottier, D. & Lyon, D. (2012). Key Features of Social Media Surveillance. In Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A. & Sandoval, M. (Eds.). Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. New York, NY: Routledge. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, July 2014. Retrieved from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4901/4097 Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the Human Spirit. London: Granada. Turkle, S. (2007). Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theater: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications. Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511-527. van Dijck, José. (2012). Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity. Television New Media, 13(2), 160-176. van Dijck, José. (2013). In the Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wajcman, J. & Jones, K. P. (2012). Border communication: media sociology and STS. Media, Culture & Society, 34(6), 673-690. Walther, J.B., van der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D. & Tong, S.T. (2008). The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49. Winner, L. (1986). Do artifacts have politics? The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology, pp19-39. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Westlake, E. J. (2008). Friend me if you Facebook: Generation Y and performative surveillance. The Drama Review, 52(4), 21-40. Zuckerberg Transcripts (2004). CNBC, "Mark Zuckerberg Interview On CNBC From 2004, paper 72. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_ transcripts/72 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2004). Hundreds Register for New Facebook Website by Tabak, A., paper 106. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/106 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2005). Mark Zuckerberg 2005 Interview from Huffington Post, paper 56. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/56 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2008). D6 Interview With Facebook`s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, paper 66. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/66 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2011). Mark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook by BBC, paper 113. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/113 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2013). Mark Zuckerberg regarding "Facebook’s Plan to Get Entire Planet Online" by Wired, paper 101. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/101 Zuckerberg Transcripts (2014). 2014 F8 Developer Conference, paper 149. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/149
Description:	碩士國立政治大學新聞學系 101451026
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101451026
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Journalism] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
102601.pdf	3265Kb	Adobe PDF2	795	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback