Reference
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & Dijck, J. van. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://policyreview.info/concepts/platformisation
Note: “platformisation” = “platformization” – depending on which English-speaking side of the Atlantic one spells it.
In this paper, published in the journal Internet Policy Review, the authors define and contextualize the concept of platformisation from four distinct scholarly perspectives: business studies, software studies research, critical political economy, and cultural studies. They suggest a research agenda making use of these four dimensions, so as to provide insight into “ever-evolving dynamics of platformisation” as sites of both benefits and harms to individuals and society. And they offer ways to operationalize the concept of platformisation in critical research on the emergence and concentration of power among a small number of platform companies, and how they are transforming social relationships and key societal sectors.
The authors offer two definitions that frame the discussion:
Platform refers to “(re-)programmable digital infrastructures that facilitate and shape personalised interactions among end-users and complementors, organised through the systematic collection, algorithmic processing, monetisation, and circulation of data.”
They define platformisation as “the penetration of infrastructures, economic processes and governmental frameworks of digital platforms in different economic sectors and spheres of life, as well as the reorganisation of cultural practices and imaginations around these platforms.”
They begin from the standpoint that platform businesses have become increasingly central to public and private life, “transforming key economic sectors and spheres of life, including journalism, transportation, entertainment, education, finance, and health care.” The currently dominant platforms including Facebook (Meta), Google, Amazon, and Uber are global, with economic, social, and political impacts in societies everywhere. Platforms and platformisation have been studied from a business perspective, which has theorized their economic effects as generators of innovation and capital accumulation. This perspective typically regards the term “platform” as economically centered and productive, where users “organize their activities around proprietary, for-profit platforms.”
Software studies have developed in parallel with the business perspective, and have highlighted the systematic collection, processing, and commodification of user data. Research in this area has been concerned with the “infrastructuralization of platforms” and the integration of third parties such as content creators, app developers, and other entities given access via APIs and Software Development Kits. The authors consider software studies as complementary to the business approach, as the pro-profit technology firms seek to expand their computational and economic connections.
Critical political economics research, by Fuchs, Noble, and Duffy have called attention to the concentration of capital and power in the Big Tech sector, and to issues such as surveillance, and the exploitation of labor exploitation. Jin and others have argued that dominant platform firms are the new “imperial” powers, giving rise to “platform imperialism.” Cultural studies research has focused on platforms’ transformation of social and cultural practices, and the mutual shaping of technologies and technology users.
The authors also discuss the role of platforms in asymmetrical power relations, network effects, and concentration of markets by dominant platform companies. They offer a useful definition of datafication, as “the ways in which digital platforms render into data, practices and processes that historically eluded quantification.” They note the many ways platforms and datafication practices have been extended into virtually every corner of daily life via “smart” devices. And they provide the term “complementors” as a category or label for those “who actively integrate platform data in products and services that are used in everyday practices and routines.” For example:
“Many news organisations and journalists, for example, use social media data in editorial decision-making and in content distribution strategies (Van Dijck, Poell, & De Waal, 2018). It is through such emerging cultural practices that data infrastructures become important in particular economic sectors and activities.”
The article cites a number of well-regarded critical scholars, such as Christain Fuchs, Yoshi Benkler, and Jonathan Zittraine. Interestingly, the authors identify many examples of recursive and mutual shaping by platforms and people as subjects. These examples can be seen as “structuration,” yet the authors do not refer to this dialectic as structuration or cite Anthony Giddens, the originator of structuration theory.
In conclusion, the authors provide a promising framework for research on the cultural and institutional connections and tensions of platformisation. Research on platforms has focused on business and economics, computation and software, critical political economics, and cultural studies. Their argument suggests that the most fruitful research on the societal effects and implications of platformisation may be at the intersections of these disciplines.
Adventures in Information Science 