Digital Technologies and the Public Sphere in Spain: Spatial Metaphors, Viewers’ Perceptions and Demands in Light of the Democratic Challenge (2014–2017)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting piece of research and writing. The possibilities of the paper are many and both the data collection and the data analysis are a good opportunity; and somewhat it feels that this could be slightly sharpened to make it into a very sound piece. I would like to point at three conceptual issues, in particular; a methodological remark; and probably a couple of points regarding style and writing strategy. 

Starting from the latter, there are a few typos in the text (nothing to bad, really, the work in English is good; but it is worth a couple of points); and the balances of the contents could use a little check: the body of findings and discussion is a little bit too broad and long: verbatim could be shorter, the points clearer and overall avoid a good 1000 words in the description of the map of perspectives and arguments. I would also suggest some signposting that helped orientate in the multifaceted lines of interpretation: points of contact that say~: first, this will be about space online, then about participation, then about ownership. Signposting helps also the building of general reasonings and to build broader and more general arguments -it feels they are missing in the too short discussion section. In other words, I would recommend shorten the findings to improve the discussion, and probably to add a point or two in the lit review at the beginning. 

This is where the conceptual remarks could help:

The initial lit review feels a little dated, and a little dislocated: the use of the notion of "space" - I assume this is derived from a metaphor pulled from the idea of generated with the English translation of the German "Offentlichkeit" into "public sphere" returned to Spanish as "esfera publica"; instead of the admittedly confusing idea of "publicidad" as it was initially translated from the German -even before it was translated into English.

This is a problematic gesture, because rather than a space, the "publicness" is a condition; and the condition in itself involves that it is accessible for all, that it is owned by the public entity -such as the state-; or that it is public as in shared by the community. The long shot of turning this into a space is confusing because it mixes things; and the paper could use some clarification.

For instance: the notion of space as the square and the 15M, Indignados, or Arab Spring and Occupy movements have been extensively studied and the literature is missing; not only in their social and political dimensions but also in the changes in knowledge (Elwood, S, Leszczynski, A (2013)); and there, the use of mobile phones was fundamental as a new exploration of a space that does not limit to the dychotomies: virtual/physical, but that rather integrates both. In that context, the notions of geomedia/locative media in combination with social networks and movements and the integration of Geography and Communication (as explored by Adams and Jansson, 2012) would enrich the starting points and probably to an extent the analysis (for a general lit review on the topic, feel free to consider Rodriguez-Amat, J. R., & Brantner, C. (2016).

The mobile-internet does not seem to appear in the conversations or in the preparations for them, because the effort to keep the traditional media outlets in the center of the picture seems to be a priority in the text. If so, absolutely legitimate, it would be necessary to clarify this earlier and mention something in the direction of "the perceptions of the media outlets" in times of "Indignados"; rather than teasing with an idea of space that is rather misleading.

The next issue, here is because the "public sphere" is also consolidated as a political notion -that refers to the conditions for the public debate in democracy as structurally relevant for the legitimacy of governments- and the use in the article is only political in some points. I also perceived that the article uses "social space", "public space" or "media space". I also invite the use of "communicative space" as a concept used by Philip Schlesinger in the 90s. And in any case, a review of the available literature at the start, to challenge and clarify the use of the concepts would help.

Overall, I would say, a stronger literature review would also enrich the discussion of the paper and would put it more in the line of what has been published since in other conceptual landscapes -such as the English speaking publication circuit. At that point, the contributions from the Spanish speaking perspective would build a stronger dialogue and increase the relevance of the paper.

All these aspects should help point the article to a clearer purpose: I am not entirely sure how relevant is today to talk only about a space that still confronts integrated or apocalyptic perspectives; when the material from the focus groups and the interviews could actually provide a good, nuanced and complex discussion more towards the current situation of the media landscape, of their trustworthiness, of the profession of journalism. I am not sure if a slight general rearrangement of the paper -less towards space and more towards news media- would help, but I think it would.

Finally the methodology is unclear, because the profiles of the participants are not explained: technophiles? activists? how are these categories determined and by whom? A couple of lines connecting this with the recruitment of the participants would be very helpful. 

I hope these points make sense, and that the authors see here an opportunity to improve the paper as a whole. I recommend publication after these points are readjusted, and I will be happy to offer a second review and as much clarification as the authors might need to respond to the points mentioned here.

Author Response

REVIEWER: "This is an interesting piece of research and writing. The possibilities of the paper are many and both the data collection and the data analysis are a good opportunity; and somewhat it feels that this could be slightly sharpened to make it into a very sound piece. I would like to point at three conceptual issues, in particular; a methodological remark; and probably a couple of points regarding style and writing strategy. 

Starting from the latter, there are a few typos in the text (nothing to bad, really, the work in English is good; but it is worth a couple of points); and the balances of the contents could use a little check: the body of findings and discussion is a little bit too broad and long: verbatim could be shorter, the points clearer and overall avoid a good 1000 words in the description of the map of perspectives and arguments."

AUTHORS: An English revision has been undertaken and some tipos have been corrected, like health, instead of heath of poluted instead of populated.

REVIEWER: "I would also suggest some signposting that helped orientate in the multifaceted lines of interpretation: points of contact that say~: first, this will be about space online, then about participation, then about ownership. Signposting helps also the building of general reasonings and to build broader and more general arguments -it feels they are missing in the too short discussion section. In other words, I would recommend shorten the findings to improve the discussion, and probably to add a point or two in the lit review at the beginning."

AUTHORS: The introduction has been broadened in order to connect in a more visible way the relevance of the way in which space is conceptualised, the concept of communicative space, and the objective of our article: describing and making sense of the spacial metaphors of the communicative space. Some signposting has been included also, for instance, just after the introduction section and before the methodology section. The findings have been shortened, specially participants’ voices. Finally, some paraprahs have also been added to the discussion and conclusión sections.

REVIEWER: "This is where the conceptual remarks could help:

The initial lit review feels a little dated, and a little dislocated: the use of the notion of "space" - I assume this is derived from a metaphor pulled from the idea of generated with the English translation of the German "Offentlichkeit" into "public sphere" returned to Spanish as "esfera publica"; instead of the admittedly confusing idea of "publicidad" as it was initially translated from the German -even before it was translated into English.

This is a problematic gesture, because rather than a space, the "publicness" is a condition; and the condition in itself involves that it is accessible for all, that it is owned by the public entity -such as the state-; or that it is public as in shared by the community. The long shot of turning this into a space is confusing because it mixes things; and the paper could use some clarification.

For instance: the notion of space as the square and the 15M, Indignados, or Arab Spring and Occupy movements have been extensively studied and the literature is missing; not only in their social and political dimensions but also in the changes in knowledge (Elwood, S, Leszczynski, A (2013)); and there, the use of mobile phones was fundamental as a new exploration of a space that does not limit to the dychotomies: virtual/physical, but that rather integrates both. In that context, the notions of geomedia/locative media in combination with social networks and movements and the integration of Geography and Communication (as explored by Adams and Jansson, 2012) would enrich the starting points and probably to an extent the analysis (for a general lit review on the topic, feel free to consider Rodriguez-Amat, J. R., & Brantner, C. (2016).

The mobile-internet does not seem to appear in the conversations or in the preparations for them, because the effort to keep the traditional media outlets in the center of the picture seems to be a priority in the text. If so, absolutely legitimate, it would be necessary to clarify this earlier and mention something in the direction of "the perceptions of the media outlets" in times of "Indignados"; rather than teasing with an idea of space that is rather misleading.

The next issue, here is because the "public sphere" is also consolidated as a political notion -that refers to the conditions for the public debate in democracy as structurally relevant for the legitimacy of governments- and the use in the article is only political in some points. I also perceived that the article uses "social space", "public space" or "media space". I also invite the use of "communicative space" as a concept used by Philip Schlesinger in the 90s. And in any case, a review of the available literature at the start, to challenge and clarify the use of the concepts would help.

Overall, I would say, a stronger literature review would also enrich the discussion of the paper and would put it more in the line of what has been published since in other conceptual landscapes -such as the English speaking publication circuit. At that point, the contributions from the Spanish speaking perspective would build a stronger dialogue and increase the relevance of the paper.

All these aspects should help point the article to a clearer purpose: I am not entirely sure how relevant is today to talk only about a space that still confronts integrated or apocalyptic perspectives; when the material from the focus groups and the interviews could actually provide a good, nuanced and complex discussion more towards the current situation of the media landscape, of their trustworthiness, of the profession of journalism. I am not sure if a slight general rearrangement of the paper -less towards space and more towards news media- would help, but I think it would."

AUTHORS: The first section has been developed with two objectives: 1) to broade the bibliography revision and to build up the link between the key concepts and the analysis. In this fashion, the focus of the article has been put on the social perception of spatial metaphors, which are also representations of placement- which not only refers to spce but also to time.

We have refered to the concept of public sphere, but it has been redirected to that of communicative space, subject to mediations. For that the concept by Philip Schlesinger in the 90s have been incorporated, which has been updated

José Manuel Pérez Tornero (2020) contribution in which the communicative ecosystem is viewed in relation to digital technologies of mediation, transformation and control.

In relation to the spatial dimensión, Adams and Jansson (2012) as well as Rodriguez-Amat and Brantner (2016) have enriched the discussion about space and social movements in the beguinning the the XXI century.

REVIEWER: "Finally the methodology is unclear, because the profiles of the participants are not explained: technophiles? activists? how are these categories determined and by whom? A couple of lines connecting this with the recruitment of the participants would be very helpful."

AUTHORS: The process of recruitment of participants and their profiles have been explained now in four paragraphs in the methodology section.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this paper asks an interesting question, but I found its narrative very difficult to follow and its language dense and meandering. I think there are entirely too many analysis points going on with tenuous or imprecise relationships to the main hypothesis and question. My advice is to focus in on the story of your research more and frame the analysis that way.

We go from an interesting presentation of the public square metaphor to a discussion of placement and displacement. I would like to see the discussion section broken down by the metaphors being discussed in the introduction - a section for an open public square, a section for a traffic labyrinth - and the sub-themes under these. Tighten the analysis and focus it in on those instead of building all of the analysis themes broadly and leaving it to the reader to tie together. 

In addition, it is hard to know from the methods section how many people have actually participated in these several focus groups. The methods section needs to be expanded to include numbers of participants, maybe demographics if available, and the context for the original focus group interviews. This can help with understanding the input for the analysis being undertaken.

Author Response

REVIEWER: "I think this paper asks an interesting question, but I found its narrative very difficult to follow and its language dense and meandering."

AUTHORS: The text has been revised in order to add fluidity to the narrative. For instance some paragraphs have been changed (see attached file).

REVIEWER: "I think there are entirely too many analysis points going on with tenuous or imprecise relationships to the main hypothesis and question. My advice is to focus in on the story of your research more and frame the analysis that way.

We go from an interesting presentation of the public square metaphor to a discussion of placement and displacement. I would like to see the discussion section broken down by the metaphors being discussed in the introduction - a section for an open public square, a section for a traffic labyrinth - and the sub-themes under these. Tighten the analysis and focus it in on those instead of building all of the analysis themes broadly and leaving it to the reader to tie together."

AUTHORS: These recomendations have been taken into account in several ways:

Firstly, as already explained in relation to revision , the introduction has been broadened in order to connect in a more visible way the relevance of the way in which space is conceptualised, the concept of communicative space, and the objective of our article: describing and making sense of the spacial metaphors of the communicative space. Some signposting has been included also, for instance, just after the introduction section and before the methodology section.

Secondly, the methodology section has now been developed in order con describe in a better the conditions and narrative of our research Project, and this specific research, and therefore to make more explicit the conexión between the conceptual framework and the research questions, key in the empirical work structure. (Aquí se podrían traer párrafos clave)

• In the discussion it has been explained in a more explicit way how the different methaphors can be understood in relation to two polarised models: the square, and a laberthintic one way. The discussion adds a paragraph which broadens the interpretation of results and situated PIS as a reference or guide in both representative universerses.

Besides, the mehodological contribution of Elwood and Leszczynski (2013) has been considered relevant to our work, and has been included in section one. The Communication Geography approach shares our view of our distribution and management of knowledge in media. In Section 2 our doublé specific contribution has been stressed: firstly, an empirical one, to elaborate a descritive geography of citizens perception of communicative space in the utopic moment of 2014-2018 , and secondly, one with a simbolic dimension: to visualize the main spatial metaphors thorugh the semiotic analysis of discourses.

REVIEWER: "In addition, it is hard to know from the methods section how many people have actually participated in these several focus groups. The methods section needs to be expanded to include numbers of participants, maybe demographics if available, and the context for the original focus group interviews. This can help with understanding the input for the analysis being undertaken."

AUTHORS: People participating and demographics have been described now in the fourth paragraph of the methodology section. The paragraph is pasted here:

Furthermore, reasonable degree of general diversity was needed to make sure that different positions were taken into account. Thirty subjects took part in the discussion groups: eighteen men and twelve women. Five of them were aged over fifty five, twelve between thirty six and fifty five and twenty one under thirty five. Groups in different provinces: Madrid (1), Seville (3) and La Laguna (1). Each group had among six to eight people, according to the approach recommended by Javier Callejo-Gallego (2002: 418).

The context for original focus groups as regards the research project – to which this study belongs to- as well as the logic behing the recruiting process has been explained in the three first paragraphs of the methodology section. More information about the functioning of focus groups is also provided in a paragraph, copied in here:

The discussion groups were conducted with minimal intervention from the moderator, who had to ensure that the following issues were addressed: (1)News consumption: most frequently viewed media; media specifically viewed for their news programmes; and TVE viewing time and habits. (2)Journalistic standards and values and their role in democracy. (3) Public service journalism specificity: differences with commercial media journalism. (4)Noted trends in TVE news. (5)Connection with the audience and recognition: the extent to which people feel that public service journalism reflects their work, problems or concerns; and the extent to which they remember news stories and use them in making decisions.

We thank the referee as this information helps understand better the logic behind the papers’ contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

in a clear and rigorous way, the article develops a very relevant issue today: the role of discourse on social networks in the quality of civic life, and in the deepening of democracy.
The literature review seems adequate, and clearly situates two fields: the normative value of public communication and the factuality that exists in discussion groups promoted by new information technologies.
The adopted methodology responds to the proposed research objectives.
We highlight the clarity with which the results are presented and discussed, which allow to identify, in a clear way, the common forms of interaction with the different media, and the way in which these forms of interaction correlate with the political / democratic effects of the media - specifically through the effects of polatization that occur there.
Taking as a last reference the most recent social developments (namely, those that relate to the current pandemic situation), the article provides a very valid contribution to the understanding of the relationship between the uses of different media, the creation and development of spaces for interaction and the deepening of the public space.

Author Response

¡Thank for your such a positive evaluation!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am very pleased with the changes and with the celerity and detail in the response. Overall the text reads a lot lighter and a lot clearer -it is more aerodynamic- and the voice of the authors and the relevance of the conclusions are better perceived.  

The text reads overall good and except for very minor typos -a "they're" somewhere, and a text in bold that should not, somewhere else- the full picture and read are good.

I am afraid, but I still have an issue with the starting sentence of the article. 

"We live in a space (square) and time (period) through which we move. We call this type of complex, symbolically constructed unit a ‘placement’, given that in our life experience we have our fundamental reference in the spatial and in its alteration (Vázquez Medel 2003)"

I feel it is a little too packed with intention, and instead it loses its purpose somewhere on the way. Could it not work something like "The complex time-space coordinates in which we move form a symbolically constructed unit, a "placement" that works as our fundamental experiential spatial referent". I think because it is the first sentence of the text, it deserves special attention. Please, do not assume my suggestion as an imposition -far from it, you are the author(s).

I hope that the review comments have been perceived as helpful; and I thank you, because I have learned a lot from your work!  

Author Response

The minor typos has been modified in lines 421, 436, 464, 465, 521 and 501 (please, see the attached document).

The first paragraph has been modified:

"The complex time-space coordinates in which we move form a symbolically constructed unit, a "placement" that works as our fundamental experiential spatial referent and its alteration. The knowledge and identities of subjects and communities that are established as soon as subjectivities emerge, depend on both the stage setting and the geographical abstraction which we inhabit through our use of all sorts of devices (Elwood and Leszczynski 2013). So, knowledge is inserted into a spatio-temporal structure and, therefore, formalised with a specific order, with rules, with a disposition and, consequently, with a code or, at a higher level of complexity, through a language deployed by means of discourse. As a result, discourses take shape in social practices and generate institutions and channels which also frame intersubjective life experiences, marking the times and spaces of communicative interaction (Vázquez Medel 2003) and moulding spatial settings and meanings."

Note that we moved Vázquez Medel's reference to the end of the paragraph, into a simplified syntaxis sentence.

The starting sentence has been modified also. Note that we added "...and its alteration": for us, the placement depends on time and its changes, so we felt that this detail was important. Anyway, thanks for the very helpful suggestion!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is much improved over the first version I reviewed. The signposting is much better and the metaphors better explained. I also appreciated the additional methodological details.

One small suggestion, perhaps not for this study but for future work, might be to engage with ideas of "third place", particularly the Internet as a "third place". See, e.g., Soukup 2006 https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/1461444806061953

This is a bit of an old idea in terms of the evolution of the Internet as being more embedded in every day life but I think this idea may be related to your work in some interesting ways. I encourage you to explore it.

Author Response

Thanks for such a positive evaluation! We are glad to take this definition of the Internet as a "third space" for our future researches in this area.