In the light of a new level of reciprocal visibility in the digital age, the journalist–audience relationship has fundamentally changed. Mutual expectations become visible or evolve anew. The question arises as to how these expectations and their (non-)fulfillment influence the journalist–audience relationship. Taking an interpersonal communication perspective by following expectancy violations theory, we focus on the level of interactions and propose a theoretical framework explaining how the interplay of journalists’ and audience’s mutual expectations affects their relationship. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the journalist–audience relationship in digital media environments—and to provide indications for its functioning or failure.

No abstract

No abstract

In the digital age, calls for transparency and openness as well as for privacy and confidentiality prevail: Struggles for visibility occur simultaneously with conflicts regarding invisibility and hidden battles for power and privileges of interpretation. Concerns about a loss of digital self-determination exist, just like those regarding the “right to be forgotten” or the right to become invisible and unseen. While the idea of a “transparent user” – as the ultimate notion of (in)voluntary visibility – has caused a broad outcry in society and in scientific debates a few years ago (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), the discussion has shifted toward considerations of Internet governance and regulation (Camenisch, Fischer-Hübner, & Hansen, 2015). Brighenti (2010, p. 109) has pointed out that visibility has long been one of the key aspects “associated with the public sphere” and that in today’s digitized publics, the “project of democracy can no longer be imagined without taking into account visibility and its outcomes” (Brighenti, 2010, p. 189). Visibility and invisibility, along with their societal outcomes, are increasingly being discussed and analyzed, as they are becoming important dimensions in the accurate description and explanation of digital communication.

PurposeEngaging with stakeholders in “a personal, intimate way” (Men and Tsai, 2016, p. 932) or “includ[ing] the ‘personal touch’” (Kent and Taylor, 1998, p. 323) is often seen as desirable in internal communication management. While the importance of personal communication is undisputed from the perspectives of internal communication, its communicators, and from internal stakeholders, this is not true when it comes to the dimensions and characteristics that constitute an experience of communication as feeling personal. The present study aims to explore what makes communication personal from the employees' perspective.Design/methodology/approachThe study used the Q methodology and Q method, thus focusing on an individual's subjective perspective. The Q methodology was implemented in the form of a Q-sort survey exploring the perceptions of 32 German employees (selected from a representative cross-section of 400 employees in Germany, using a balanced-block design to maximize heterogeneity).FindingsThe results show that while direct and dyadic communication is often perceived as personal, many other dimensions and characteristics are also considered “personal” in both the literature and based on stakeholder perceptions. The Q-sort survey revealed four perception types whose perceptions of communication as “personal” vary widely, with all these types rejecting non-human communicators.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the limited understanding of employees' perceptions of internal communication as “personal.” It shows how the Q methodology and Q method—a rarely used perspective—can complement existing theoretical and empirical research on internal communication. For internal communication management, the findings show that a “one-size-fits-all” approach must be questioned and that a communication team's involvement in personal communication can have negative consequences.