At a national workshop, Danish scholars asked what media researchers could do differently and better, searching for cracks and gaps. Their conversations gave rise to a manifesto, published last year in MedieKultur. In the hope of sparking debate, and above all encouraging action, the NordMedia Network republishes its seven statements for the year ahead and those that follow.
Titled “Manifesto for transformist media scholars: A multivocal chorus for troubled times”, the text opens with a question: Can, may, might media scholars be utopic activists?
Initiated by Susana Tosca and Sara Mosberg Iversen, the piece emerged from a workshop at the 2024 SMiD conference. There, around 35 Danish and international media scholars came together to reflect on their role in a media landscape increasingly shaped by platform power, acceleration, individualisation, and ecological crisis. Their conversations culminated in a manifesto. What follows are the seven statements that give it shape.
Reject Dehumanising Ontologies
The manifesto begins with a clear rejection of research frameworks that flatten people into data points, metrics, or abstract “users”. Several contributors argue that media research comes with responsibility – especially in contexts shaped by war, political polarisation, and automated decision-making. Rather than treating inclusion as an afterthought, the text calls for research practices that deliberately bring in voices that are routinely marginalised or erased, both within media systems and within research itself.
Resist Individualisation
Academic life increasingly rewards the solo performer: the branded researcher, the measurable output, the personal impact score. The manifesto pushes back. Knowledge, the authors insist, is produced collectively – through shared labour, discussion, care, and disagreement. Resisting individualisation means crediting invisible work, sharing authorship, and questioning evaluation systems that turn colleagues into competitors.
Regulate Big Tech
Calls to regulate platforms are longstanding, but that manifesto insists that media scholars should not retreat into commentary alone. It argues that regulation should be informed by research into how people actually experience platforms, not only by abstract risk assessments or economic reasoning. At the same time, it acknowledges a recurring frustration: Scholarly input is often marginal in policy debates, while responsibility is shifted onto users instead of platforms. The Danish scholars therefore frame regulation as going hand in hand with resistance – through experiments with alternative infrastructures, open-source tools, and different ways of organising media life.
Ruin Growth Ideologies
“More” is not the same as “better”. This statement takes aim at the idea that expansion, acceleration, and constant innovation are inherently good – particularly in media industries and academia. Several voices in the manifesto argue for slowing down, suggesting that this “might allow us to better understand and ethically engage with the complexities of life and the existential dilemmas of digital existence”.
Raise up Safe Spaces for Community and Reflection
The manifesto values spaces where scholars can think aloud, ask “stupid” questions, and disagree without fear. Such spaces already exist, the contributors note, but they are often temporary, fragile, and easily lost. Maintaining them requires effort, mentorship, and sometimes physical co-presence.
Repurpose the Tools of Capitalism against Capitalism
Can the tools of capitalism be turned against the system that produced them, or do they inevitably reshape those who use them? Some voices invoke Audre Lorde’s warning that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Others argue for pragmatism: The world is as it is, and change must happen from within existing structures.
Revitalise Qualitative Ways of Knowing
The final statement returns to the human. In an academic climate fascinated by scale, automation, and “hard data”, qualitative research is framed as a counterweight, capable of capturing meaning, experience, and ethical complexity. Numbers alone, the manifesto suggests, cannot produce deep understanding. Revitalising qualitative work also means finding ways to bring research into dialogue with policy, local communities, and public debate.
The authors describe the manifesto as a poetic intervention – an opening for debate about the role of media and communication scholars today, rather than a document offering definitive answers.
Debate and reflection alone, however, are not enough. Action matters too. If you, dear reader, have suggestions for how this conversation might move forward in practice, we encourage you to share them. Together with those behind the manifesto, we invite a wider discussion about possible responses and about how to address what is not working in media today.
The full manifesto is available open access here.
Image: Adobe Stock.