Call

The concept of digital landscape is mainly used to refer to town and country planning projects using digital networks and data collection and processing projects related to a geographical space (town, city, etc.). In other words, the digital landscape is often reduced to a digitally accompanied territory (Pagès, 2010). This call aims to expand the scope by considering the territory from the point of view of cyberspace defined as a digital space made up of all the global information systems (Musso, 2008), these various systems being made up of data. Mobilising the notion of territory with the use of the expression digital territory to characterise cyberspace, which for most Internet users simultaneously evokes "a virtual, dematerialised, borderless, anonymous "world" of freedom, sharing and communication" (Desforges, 2014, p. 67), is based on three premises. The first underlines the possibility of interrelating certain territorial characteristics such as the population (Internet users) and its mode of governance (self-regulation) (Desforges, 2014, p. 74) to cyberspace; the second presupposes the existence of a link between data, their organisation (Callon, 2013; Soulier, 2014) and the concept of digital territory. Finally, the last presupposes that data are constitutive of the information, knowledge and know-how developed and circulating in cyberspace. 

The questions that this dossier aims to raise deal with the following three axes: does the digital territory have a heuristic potential for studying cyberspace as a data system? What fields of knowledge constitute the digital territory(s)?   Finally, does the exposure to cyberspace, as experienced by cybernauts, structure and determine the concept of digital territory?

These three axes are a means of defining the frontiers of this call for papers and of suggesting questions or subjects for discussion without, however, claiming to be exhaustive. Authors may therefore suggest other avenues for further reflection, within the scope of this issue. Precise descriptions of theoretical frameworks, concepts and methodological approaches will be particularly appreciated.

Axis 1. The digital territory: a heuristic potential?

The link established between territory and data bolsters this first axis by considering the territory as a heuristic notion that allows us to view activities, practices, values and even objects as linked to digital data.

We therefore find it interesting in this call for papers to use the notion of digital territory of which the boundaries can be drawn by taking another look at the main characteristics of the territory, on the basis of the data: the spatial, cultural or historical dimensions; the authorities who hold sway (Le Roux, Thébault, 2018, p. (Le Roux, Thébault, 2018, p. 58); the nature of the distances it brings into play - physical, social or symbolic; the established frontiers (Lévy, Lussault, 2013); the places it links; the relationships to time deployed, both in terms of layer and flow (‘temporal thickness’ and ‘social organisation of time’, Dupont, 2019). Certain aspects specific to data should also be taken into consideration, such as the interoperability possibilities they offer, the functions provided by metadata or the quantity of available documentation (Jacquemin et al., 2018).

Contributors are invited to verify that the socio-digital means of treating data belong to a specific context such that the notion of digital territory is approached in an original manner. From a cultural point of view, does the mediation of platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, or digital video-conferencing provide the necessary conditions for coexistence (‘living together’, Caune, 2017), for actual encounters (Le Bourlot, 2011) or, on the contrary, do they go no further than mere interactions. From this, would it be possible to perceive within them the development of specific modalities for the interpretation of data that would make real territories of them with their own values, their own relationships with others and a distinctive original historical awareness?

More importantly, the status of digital territory should be questioned, to understand whether it is more akin to a figure of speech (Bonhomme, 2014) or to an evolving concept of information and communication sciences, which can be likened to the concept of information (Gardiès, 2012).

Axis 2. The composition of the digital territory

The link between territory and data proposed in this call is also open to a viewpoint related to the anthropology of knowledge (Maury, Kovacs, Marteleto, 2014), for it invites interest in the production, exchange and circulation of information and knowledge. We assume in this axis that virtual spaces are not only areas of knowledge (Jacob, 2014) but digital territories. Indeed, the knowledge produced by collaborative activities in a digital context defines spaces (De Certeau, 1990) with flexible boundaries where humans, knowledge, onscreen written content (Souchier, 1996; Jeanneret, 2000) and technical objects interact. For instance, a topic found on Wikipedia (Levrel, 2006) can be the starting point for exploring a digital territory. A possible method to define this latter would be based both on the monitoring of internal and external links, and on the analysis of activities and interactions (Dujarier, 2016) related to the collaborative digital writing process. Contributors will thus be able to analyse the nature of the knowledge that constitutes digital territories (technical knowledge, cultural knowledge, expert knowledge, natural knowledge, know-how, etc.) and the way in which they participate in a territorialisation.

From another perspective, the relationships between knowledge and data will be examined by mobilising, for example, the notions of ‘digital territories of brands’ (Le Béchec, Alloing, 2018), ‘circulating fiction’ (Ibid.) and ‘cultural being’ (Jeanneret, 2008). Authors may then inquire into whether the ways of transmitting knowledge and know-how contribute to the emergence of singular collective identities and participate in the evolution of interpretations, thus turning digital tools into actual melting pots.

In other words, questioning the relationship between knowledge and territory to address data, metadata, digital footprints and information in a context of collective digital writing opens up new perspectives for exploration.

Axis 3. Experiencing cyberspace as a digital territory

Knowledge, know-how, territories, whether geographical or digital, would be nothing without individuals interacting directly or "remotely" (Flichy, 2005) with each other. Thus, humans themselves and the communities they form also participate in the present and future resources of a territory.

This axis focuses on the individual and collective social experience (Dubet, 2016) of cyberspace, perceived as the set of socio-digital tools (Larroche, 2018). However, our approach to social experience reintegrates the weight of socialisation as an explanatory variable of experiences and behaviours. This means understanding the social conditions from which the players’experiences create a territory. Do the individuals themselves, whether simple Internet users or IT workers, have a clear or vague feeling that they are operating in a territory? Beyond affects, does the integrated knowledge specific to the social, cultural or political experience of the territory (geographical, urban, political & administrative...), and which acts as habitus (socially ingrained habits, Elias, 2003), shape our relationship with socio-digital tools? That is, how do they determine the uses, practices and representations that we have and that we make of digital tools? In a nutshell, doesn't this nonconscious territory (Robert, 2012) structure our relationship to cyberspace?

The authors may thus revisit the experiential processes of digital territorialisation. For example, they might want to draw on the analysis of the accounts that individuals give of their experiences in cyberspace to show that they refer implicitly, or even explicitly, to territory, both in terms of semantics and "ways of doing things" (Becker, 1988) themselves.

Schedule

• 4^th May 2020: publication of the call for papers

• 1^st October 2020: submission of manuscripts for peer-review (about 5,000 characters’ spaces included, not including bibliography) (report)

• 21^st October 2020: acceptance or rejection of proposals (report)

• 4^th February 2021: receipt of whole articles for peer-review (report)

• 8^th April 2021: referees’ reports (report)

• 30^th June 2021: receipt of final versions of manuscripts (report)

• November 2021: publication of the 3rd issue of the journal Balisages (report)

Guidelines for authors

Submissions in both French and English are welcome.

The summaries must be approximately between 3,000 and 5,000 characters long (including spaces) and must be anonymised.

The texts must be approximately between 30,000 and 40,000 characters long (including spaces) and must be anonymised.

Authors are encouraged to comply with the guidelines for authors concerning the formatting of the text and the standardisation of bibliographic references.

Article proposals should be sent to the three coordinators of this special issue in the format of their choice (doc, odt or md) : Valérie Larroche (valerie.larroche@enssib.fr), Geoffroy Gawin (geoffroy.gawin@enssib.fr), Emmanuel Brandl (emmanuel.brandl@enssib.fr).

Manuscripts will be subject to 2 blind peer reviews by a peer review committee whose members will be selected according to their field of expertise, upon receipt of the articles.

Peer review committee

Its members are responsible for the double-blind peer review procedure. The committee is renewed for each thematic issue according to the area of expertise requested.

Julia Bonaccorsi, Professeur d’université en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à Lumière Lyon 2 – Institut de la Communication (ELICO).

Olivier Dupont, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3.

Valentyna Dymytrova, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3.

Mabrouka El Hachani, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication à l'université Lyon 3.

Marie-Hélène Hermand, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'Université Bordeaux-Montaigne (ISIC/MICA).

Bernard Jacquemin, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'information à l'Université de Lille.

Susan Kovacs, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'information à l'Université de Lille.

Antonin Segault, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'Université Paris Nanterre (Laboratoire DICEN-IdF Université).

Marta Severo, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'Université Paris Nanterre.

Florence Thiault, Maître de conférences en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à l'université de Rennes 2.