Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Digital sociology: origin, development,
andprospects fromaglobal perspective
Yizhang Zhao1 and Mingyu Wang1*
Introduction
In 2009, Jonathan Wynn officially proposed the concept of "digital sociology"1 in a brief
journal article published in Sociological Forum (Wynn 2009). e author recounted his
experiences of using digital technology in sociological research and teaching and keenly
noted that digital technology has brought new challenges that sociology needs to explore
and study in depth. Since the publication of this article, digital technology has under-
gone a new round of rapid development worldwide, and human society has accelerated
its transition into the digital age. At the same time, the research field of "digital soci-
ology" has continued to expand, with theoretical and methodological innovations that
have gone beyond the original meaning when Wynn first used this concept. is arti-
cle will provide a brief introduction to digital sociology, outline the main research pro-
gress of Western digital sociology in six core areas, and compare the relevant research in
China and the West to provide a reference for the further development of digital sociol-
ogy in China.
Abstract
To explore the rapid development of digital technology and its profound impact
on human behavior and social functioning and to study the mechanisms by which dig-
ital technology and the social environment interact, a new branch of sociology—digi-
tal sociology—has emerged and rapidly entered a stage of vigorous development. This
article briefly introduces digital sociology and outlines the research progress of digital
sociology in six areas: labor economy and production, digital politics and power,
social relations and interaction, body and self, social inequality, and methodological
innovation. Based on this, the article compares digital sociology research in China
and the West. The rapid development of digital technology in China provides a superb
opportunity for sociology, and digital sociology has great potential for development
in China.
Keywords: Digital sociology, Digital society, Digital technology, Digital governance
Open Access
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
REVIEW
Zhaoand Wang
The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-023-00198-1
The Journal of
Chinese Sociology
*Correspondence:
wmy18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
1 Department of Sociology,
Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China
1 In 2007, the term "digital sociology" appeared in the form of a keyword in a French literature titled "Digital Visual Soci-
ology" (Losacco 2007). However, the academic community generally considers Wynn’s article as the official introduction
of the concept of "digital sociology".
Page 2 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
What isdigital sociology?
Digital technology anddigital society
Digital technology emerged with the development of modern computers and the
appearance of the World Wide Web. rough hardware (physical computer equip-
ment), software (encoding programs that provide operating instructions for comput-
ers), and the infrastructure that supports the software and hardware, various forms of
traditional information are transformed into binary digits (0 and 1) that computers can
recognize and then store, process, and disseminate. e birth and development of digi-
tal technology are important milestones in the history of technology, which have had a
profound impact on human society. Computer scientist Mark Weiser (1991) predicted
that humanity would enter an era of ubiquitous computing, in which digital technol-
ogy would be closely interwoven with people’s lives to the point that people would not
realize its widespread existence. Negroponte (1995) also noted that all media would rap-
idly digitize, and computers would be able to perform facial and speech recognition and
interact intelligently with users. ese predictions, which appeared to be science fiction
at the time, have been realized one by one over the past thirty years, and the depicted
scenes have become commonplace in people’s daily lives.
With the rapid development of digital technology, human society has entered a brand
new era of digital society. As of the end of 2021, mobile network coverage has reached
95% of the global population, with 88% covered by 4G mobile networks (ITU 2022). Peo-
ple widely use digital devices such as laptops, tablets, smartphones, and smartwatches
to access information, communicate, consume, entertain, and participate in public life
through applications. Digital technology has not only reconstructed the basic appear-
ance of social life but also triggered fundamental social changes. Helbing (2021) believes
that while we are buried in our smartphones, the world is quietly changing around us—
digital technology will not only construct human discourse and institutions but also
reshape the entire world. Scholars in China hold similar views. Zeqi Qiu (2022) noted
that digital society penetrates the original division of labor and organizational structure
through network interconnection, making the individual a basic node of the digital net-
work and forming a new social form with the individual as an independent unit. e
relationship between individuals and society, the underlying logic of social differentia-
tion, and the basic principles of social operation will also undergo profound changes.
In addition, the coexistence of information explosion and "information cocoons," the
coexistence of the inclusiveness of cyberspace and the polarization of discourse, and the
coexistence of flattening structures and expanding gaps have also aroused much atten-
tion (Wang 2021). In the face of the social changes brought about by digital technology
and the new problems in digital society, in-depth sociological research needs to be con-
ducted. In this context, digital sociology has emerged.
The scope ofdigital sociology
e concept of "digital sociology" was officially proposed in 2009 and gradually gained
recognition in international academia. In just over a decade, digital sociology has rapidly
Page 3 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
developed and grown, with various specialized works being published,2 greatly increas-
ing the audience of digital sociology. At the same time, sociological associations in var-
ious countries have begun to establish research branches related to digital sociology.3
Many universities have also started to offer degrees and courses related to digital sociol-
ogy.4 e academic community in the field of digital sociology is gradually developing
worldwide, and research related to digital sociology continues to increase (see Fig.1).
Since its inception, digital sociology has rekindled the imagination of sociology regard-
ing many issues and provided a new lens for understanding the digital transformation of
human society and the relationship between individuals and society in the digital world.
Despite the widespread adoption of and attention to the concept of "digital sociology"
among scholars, there is still no unified understanding in the academic community, and
scholars continue to have debates on two core issues: first, whether digital sociology
should be understood as a comprehensive revolution of sociology in the digital age or as
a new branch of sociological research; second, how the research scope of digital sociol-
ogy should be defined.
Fig. 1 Distribution of publications and citation frequency related to digital sociology (2001–2021). Data
source: Web of Science Core Collection. Topic = "The digital", research field = "Sociology", publication
year = 2001–2021. A total of 3050 articles were retrieved with a total citation frequency of 39,966. The search
was conducted in April 2022
2 British scholars Orton-Johnson and Prior (2013) compiled a collection of scholars’ research into a book titled "Digital
Sociology: Critical Perspectives," and Australian scholar Lupton (2015) published the first monograph in the field, "Digi-
tal Sociology," followed by other works (Marres 2017; Selwyn 2019).
3 In 2012, the British Sociological Association established a digital sociology research group; in 2013, the Australian
Sociological Association held its first digital sociology forum at its annual conference; and in 2015, the Eastern Socio-
logical Society in the United States held an academic conference in New York on the theme of digital sociology.
4 In 2013, Goldsmiths, University of London established the world’s first master’s program in digital sociology, followed
closely by the University of Edinburgh, the University of Glasgow, and Virginia Commonwealth University in the United
States.
Page 4 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Regarding the first issue, there have been two opinions. According to the first, if sociol-
ogy aims to thrive in the twenty-first century, it must have theoretical explanatory power
for the digital revolution and digital transformation. Since the digitalization process
involves many areas of sociological research, each area should respond to it. erefore,
digital sociology does not have a unified agenda and should not be discussed in singu-
lar form but in plural form as "digital sociologies" (Gregory etal. 2017). Selwyn (2019)
emphasized that digital sociology emerged from the research tradition of sociology but
also provided an opportunity for sociology to move away from the industrial revolution
and toward modern society. ere may not be a digital sociology per se twenty years in
the future because all elements of sociology will be digital by then. e other perspec-
tive considers digital sociology a branch of sociology (Lupton 2015). Digital sociology
provides a perspective for understanding society but should not be understood as all
of sociology in the digital age. Similarly, any social phenomenon involves environmen-
tal factors, but such aspects may not need to be emphasized in all sociological research
(Marres 2017).
Although the scope of research on digital sociology has been debated, most research-
ers agree on the core of digital sociology, which is concerned with the shaping of social
structures and social relations by digital technology and how the development and appli-
cation of digital technology is affected by the social environment (Orton-Johnson and
Prior 2013; Lupton 2015; Marres2017; Selwyn2019; Fussey and Roth 2020). Beyond
the binary relationship of digital technology and society, some scholars note that digi-
tal sociology also involves the threefold relationship of digital technology, society, and
knowledge production (Marres 2017). e application of digital technology not only
shapes social life and knowledge production processes, but its interactive properties and
universality also make it possible for academic analysis to be more effectively combined
with social intervention, thus opening up new possibilities for the interaction of these
three elements (Marres 2017). Digital sociology not only focuses on this new possibil-
ity but also critically reflects on its own knowledge production process (Lupton 2015).
Some scholars believe that digital sociology also includes a more general research scope,
such as focusing on the operational logic of information and data flows themselves,
as well as their management and usage methods (Webster 2013). Some scholars have
claimed that, in addition to being understood as an object of study, digital sociology can
also be treated as a research tool and a platform for engaging with the public (Lupton
2015).
ere is ongoing academic debate regarding the abovementioned issues, and no con-
sensus has yet been reached. Regarding the first issue, this article tends to define digi-
tal sociology as a new branch of sociology. Only by focusing on digital technology or
related social phenomena can a study be considered to have a research topic of digital
sociology. Regarding the second issue, we tend to define digital sociology based on the
core research areas widely explored and discussed in the academic community. Com-
bining our opinions on the two issues above, this article defines digital sociology as
follows: digital sociology is a subdiscipline of sociology that employs sociological per-
spectives and research methods to explore the development and application of digital
technology, focuses on the impact of digital technology on human behavior and the
operation of society, and examines the mechanisms of the mutual construction between
Page 5 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
digital technology and the social environment. It is worth noting that this definition is
mainly based on the current development of digital sociology. With the expansion of
the research scope, the understanding of digital sociology may also change accordingly.
Next, based on the above definition, this article will focus on six main themes of current
digital sociology in the West and make a comparison with digital sociology in China.
Six major research themes inWestern digital sociology
Labor economics andproduction
At the birth of sociology, classical theorists engaged in profound thinking in response
to the changes brought about by large-scale machine production in the economic and
social domains. Among these theorists, Marx systematically analyzed the changes in
the labor process and production relations brought about by technological innovation,
which aroused sociologists’ sustained attention to labor issues. Currently, digital tech-
nology is widely applied to the production process, contributing to economic growth
while also bringing about a series of profound changes. Digital sociology has conducted
initial research on this, focusing mainly on the following three aspects: the new eco-
nomic forms and production modes in traditional industries spurred by digital technol-
ogy, changes in labor conditions and the establishment of new labor-capital relations,
and issues related to ‘prosumption’ and new forms of exploitation in the digital economy.
First, the widespread application of digital technology has given rise to new forms of
economy. With the booming digital economy, industries such as ride-hailing, online
sales, and short video operations, relying on the Internet and various platforms, have
absorbed a large number of employment populations. Some scholars believe this new
economic model has transformative power (Parker etal. 2016). Compared to traditional
business operations, digital platforms can reduce transaction costs, weaken market bar-
riers, and establish an interconnected economic form of "microentrepreneurs." Ordinary
people can also improve the value of idle goods and earn income through digital plat-
forms, enabling those who cannot enter the labor market to gain more opportunities
(Sundararajan 2017).
e application of digital technology has also driven changes in the production mode
of traditional industries. According to an analysis of 32 member countries in the Organi-
zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), AI and automation tech-
nology will make 14% of jobs machine-dominated, and another 32% of jobs may undergo
significant changes. Industries that are heavily impacted include agriculture, transpor-
tation, primary manufacturing, and some service industries (Nedelkoska and Quintini
2018). In addition, some technically and professionally demanding occupations are
also affected. For example, the traditional news industry is facing transformation, and
the news production process is constantly being reshaped. Some media companies are
using algorithms to replace human labor, and news related to sports and finance is being
automatically generated by computers (Cohen 2015). Digital technology has lowered the
threshold of the traditional news industry, and the public is also involved in the process
of producing news content. us, journalists need to quote more from other sources and
seek cooperation with the public (Wheatley 2020).
Second, the development of the digital economy has also led to changes in labor-
ers’ working conditions. Flexible employment and gig services have become new
Page 6 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
employment models, increasing job flexibility yet leading to greater instability for
workers (Duffy 2020; Kalleberg and Vallas 2018; Vallas and Schor 2020). Platform
competition, price wars, and increased transaction volume can erode workers’ labor
conditions, and digital platforms may reduce workers’ benefits and labor protec-
tions through temporary contracts (Schor and Attwood-Charles 2017). Wood etal.
(2019a) found that digital platforms establish reward and punishment mechanisms
based on algorithms, and consumers can rate platform workers’ services. To obtain
a higher reputation rating, platform workers may face consequences such as over-
time work, sleep deprivation, and excessive fatigue. However, some researchers have
argued that this description is oversimplified and ignores the heterogeneity of digi-
tal platforms and workers. For example, laborers who rely on digital platforms to
earn supplementary income have higher job autonomy, hourly wages, and satisfac-
tion with the platform. On the other hand, for those who rely on these platforms to
obtain basic income, their job stability is poorer, and they are more likely to have
strong dissatisfaction with the platform (Schor etal. 2020).
Moreover, digital technology has also facilitated the establishment of new labor-
capital relations. Digital platforms have reduced the cost of labor replacement by
extensively decomposing and refining the labor process, resulting in a lack of intrin-
sic motivation to protect workers and leaving them in a more vulnerable position
than ever before (Wood etal. 2019b). Platform workers are increasingly atomized
and isolated, facing more difficulties in internal solidarity and collective action
(Gray and Suri 2019). However, it has been found in some studies that workers still
express dissatisfaction and resist labor control through various means (Tassinari
and Maccarrone 2020). When the platform’s technological, legal, and organizational
management controls are superimposed on each other, the grievances and dissatis-
faction of platform workers are intensified, and their demands for collective action
are strengthened (Lei 2021).
Third, "prosumption" creates hidden forms of exploitation. In the digital economy,
individual users gradually transform from single consumers or producers into com-
pound "prosumers." Many users contribute vast amounts of information and large
profits to digital platforms through massive "prosumption" behaviors for which com-
pensation is not needed (Ritzer etal. 2012). Some users become "Internet celebri-
ties" or "microcelebrities" by regularly sharing their daily lives, and they manage
their self-image to achieve "self-commodification" while assuming various types of
invisible labor, including emotional labor (Abidin 2017; Raun 2018). In the view of
Fuchs (2014), the "prosumer" behavior of users should be regarded as a kind of digi-
tal labor, which, like domestic labor, is mostly completed during leisure time and
creates a large amount of surplus value, but in most cases, it is not compensated
or regarded as genuine labor. Therefore, exploitation exists not only in the digital
economy but also in more covert ways.
Page 7 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Digital politics andpower
Starting with Weber’s classic discourse on power and authority, classical social theory
and STS5 research have become the theoretical pioneers of digital sociology in this field.
For example, Winner (1980) analyzed how technology has political attributes. As a typi-
cal representative of emerging technologies, digital technology reflects power relations
and its designers’ subjective intentions while also affecting power operations and peo-
ple’s political behaviors. Currently, the scope of digital sociology in this field mainly
focuses on four aspects: panoramic surveillance and power characteristics in digital
society, the nonneutrality of algorithms, political participation in digital society, and the
connotations and challenges of digital governance.
First, the panoramic surveillance of actors has been achieved in digital society, reflect-
ing more fluid power features. rough mobile devices, social media, and ubiquitous
data collection facilities, dynamic and real-time data collection is realized in a digital
society, leading to a higher degree of surveillance of actors. Digital surveillance technol-
ogy differs from previous forms of surveillance in its wide-ranging, cross-temporal, and
strong covert characteristics (Mann and Ferenbok 2013). Initially, digital surveillance
mainly manifested as the activity of governments or power institutions collecting public
data for management and regulation purposes (Brayne 2017), which constitutes surveil-
lance of the many by the few. With the popularity of the Internet and the application of
digital technology, the general public is no longer a single target of surveillance but also
becomes a surveillance subject. For example, the public monitors politicians through
social media platforms (Trottier 2018), forming surveillance of the few by the many
(Doyle 2011). ere is also mutual surveillance among subjects on social media, where
people track others’ information and status through social platforms while accepting
others’ attention and scrutiny (Marwick 2012). erefore, surveillance in the digital soci-
ety is no longer a unilateral exercise of power. It is ubiquitous, penetrating many areas of
life that were previously difficult to reach (Bauman and Lyon 2013).
Furthermore, algorithms are nonneutral as an important foundation of the digital
society. For example, the existence of algorithmic authority means that human life is
influenced to different degrees by algorithmic programs. Rogers (2013) used the Google
search engine as an example and showed that under specific algorithmic logic, some
information will be prioritized and presented over other information. Cheney-Lippold
(2011) found that internet marketing companies observe, analyze, and identify people’s
online lives through complex algorithmic programs and use inferred anonymous user
identity information for commercial profit purposes. To some extent, people’s informa-
tion features are shaped by individual online practices on the Internet (Rogers 2013), but
individuals have little knowledge of how their behavioral data will be processed by algo-
rithmic "black boxes" (Pasquale 2015).
ird, political participation in digital society has drawn increasing attention in recent
years. e widespread use of digital technologies, especially social media, affects peo-
ple’s political engagement. Boulianne’s (2015) meta-analysis showed a positive corre-
lation between using social media and political participation. However, these studies
5 ere are two mainstream views on STS internationally: Science and Technology Studies (STS) or Science, Technol-
ogy, and Society (STS).
Page 8 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
mainly rely on cross-sectional survey data, and recent diachronic studies have presented
more complex empirical results (eocharis and Lowe 2016; Kahne and Bowyer 2018).
Some scholars (Bimber 2017) believe that digital media increases people’s opportu-
nities for political participation, but others point out that the popularity of the Inter-
net does not change the existing unequal political participation situation, and online
authorities often occupy an advantageous position in the existing political and economic
structure (Mariën and Prodnik 2014). In recent years, scholars have begun to focus on
the role of digital mobilization in various political rallies and protests. "Slacktivism,"
which expresses political attitudes through sharing, liking, and forwarding behaviors,
may reduce people’s actual offline participation and erode traditional forms of political
participation (Morozov 2011). However, some studies have shown that online political
participation is a supplement to offline participation rather than a substitute and can
have an important impact (Freelon etal. 2020). For example, digital platforms and social
media played a key supporting role in information dissemination, organizational mobi-
lization, and collective identity formation in the "Arab Spring" and "Occupy Wall Street"
movements (Castells 2015). is kind of social movement that mobilizes through social
media platforms and widely applies digital technologies in the process is becoming
increasingly common in Western countries (Caren etal. 2020).
Finally, digital technology has become an important means of social governance. Digi-
tal governance has two aspects. First, the governing authority introduces digital technol-
ogy into the governance system. For example, in the face of a public health emergency,
the government and users can use digital technology to identify risks through interac-
tion (Chatterjee etal. 2020). Second, the governing authority sets rules for the appli-
cation of digital technology and expands the governance field to the digital space. In a
digital society, some new social problems have emerged. For instance, social media
has greatly expanded the audience and influence of online rumors, and those who cre-
ate false information use various means to mislead their audiences’ perceptions (Innes
2020). To address this, many governments have issued laws or decrees to regulate the
development and application of digital technology. Currently, digital governance faces
significant challenges in both of these aspects. e former may have the problem of a
"digital Leviathan" (Langford 2020), while the latter faces many difficulties in areas such
as digital antimonopoly and effective regulation of digital platforms (Flew etal. 2019).
Social relationships andinteractions
e study of social relations and interactions has always been a focus of sociologists.
According to Georg Simmel (2002), sociology needs to investigate the mutual influence
between people to answer the question of "how is society possible." e widespread use
of digital technology has changed the mode of interpersonal interaction and the con-
struction of social relationships, promoting the formation of online communities and
providing new possibilities for shaping collective identity and consciousness.
First, the popularization of digital technology has changed the way in which inter-
personal interactions and social relationships are constructed. Traditional inter-
personal interactions are based on face-to-face communication, but technological
progress has blurred the boundary between "present" and "absent" in interactions.
People can participate in "present" interactions without physical presence. is kind
Page 9 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
of interaction and communication mediated by technology form "connected relation-
ships" (Licoppe 2004). According to Wajcman (2015), such interactions maintain the
connection between users, friends, and family and broaden the construction of social
relationships. Turkle (2011), on the other hand, expresses concern that in interactions
mediated by digital technology, people are more frequently connected, but interper-
sonal relationships may become shallow, leading to increased loneliness in the midst
of tighter connections. Although these two views differ in their perspectives, they
both reflect the same understanding that digital media is changing the nature of social
relationships (Baym 2015).
At the same time, interactions that transcend time and space are eroding the
boundaries of different social relationships. Digital technology keeps people con-
stantly online, blurring the boundaries between work and life and requiring indi-
viduals to engage in multitasking and thus endure additional psychological pressure
(Tammelin 2018). Social media expands the visibility of users’ daily lives. People may
not necessarily want to make interactions between friends public, but social media
platforms complicate the situation (Boyd 2010). Meanwhile, people’s clicking and
sharing behaviors on social media also actively bridge the boundaries between per-
sonal and public life (Boccia Artieri etal. 2021). Van Manen (2010) refers to this situ-
ation as "the privatization of the public and publicization of the private," suggesting
that mobile terminals and social platforms may change young people’s experiences of
privacy, secrecy, solitude, and intimacy.
Second, digital technology is driving the formation of online communities. In online
communities, users’ identity characteristics are more personalized, and their sense of
belonging has higher variability and diversity. Online communities can also consolidate
offline networks and enhance the continuation of relationships (Robards and Bennett
2011). However, social media also provides a breeding ground for extreme speech. e
traditional view is that social media amplifies the "echo chamber effect" by pushing con-
tent that users like, reinforcing their own biases in a homogeneous stream of informa-
tion (Pariser 2011). Recent experiments by Bail etal. (2018) have shown that breaking
the "social media echo chamber" does not reconcile different stances. Furthermore, Bail
(2021) found that extremists with similar stances will also form small groups on social
media, establish a sense of belonging by connecting, supporting, and attacking oppo-
nents together, and become increasingly extreme in the process.
Finally, digital technology provides new possibilities for shaping collective identity and
consciousness. Research has highlighted that overseas immigrants use digital technology
to establish connections, share information, sustain culture, and find a sense of belong-
ing, maintaining emotional connections and collective identity beyond the spatial range
of their homeland (Ponzanesi 2020). People also create online digital memorial spaces to
digitize old memories and reconstruct collective memory and identity (Recuber 2021).
In addition, digital technology helps create collective effervescence. Physical gathering is
no longer necessary, and spiritual resonance can be generated through interactive public
opinion topics and digital platforms (Gong 2015). Social media can gather people’s emo-
tional expressions through topic tags (Lorenzana 2018). e moments of collective effer-
vescence in the digital space enable people to transcend atomized existence and become
symbols of the connection between individuals and society in the digital age.
Page 10 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Body andself
Body and self is another classic theme of sociology. From the sociological perspective,
the body is shaped by the forces of social structure and significantly impacts self-con-
struction. In the digital age, the body and self have richer meanings, and digital sociol-
ogy explores them in two dimensions: one is the interconnection of the body and the
quantification of the self, and the other is digital avatars and the construction of the self
in virtual space.
First, digital technology is driving the formation of the "Internet of Bodies." e devel-
opment of the "Internet of ings" will bring humanity into the era of the "Internet of
Everything." With the expansion of the "Internet of ings," the human body is con-
nected through networks to form the "Internet of Bodies" (abbreviated as "IoB") (El-
Khoury and Arikan 2021). IoB devices are continuously innovated from external devices
such as smartwatches to implanted devices such as smart sutures and to third-genera-
tion devices that aim to externalize human thinking. Countless sensors are unprecedent-
edly monitoring, analyzing, and even altering the human body, opening up new spaces
for the medical and health fields but also challenging the integrity and autonomy of the
human body and raising new requirements for human safety and privacy protection
(Matwyshyn 2019).
With the development of the IOB, self-observation and quantification practices have
increased. People use digital devices to collect and track body data. eir self-meas-
urement and recording practices are called "the quantified self" (Lupton 2016). Under-
standing oneself through data is not only a reflective practice but also a computational
process, a means of external self-understanding, and its presentation of results may be
more comprehensive and accurate than our own descriptions of ourselves (Brubaker
2020). While helping people achieve health goals, the practice of the "quantified self" is
also a process of monitoring, disciplining, and molding the self. In this process, scien-
tific indicators and authoritative knowledge are more valued than subjective and specific
self-awareness, and people continuously reproduce socially and culturally recognized
self-images through continuous self-disciplining (Berry etal. 2021).
Furthermore, digital sociology is concerned with "digital avatars" and self-construc-
tion in virtual space. "Digital avatars" are digital surrogates that people create in virtual
spaces (such as online games) based on the imagination of their bodies and selves. In
the virtual world, they can coexist with other users in the same digital space and com-
municate in real time (Coleman 2011). At this point, the surrogate body is achieved
through technology and can only be achieved through technology (Hansen 2006). With
the advancement of virtual reality technology, this experience has become more realis-
tic. For example, the latest virtual reality communication system captures users’ body
movements, facial expressions, and voice data in real time, creating a digital avatar that
enhances the user’s presence in the virtual space and makes real-time interactions more
authentic (Aseeri etal. 2020).
ese practices and experiences based on digital avatars can also affect people’s self-
perception and self-construction. Virtual space is similar to a screen on which people
can project different versions of themselves and various imaginations about themselves
(Gálik 2019). Since the construction of self-identity is completed through interactions
between individuals and others, users may adjust themselves based on the feedback of
Page 11 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
social media, which may lead to a deviation between the true self and the ideal self and
even to the seeking of acceptance at the expense of losing individual authenticity (Deh
and Glodovic 2018).
Social inequality
Sociology’s attention to issues of inequality has been a consistent theme throughout its
history, and digital sociology continues this tradition by focusing on two key questions:
first, what role do digital technologies play in reproducing existing social structures such
as class, gender, and race? In other words, does the development of digital technology
exacerbate or alleviate social inequalities? Second, does the widespread application of
digital technology result in new forms of social inequality?
Regarding the first question, some scholars believe digital technology has enormous
potential to promote resource sharing and break information monopolies. For example,
education platforms such as MOOCs have lowered the cost of education and widened
access to education for more people (Bowen 2013). However, some scholars also argue
that the widespread use of the Internet does not truly alleviate social inequality. People
with higher levels of education tend to have better internet skills and are more inclined
to use the Internet for upwardly mobile activities, such as political participation and job
seeking, rather than just entertainment (Hargittai and Hinnant 2008). is gap in skills
and benefits leads to further social inequality, accelerating the reproduction of the origi-
nal social structure (Hargittai 2018).
Moreover, the application of digital technology may make racial and gender discrimi-
nation more covert. For example, the US healthcare system constructs models for pre-
dicting patients’ medical needs based on their healthcare costs in the previous year
rather than their illness severity, resulting in medical resources skewed toward White
patients (Obermeyer etal. 2019). Lambrecht and Tucker (2019) found that even when
gender neutrality is maintained in advertising, men are still 20% more likely to see
recruitment ads in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics than
women. is is because advertising targeted at women in other marketing sectors cre-
ates a "crowding out effect," resulting in higher advertising costs for women and putting
them at a disadvantage if algorithms are used purely based on economic rationality.
Regarding the second question, the application of digital technology may cause new
social inequalities. Initially, scholars divided people into those with access to the Internet
and those without access based on differences in internet access rights (Castells 2001).
is distinction, which arose due to differences in access rights, was called the "first-level
digital divide." As internet infrastructure developed, differences in access rights gradu-
ally diminished, giving rise to the "second-level digital divide" based on differences in
digital skills and usage, as well as the "third-level digital divide" based on differences in
benefits and outcomes (Hargittai 2001; Van Dijk 2005; Wei etal. 2011).
Under these digital divides, new forms of inequality have emerged in human society.
ose who master digital technology, such as senior software engineers and technology
executives, have formed a new group—programming elites. eir power almost entirely
relies on their control of technology rather than on institutional processes of profes-
sionalization (Burrell and Fourcade 2021). In contrast, those lacking digital devices or
skills face a new type of poverty—digital poverty—and may encounter various social
Page 12 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
problems, such as resource scarcity and social isolation (Donaghy 2021). ere are
also some users who, due to a lack of sufficient digital literacy (such as identifying the
authenticity of information and protecting data privacy), have also become vulnerable
groups in digital society, which may include people with higher socioeconomic status
(Lee 2018).
Methodological innovation indigital sociology
Digital sociology adheres to the research tradition of sociology, not only exploring theo-
retical issues related to the application of digital technology but also advancing innova-
tive research methods. Digital sociology research currently focuses on mining diverse
data sources and innovating traditional analysis tools.
First, digital sociology makes full use of traditional structured data and in-depth
interview data while also attaching importance to the exploration and use of new data
sources. In digital sociology research, big data complements traditional survey and
interview data and provides a new data source. Researchers can analyze users’ digital
footprints (text, action trajectory, images, and videos) to promote an understanding of
human behavior and macro-social structures (Lazer etal. 2009, 2020). While explor-
ing diverse data sources, digital sociology applies computational social science meth-
ods such as computer simulation and machine learning to empirical research. Notably,
digital sociology and computational social science belong to different categories: digital
sociology is a branch of sociology, while computational social science stresses methodol-
ogy (see Chen 2022a; Fan 2020). e latter provides powerful research tools for digital
sociology, but it is not the only tool. e distinction and connection between the two are
shown in Fig.2.
Furthermore, digital sociology emphasizes the innovation of traditional analysis tools.
With the increasing prevalence of social interaction in the online space, researchers have
expanded the scope of field research to new media spaces and developed new research
Fig. 2 Relationship among sociology, digital sociology, and computational social sciences
Page 13 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
methods such as digital ethnography (Murthy 2008). Digital ethnography follows the
principles of traditional ethnographic research; researchers usually participate in obser-
vations in the network space where the research subjects are located and conduct inter-
views using the digital technologies commonly used by the subjects, reflecting a research
perspective in which digital technology is viewed as a part of the living world (Pink
2016). Some scholars also combine digital ethnography with data mining and develop
methods such as ethno-mining. For example, researchers collect participant behavior
data through smart devices, conduct visualized analysis, and then show the results to the
participants, carrying out observations and interviews to explore the meaning behind
the behavior data (Anderson etal. 2009).
From the current development, the methodological innovation of digital sociology still
has a long way to go. For example, research ethics and norms in using big data still need
to be clarified and improved (Lazer etal. 2020). In addition, although big data provides
new data sources for digital sociology, it usually lacks meaning and value because it is
"out of context." erefore, some scholars advocate combining big data with other types
of data (Bornakke and Due 2018). Edelmann etal. (2020) believe that sociologists should
not only use new data to examine traditional sociological issues that were previously dif-
ficult to address but also explore new problems arising from the application of digital
technology and use big data to promote theoretical innovation. For digital ethnography,
data collection and sharing also require new academic norms. How to balance protect-
ing the privacy of respondents while improving data transparency has become a key
concern in the academic community (Murphy etal. 2021).
A comparison betweendigital sociology inChina andtheWest
Digital technology has been vigorously developed and applied extensively in China in
recent years. At the same time, the research topics of digital sociology have also received
increasing attention. In terms of theoretical exploration, some scholars have conducted
inspiring discussions on issues such as macro social changes brought about by digital
technology, changes in social differentiation mechanisms, new types of risks, the trans-
formation of social governance, and new ethical challenges (Chen 2022a; Qiao etal.
2022; Qiu 2022; Wang 2021; Xiang 2021; Zhang 2018; Zhang and Li 2022). In terms of
empirical research, relevant research in digital sociology has developed rapidly with
diverse perspectives and rich content.
Table1 lists Chinese academic papers related to digital sociology published in the
three major journals of Chinese social science research since 2005, namely, "Social Sci-
ences in China," "Sociological Research," and "Chinese Journal of Sociology." 80% of these
papers were published after 2015, reflecting the recent development of digital sociology
in China. ese papers have been roughly classified according to the six research themes
and specific research content summarized in this article. Compared with Western digital
sociology, the development of digital sociology in China has both commonalities and
local characteristics, mainly reflected in the following four aspects.
First, the research scope covers the main research fields of digital sociology, with obvi-
ous emphasis on certain areas, while others still lack attention. As shown in Table1,
Chinese digital sociology has a broad range of research scope covering the six major
research themes listed in this article. However, the development of Chinese digital
Page 14 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
sociology is not balanced. Overall, existing research shows a trend of "more empha-
sis on the macro level and less on the micro level," with a clear focus on social issues
such as labor economics and production, political power and governance, social rela-
tions and interactions, and social inequality. However, less attention has been given to
Table 1 Overview of Chinese digital sociology research
a The literature listed in the table includes academic papers related to digital sociology published in the three major Chinese
journals "Social Sciences in China," "Sociological Studies," and "Chinese Journal of Sociology" since 2005. The "Social Sciences in
China" literature selection criteria are based on an article categorized as having a sociological topic on the CNKI database or
having a sociological research institution as the author’s aliation. As some papers’ research perspectives are not limited to
specic topics, the author selected the essence of the research for classication based on personal understanding to avoid
redundancy
b Using new data sources to explore topics related to digital sociology overlaps with computational social science. The
empirical research listed in this section uses big data as a data source while exploring related theoretical issues in digital
sociology
Research topics Content Representative worka
Labor economics and production The impact of digital technology
on economic form and production
mode
Fan and Ning 2021; Qiu 2005; Qiu and
Huang 2021a; Qiu and Qiao 2021b;
Ren 2012; Shao and Zheng 2022;
Wang 2021; Xu and Ye 2020; Zhang
2021; Zhang and Qiu 2022; Zheng
2019; Zhou 2021
Changes in labor conditions and
capital-labor relations Chen 2020; Jia and Yan 2022; Li and
Jiang 2020; Liang 2016; Wu and Li
2018; Xu and Zhang 2019; Zhao and
Han 2021
Blurred lines between production
and consumption and new forms
of exploitation
Qiu 2014
Political power and governance Panoramic surveillance and power
features
Algorithmic non-neutrality Zha 2022
Political participation Bu 2015; Chen 2013; Chen 2015;
Huang 2010; Huang and Gui 2009; Ji
et al. 2016; Wang and Meng 2021
Digital governance Chen and Li 2019; Lv et al. 2022; Shan
2022; Tan et al. 2015; Wang 2016;
Yang 2015
Social relationships and interac-
tions Interpersonal interaction and con-
struction of social relations Bian and Miao 2019; Chen 2013;
Huang et al. 2014; Wang and Wang
2016; Wang 2021; Cheng 2010
Online community Chen and Xu 2017; Chen 2022b; Feng
2021; Gui et al. 2015; Huang 2017; Ma
and Wang 2015; Mao et al. 2021
Collective identity and collective
consciousness
Body and self Internet-connected body
Quantified self Tang and Xie 2019
Digital avatar
Self-construction in virtual space
Social inequality Digital technology exacerbates/
alleviates existing social inequalities Zhuang et al. 2016
Digital divide and new social
inequality Li 2006; Qiu et al. 2016; Wang 2005;
Zhao 2015
Methodological innovation in
digital sociology Mining diverse data sources (such
as big data)bChen 2015; Chen and Fei 2017; Chen
et al. 2017; Gong et al. 2019; Gui et al.
2018; Sun and Chen 2016
Innovating on traditional analytical
tools (e.g., digital ethnography) Bu 2012
Page 15 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
areas focusing on individual life practices, such as the body and self. In addition to fur-
ther developing advantageous fields, future research can be expanded to more research
topics.
Second, the research content of Chinese digital sociology has its own distinctive fea-
tures, reflecting the characteristics of China’s local digital technology development and
application. However, there is still a need to strengthen the exploration of new phenom-
ena in the digital society. As shown in Table1, most of the literature is deeply rooted
in Chinese society, and research on many topics, such as rural e-commerce and digital
platform participation in social governance (Qiu and Qiao 2021b; Qiu and Huang 2021a;
Zhang and Qiu 2022; Lv etal. 2022; Shan 2022), shows distinct characteristics of Chinese
society. ese studies are based on China’s unique digital transformation process and
make an important contribution to international digital sociology. In future research,
more attention can be given to new phenomena in digital society. Compared to Chinese
researchers, Western digital sociologists have shown greater interest in the development
of digital technology frontiers and young people’s digital practices and have conducted
more in-depth research on new phenomena emerging in digital society.
ird, the existing research in Chinese digital sociology has leveraged the discipline’s
strengths and demonstrated initial efforts to integrate multiple disciplines. However,
more cross-disciplinary research needs to be encouraged. Among the abovementioned
research achievements in Chinese digital sociology are outstanding contributions made
by scholars from fields such as law, political science, public administration, and jour-
nalism. Regarding the development of digital sociology in the West, cross-disciplinary
integration has become a distinct characteristic of digital sociology. e development of
digital technology and its impact on human life do not respect disciplinary boundaries,
and researchers in digital sociology cannot be limited by these boundaries either. e
future development of Chinese digital sociology requires further dismantling of discipli-
nary barriers. Researchers should be encouraged to propose research questions and seek
academic cooperation from a cross-disciplinary perspective. is will lay a more solid
scientific foundation and support the future development of Chinese digital sociology.
Fourth, while the existing research has drawn from traditional sociological meth-
ods, there is a need for more innovative methodologies. Although a few studies have
employed innovative data sources or methodological tools (Chen and Yan 2017; Gui
et al. 2018; Qiu and Huang 2021a; Feng 2021; Mao etal. 2021), they are still in the
minority. Looking at the development of digital sociology internationally, the continuous
innovation of methodology and research tools has almost become another distinguish-
ing feature that sets digital sociology apart from other subdisciplines of sociology. is
requires breaking down the opposition of quantitative and qualitative research meth-
ods at the epistemological level and analyzing and discerning diversified data sources to
address research questions better.
Conclusion
Digital technology has swept the world, pushing human society again onto the path of
transformation. In this context, digital sociology has emerged. We argue that digital
sociology should not be understood as sociology in the digital age, nor is it the same as
computational social science, which mainly focuses on methodology. Digital sociology
Page 16 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
explores the development and application of digital technology and the related social
changes from a sociological perspective. Due to space limitations, this article is far from
an exhaustive review of digital sociology. However, it still outlines the main features
of this new field: digital sociology covers multiple themes, shows continuous innova-
tion in methodology and research tools, and reflects the mutual promotion of empiri-
cal research and theoretical exploration. However, digital sociology is still in its infancy,
and many core issues need to be addressed, providing a superb research opportunity for
sociologists worldwide.
It should be noted that although the application of digital technology crosses national
borders, research in digital sociology still needs to focus on specific social and cultural
environments while maintaining international dialogue. e development and applica-
tion of digital technology in China are at the forefront of the world, creating rare oppor-
tunities for related research in digital sociology. Domestic scholars have carried out a
series of studies and explorations in labor economics and digital governance with fruitful
results. For the future development of digital sociology in China, researchers need to
broaden their research perspectives, keenly grasp new phenomena in a digital society,
strengthen interdisciplinary exchanges, and innovate at the methodological level to con-
duct a more in-depth exploration of the social transformation process driven by digital
technology. Digital sociology in China shows great prospects and calls for the participa-
tion and joint efforts of more colleagues in the academic community.
Abbreviations
IoB Internet of bodies
STS There are two mainstream views on STS internationally: Science and Technology Studies (STS) or Science, Technol-
ogy, and Society (STS)
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. The responsibility for the content of this
article is solely the authors
Author contributions
YZ designed the study and wrote the manuscript. MW collected materials and contributed in manuscript revision.
Funding
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Received: 11 June 2023 Accepted: 23 October 2023
References
Abidin, Crystal. 2017. #familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism, and Justifying Young Digital Labor. Social
Media + Society 3. SAGE Publications Ltd: 2056305117707191.
Anderson, Ken, Dawn Nafus, Tye Rattenbury, and Ryan Aipperspach. 2009. Numbers Have Qualities Too: Experiences with
Ethno-Mining. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2009: 123–140.
Aseeri, Sahar, Sebastian Marin, Richard N. Landers, Victoria Interrante, and Evan S. Rosenberg. 2020. Embodied Realistic
Avatar System with Body Motions and Facial Expressions for Communication in Virtual Reality Applications. In
2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 580–581.
Page 17 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Bail, Chris. 2021. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Breaking the Social Media Prism.
Princeton University Press.
Bail, Christopher, et al. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 9216–9221.
Bauman, Zygmunt, and David Lyon. 2013. Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. New York: Wiley.
Baym, Nancy K. 2015. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Malden: Polity Press.
Berry, Rachel A., Rachel F. Rodgers, and Jenna Campagna. 2021. Outperforming iBodies: A Conceptual Framework Inte-
grating Body Performance Self-Tracking Technologies with Body Image and Eating Concerns. Sex Roles 85: 1–12.
Bian, Yanjie, and Xiaolei Miao. 2019. Dual powers of virtual-real transformation in social networks. Chinese Journal of
Sociology 39 (6): 1–22.
Bimber, Bruce. 2017. Three Prompts for Collective Action in the Context of Digital Media. Political Communication 34:
6–20.
Boccia Artieri, Giovanni, Pedro A. García-Bilbao, and Gevisa La Rocca. 2021. Rethinking affective polarization and sharing
of emotions in digital platform ecosystems. Theories and research practices. International Review of Sociology 31:
223–230.
Bornakke, Tobias, and Brian L Due. 2018. Big–Thick Blending: A method for mixing analytical insights from big and thick
data sources. Big Data and Society 5.
Boulianne, Shelley. 2015. Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communi-
cation and Society 18: 524–538.
Bowen, William G. 2013. Higher Education in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boyd, Danah 2010, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In Zizi Papacha-
rissi (eds.) A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites,20. London: Routledge.
Brayne, Sarah. 2017. Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing. American Sociological Review 82: 977–1008.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2020. Digital hyperconnectivity and the self. Theory and Society 49: 771–801.
Bu, Yumei. 2012. Virtual Ethnography:The field, Approach and Ethics. Sociological Studies 27(6): 217–236+246.
Bu, Yumei. 2015. From Online to Offline: The Formation of Collective Action and Its Contributing Factors: A Case Study of
Food Waste Treatment Facility Location Protest. Chinese Journal of Sociology 35 (5): 168–195.
Burrell, Jenna, and Marion Fourcade. 2021. The Society of Algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology 47: 213–237.
Caren, Neal, Kenneth T. Andrews, and Lu. Todd. 2020. Contemporary Social Movements in a Hybrid Media Environment.
Annual Review of Sociology 46: 443–465.
Castells, Manuel. 2001. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2015. Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chatterjee, Ranit, et al. 2020. COVID-19 Risk Assessment Tool: Dual application of risk communication and risk govern-
ance. Progress in Disaster Science 7: 100109.
Chen, Fuping. 2013. The Social Networking Site: Technicality or Sociality? Sociological Studies 28(6): 72–94+243–244.
Chen, Fuping, and Rongyu Li. 2019. “A Straw Shows which Way the Wind Blows”: New Media in the Context of Commu-
nity Governance. Sociological Studies 34(3): 170–193+245.
Chen, Fuping, and Danhong Xu. 2017. Comments and Links: Group Political Polarization in Social Networking Sites: An
Explanation Based on Micro Behaviors. Chinese Journal of Sociology 37 (4): 217–240.
Chen, Huashan. 2015. Does Virtual Community Facilitate Online Community Engagement? A Case Study of Online Social
Network. Chinese Journal of Sociology 35 (5): 101–121.
Chen, Yunsong. 2013. Does Internet Use Encourage Non-Institutional Political Participation?An Instrumental Variable
Analysis of the Data from CGSS2006. Chinese Journal of Sociology 33 (5): 118–143.
Chen, Yunsong. 2022a. The Macro Turn of Quantitative Research in Contemporary Sociology. Social Sciences in China (3):
127–144+207.
Chen, Yunsong. 2022b. Segregation of ideas: The intra-group polarization in the cyberspace of contemporary China.
Sociological Studies, 37(4): 117–135+228.
Chen, Yunsong, Fei Yan. 2017. Does online sentiment predict stock market indices? The ARDL bounds tests based on
sina-microblog data. Chinese Journal of Sociology (2).
Chen, Yunsong, Canran Zhu, and Liangliang Zhang. 2017. Reverse Cultural Transmission within Generation: Concepts,
Theories and Big-Data Evidence. Sociological Studies 37 (2): 51–73.
Chen, Long. 2020. Labor Order under Digital Control: A Study on the Labor Control of Take-out Platform Riders. Sociologi-
cal Studies 35(6): 113–135+244.
Cheng, Chung Tai. 2010. Young Rural Workers’ Living Ecologies and Self-identification: From the perspective of "informa-
tion-led". Sociological Studies 25(2): 106–124+244–245.
Cheney-Lippold, John. 2011. A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control. Theory, Culture
and Society 28: 164–181.
Cohen, Nicole S. 2015. From Pink Slips to Pink Slime: Transforming Media Labor in a Digital Age. The Communication
Review 18: 98–122.
Coleman, B. 2011. Hello Avatar: Rise of the Networked Generation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Deh, Dragana, and Danica Glodovic. 2018. The Construction of Identity in Digital Space. Am Journal of Art and Media
Studies 16: 101–111.
Dijk, Jan A. G. M. 2005. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. California: Sage Publications.
Donaghy, Dave. 2021. Defining Digital Capital and Digital Poverty. ITNOW 63: 54–55.
Doyle, Aaron. 2011. Revisiting the synopticon: Reconsidering Mathiesen’s ‘ The Viewer Society’ in the age of Web 2.0.
Theoretical Criminology 15: 283–299.
Duffy, Brooke Erin. 2020. Algorithmic precarity in cultural work. Communication and the Public 5: 103–107.
Edelmann, Achim, Tom Wolff, Danielle Montagne, and Christopher A. Bail. 2020. Computational Social Science and Soci-
ology. Annual Review of Sociology 46: 61–81.
El-Khoury, Moufid, and Cenk Lacin Arikan. 2021. From the Internet of things toward the Internet of bodies: Ethical and
legal considerations. Strategic Change 30: 307–314.
Page 18 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Fan, Xiaoguang. 2020. Resolving Dilemmas in the Research Methods of Empirical Sociology through Digitization. China
Social Science Review (3): 66–75+159.
Fan, Ziteng, and Jing Ning. 2021. Technological change and welfare attitude: How automation replacement affects
individuals’ eldercare preferences. Sociological Studies 36(1): 160–179+229.
Feng, Jihai. 2021. The Battle of Fans and Anti-fans: The “Routinized” Turn of Online Fans Group Polarization. Sociological
Studies 36(6): 113–135+228–229.
Flew, Terry, Fiona Martin, and Nicolas Suzor. 2019. Internet Regulation as Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital
Communication Platform Governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10: 33–50.
Freelon, Deen, Alice Marwick, and Daniel Kreiss. 2020. False Equivalencies: Online Activism from Left to Right. Science 369:
1197–1201.
Fuchs, Christian. 2014. Digital Labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.
Fussey, Pete, and Silke Roth. 2020. Digitizing Sociology: Continuity and Change in the Internet Era. Sociology 54: 659–674.
Gálik, Slavomír. 2019. On Human Identity in Cyberspace of Digital Media. European Journal of Tranformation Studies 7:
33–44.
Gong, Rachel. 2015. Indignation, Inspiration, and Interaction on the Internet: Emotion Work Online in the Anti-Human
Trafficking Movement. Journal of Technology in Human Services 33: 87–103.
Gong, Weigang, Meng Zhu, Sai Zhang and Jiaojiang Luo. 2019. Media hegemony,cultural circle and the global dissemina-
tion of the orientalist discourse: Taking public opinion on China in GDELT as an example. Sociological Studies 34(5):
138–164+245.
Gray, Mary L., and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. New
York: Eamon Dolan Books.
Gregory, Karen, Tressie M. Cottom & Jessie Daniels 2017. Introduction. In Jessie Daniels, Karen Gregory & Tressie M. Cot-
tom (eds.), Digital Sociologies, xvii–xxx. Chicago: Policy Press.
Gui, Yong, Ronggui Huang, and Yi Ding. 2018. Three faces of the online leftists: An exploratory study based on case obser-
vation and big data analysis. Chinese Journal of Sociology 38 (3): 203–239.
Gui, Yong, Xiumei Li, Wen Zhang, and Ronggui Huang. 2015. Typological analysis of online extreme emotion-based
groups and its socio-political implications: An empirical examination of the chinese internet social mentality
survey (2014). Chinese Journal of Sociology 35 (5): 78–100.
Hansen, Mark B. N. 2006. Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media. New York: Routledge.
Hargittai, Eszter. 2001. Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in People’s Online Skills. arXiv: cs/ 01090 68.
Hargittai, Eszter. 2018. The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In The Inequality Reader, vol. 69, 2nd ed., ed. David B. Grusky
and Szonja Szelényi. New York: Routledge.
Hargittai, Eszter, and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet. Com-
munication Research 35: 602–621.
Helbing, Dirk. 2021. Next Civilization: Digital Democracy and Socio-Ecological Finance - How to Avoid Dystopia and Upgrade
Society by Digital Means. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Huang, Ronggui. 2010. The Internet and Contentious Actions: Theoretical Models, the China Experience, and Future
Research Directions. Chinese Journal of Sociology 30 (2): 178–197.
Huang, Ronggui. 2017. Network Fields, Cultural Identities and Labor Rights Communities: Big Data Analytics with Topic
Model and Community Detection. Chinese Journal of Sociology 37 (2): 26–50.
Huang, Ronggui and Yong Gui. 2009. The internet and homeowners’ collective resistance: A qualitative comparative
analysis. Sociological Studies 24(5): 29–56+243.
Huang, Ronggui, Yong Gui, and Xiaoyi Sun. 2014. Inter-organizational network structure and formation mechanisms in
weibo space: A study of environmental NGOs. Chinese Journal of Sociology 34 (3): 37–60.
Innes, Martin. 2020. Techniques of disinformation: Constructing and communicating “soft facts” after terrorism. British
Journal of Sociology 71: 284–299.
Ji, Chengyuan, Heng Wang, and Xin Gu. 2016. Political values of chinese netizens and limitation of online protests. Chi-
nese Journal of Sociology 36 (5): 64–87.
Jia, Wenjuan, and Wenxi Yan. 2022. Labor control in cognitive labor and data labeling: Taking N AI company as an exam-
ple. Sociological Studies 37(5): 42–64+227.
Kahne, Joseph, and Benjamin Bowyer. 2018. The Political Significance of Social Media Activity and Social Networks. Politi-
cal Communication 35: 470–493.
Kalleberg, Arne L., and Steven P. Vallas. 2018. Probing Precarious Work: Theory, Research, and Politics. Research in the
Sociology of Work 31 (1): 1–30.
Lambrecht, Anja, and Catherine Tucker. 2019. Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimi-
nation in the Display of STEM Career Ads. Management Science 65: 2966–2981.
Langford, Malcolm. 2020. Taming the Digital Leviathan: Automated Decision-Making and International Human Rights.
American Journal of International Law 114: 141–146.
Lazer, David M. J., Alex Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert-László Barabási, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, et al.
2009. Computational Social Science. Science 323.
Lazer, David M. J., Alex Pentland, Duncan J. Watts, Sinan Aral, Susan Athey, Noshir Contractor, Deen Freelon, et al. 2020.
Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science 369.
Lee, Nicole M. 2018. Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the
classroom. Communication Education 67: 460–466.
Lei, Ya-Wen. 2021. Delivering Solidarity: Platform Architecture and Collective Contention in China’s Platform Economy.
American Sociological Review 86: 279–309.
Li, Sheng. 2006. “Digital Divide: A New Perspective for Analyzing Modern Social Stratification. Chinese Journal of Sociology
, (6): 81–94+210.
Li, Shenglan, and Lihua Jiang. 2020. A new mode of labor time control and fake experience of freedom: A study on the
labor process of take-out platform riders. Sociological Studies 35(6): 91–112+243–244.
Page 19 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Liang, Meng. 2016. The Labour Process Study from the Technology Transition Perspective: A case study of the Internet
Virtual Team. Sociological Studies 31(2): 82–101+243.
Licoppe, Christian. 2004. ‘Connected’ Presence: The Emergence of a New Repertoire for Managing Social Relationships in
a Changing Communication Technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 135–156.
Lorenzana, R. 2018. Effervescence, Resonance and Emotive Practice on Social Media: Public Expressions of Heartbreak
Among Young Filipino Twitter Users. In Digital Intimate Publics and Social Media, ed. Amy S. Dobson, Brady Robards,
and Nicholas Carah, 145–160. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Losacco, Giuseppe P. 2007. Digital visual sociology. Sociétés 53–64.
Lupton, Deborah. 2015. Digital Sociology. London: Routledge.
Lupton, Deborah. 2016. The Quantified Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lv, Peng, Lvjun Zhou and Xiaoguang Fan. 2022. The field of platform governance and sociological engagement. Socio-
logical Studies 37(3): 68–91+227–228.
Ma, Deyong, and Lina Wang. 2015. Chinese netizens’ political ideology and their sources: An empirical analysis. Chinese
Journal of Sociology 35 (5): 142–167.
Mann, Steve, and Joseph Ferenbok. 2013. New Media and the power politics of sousveillance in a surveillance-domi-
nated world. Surveillance and Society 11: 18–34.
Mao, Dan, Jingya Wang and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Observation on “Fans Group” A and B: Organizational characteristics and
in-group and out-group relationships. Sociological Studies 36(6): 90–112+228.
Mariën, Ilse, and Jernej A. Prodnik. 2014. Digital inclusion and user (dis)empowerment: a critical perspective. Edited by
Assistant Prof. Nathalie Helberger Dr. Luciano Morganti. Info 16: 35–47.
Marres, Noortje. 2017. Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Marwick, Alice. 2012. The Public Domain: Surveillance in Everyday Life. Surveillance and Society 9: 378–393.
Matwyshyn, Andrea M. 2019. The Internet of Bodies. William and Mary Law Review 61: 77.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.
Murphy, Alexandra K., Colin Jerolmack, and DeAnna Smith. 2021. Ethnography, Data Transparency, and the Information
Age. Annual Review of Sociology 47: 41–61.
Murthy, Dhiraj. 2008. Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research. Sociology
42: 837–855.
Nedelkoska, Ljubica, and Glenda Quintini. 2018. Automation, skills use and training. Paris: OECD.
Negroponte, Nicholas. 1995. Being Digital. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Obermeyer, Ziad, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm
used to manage the health of populations. Science 366: 447–453.
Orton-Johnson, K., and N. Prior. 2013. Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You. Penguin UK.
Parker, Geoffrey G., Marshall W. Van Alstyne, and Sangeet Paul Choudary. 2016. Platform Revolution: How Networked Mar-
kets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University
Press: The Black Box Society.
Pink, Sarah. 2016. Digital Ethnography. In Innovative Methods in Media and Communication Research, 161–165. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ponzanesi, Sandra. 2020. Digital Diasporas: Postcoloniality, Media and Affect. Interventions 22: 977–993.
Qiao, Tianyu, et al. 2022. Exploration of Theory and Method of Studying Digital Governance Pattern. Bulletin of Chinese
Academy of Sciences 37 (10): 1365–1375.
Qiu, Jack Lin Chuan. 2014. Goodbye iSlave: Foxconn, Digital Capitalism, and Networked Labor Resistance. Chinese Journal
of Sociology 34 (4): 119–137.
Qiu, Zeqi. 2005. Inter-Construction between Technology and Organization: A case of information technology application
in manufactories. Sociological Studies (2): 32–54+243.
Qiu, Zeqi. 2022. The digital society and the evolution of computational sociology. Jiangsu Social Sciences (1): 74–83+242.
Qiu, Zeqi, Shiman Huang. 2021a. Acquaintance society, external market and imitation plus innovation in rural e-com-
merce entrepreneurship. Sociological Studies 36(4): 133–158+228–229.
Qiu, Zeqi, and Tianyu Qiao. 2021a. The innovation of e-commerce technology and the joint development of farm house-
holds. Social Sciences in China (10): 145–166+207.
Qiu, Zeqi, Shuqin Zhang, Shiding Liu and Yingkang Xu. 2016. From digital divide to dividend difference—from the per-
spective of internet capital. Social Sciences in China (10): 93–115+203–204.
Raun, Tobias. 2018. Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on
YouTube. Convergence 24: 99–113.
Recuber, Timothy. 2021. Race, racism and mnemonic freedom in the digital afterlife. Information, Communication and
Society 24: 684–699.
Ren, Min. 2012. The Application of Information Technology and the Transformation of Organizational Culture: A case
study of ERP implementation in a large enterprise. Sociological Studies. 27(6) and 101–124+243–244.
Ritzer, George, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson. 2012. The Coming of Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist
56: 379–398.
Robards, Brady, and Andy Bennett. 2011. MyTribe: Post-subcultural Manifestations of Belonging on Social Network Sites.
Sociology 45: 303–317.
Rogers, Richard. 2013. Digital Methods. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schor, Juliet B., William Attwood-Charles, Mehmet Cansoy, Isak Ladegaard, and Robert Wengronowitz. 2020. Dependence
and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society 49: 833–861.
Schor, Juliet B., and William Attwood-Charles. 2017. The ‘Sharing’ Economy: Labor, Inequality, and Social Connection on
for-Profit Platforms. Sociology Compass 11 (8): e12493.
Selwyn, Neil. 2019. What is Digital Sociology? Cambridge: Polity.
Shan, Yong. 2022. Digital Platforms and the Transformation of Crime Governance. Sociological Studies 37(4): 45–68+227.
Page 20 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Shao, Zhanpeng, and Zhihong Zhen. 2022. The shaping mechanism of online business price competition under omnipti-
con. Sociological Studies 37(3): 45–67+227.
Simmel, Georg. 2002. How Is Society Possible? compiled by Lin Rongyuan. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press.
Sun, Xiulin, and Huasan Chen. 2016. Internet and Quantitative Research in Sociology. Social Sciences in China 7: 119–125.
Sundararajan, Arun. 2017. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press.
Tammelin, Mia. 2018. Family, Work and Well-Being: Emergence of New Issues. SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life
Research. Cham: Springer.
Tan, Haibo, Qingguo Meng and Nan Zhang. 2015. How information technology is applied to the government operation:
A case of municipal government online administrative services construction in City J. Sociological Studies 30(6):
73–98+243–244.
Tang, Jun, and Zilong Xie. 2019. Discipline and distinction in the age of internet: A sociological study of the fitness prac-
tice. Sociological Studies 34(1): 29–56+242–243.
Tassinari, Arianna & Vincenzo Maccarrone. 2020. Riders on the storm: Workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers
in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society 34(1).
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2022. Global Connectivity Report 2022. Switzerland: ITU.
Theocharis, Yannis, and Will Lowe. 2016. Does Facebook increase political participation? Evidence from a field experi-
ment. Information, Communication and Society 19: 1465–1486.
Trottier, Daniel. 2018. Scandal mining: political nobodies and remediated visibility. Media, Culture and Society 40: 893–908.
Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster.
Vallas, Steven, and Juliet B. Schor. 2020. What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy. Annual Review of Sociol-
ogy 46: 273–294.
Van Manen, Max. 2010. The Pedagogy of Momus Technologies: Facebook, Privacy, and Online Intimacy. Qualitative Health
Research 20: 1023–1032.
Wajcman, Judy. 2015. The Social Shaping of Technology and The Politics of Working Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Wang, Mingfeng. 2005. Internet Use and Urbanization in China: A spatial perspective of digital divide. Sociological Studies
(6): 112–135+244.
Wang, Ning. 2021. The Social Construction of the Sharing Economy. Social Sciences in China (11): 158–179+208.
Wang, Di, and Hansheng Wang. 2016. The rise of mobile Internet and social change. Social Sciences in China 7: 105–112.
Wang, Tianfu. 2021. Social Change and Social Research in the Digital Age. Social Sciences in China 12: 73–88.
Wang, Xinxi, and Tianguang Meng. 2021. Internet involvement, information consumption and political participation in
urban China. Chinese Journal of Sociology 41 (1): 178–206.
Wang, Yulei. 2016. Dripping the Digits Down: Technical Governance in the Rural Targeted Poverty Alleviation. Sociological
Studies 31(6): 119–142+244.
Webster, Andrew. 2013. Afterword: Digital technology and sociological windows. In Kate Orton-Johnson & Nick Prior
(eds.), Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wei, Kwok-Kee., Hock-Hai. Teo, Hock Chuan Chan, and Bernard C. Y. Tan. 2011. Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cogni-
tive Model of the Digital Divide. Information Systems Research 22: 170–187.
Weiser, Mark. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American 265: 94–105.
Wheatley, Dawn. 2020. Victims and Voices: Journalistic Sourcing Practices and the Use of Private Citizens in Online
Healthcare-system News. Journalism Studies 21: 1017–1036.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109: 121–136.
Wood, Alex J., Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019a. Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic
Control in the Global Gig Economy. Work, Employment and Society 33: 56–75.
Wood, Alex J., Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019b. Networked but Commodified: The (Dis)Embedded-
ness of Digital Labour in the Gig Economy. Sociology 53: 931–950.
Wu, Qingjun, and Zhen Li. 2018. Labour process control and job autonomy in sharing economy: A case study of online
car-hailing drivers’ work. Sociological Studies 33(4): 137–162+244–245.
Wynn, Jonathan R. 2009. Digital Sociology: Emergent Technologies in the Field and the Classroom. Sociological Forum 24:
448–456.
Xiang, Jinglin. 2021. Internet Financial Risks and the Transformation of Government Governance Mechanism. Social Sci-
ence Research 1: 74–82.
Xu, Linfeng, and Hengyu Zhang. 2019. The game of popularity: Earning system and labor control in live streaming indus-
try. Chinese Journal of Sociology 39 (4): 61–83.
Xu, Yi, and Xin Ye. 2020. Technology Upgrading and Labor Degrading? A Sociological Study of Three Robotized Factories.
Sociological Studies 35(3): 23–46+242.
Yang, Biao. 2015. Information Governance and Social Discrimination: The strategy and practice legislation in China.
Sociological Studies 30(6): 26–48+242–243.
Zhang, Chenggang. 2018. The Era of Artificial Intelligence: Technological Development, Risk Challenge and the Recon-
struction of Social Order. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences 5: 42–52.
Zhang, Maoyuan. 2021. Technology Dividend Sharing: Social Foundation for Internet Platform Development. Sociological
Studies 36(5): 91–112+228.
Zhang, Shuqin, and Zeqi Qiu. 2022. What makes rural e-commerce successful? An analytical framework for the realization
of technology dividends. Sociological Studies 37(2): 114–136+228–229.
Zhang, Yue, and Zhengfeng Li. 2022. Social experiments of artificial intelligence algorithms and its significance. Tsinghua
Sociologial Review, Series 17, Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Zhao, Lei, and Yue Han. 2021. Hierarchical control across corporate boundaries: on labor organization and control
for online ride-hailing platforms—A case study of w ride-hailing platform in city T. Sociological Studies 36(5):
70–90+227–228.
Page 21 of 21
Zhaoand Wang The Journal of Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19
Zhao, Lianfei. 2015. Three Digital Divides among the Undergraduates in China: An analysis based on the survey data from
12 universities and colleges. Sociological Studies 30(6): 145–168+245.
Zhao, Lu. 2022. The Social Construction of Algorithmic Practice: Take an Information Distribution Platform as an Example.
Sociological Studies 37(4): 23–44+226–227.
Zheng, Dandan. 2019. On the Dynamic Mechanism of Social Trust Production in Internet Enterprisers. Sociological Studies
34(6): 65–88+243–244.
Zhou, Xiao. 2021.Digital Platform, Industry Reorganization and Group Livelihood: A Case Study of the Change of Trucks-
Goods Matching Mode. Sociological Studies 36(5): 47–69+227.
Zhuang, Jiachi, Aiyu Liu, and Chao Sun. 2016. Does internet reproduce gender inequality? A study on internet use wage
premium. Chinese Journal of Sociology 36 (5): 88–106.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
