Abstract/Summary

The thesis focuses on diverse elements with regards to digital and virtual objects (DVO), in addition to their conceptualisation, referral, understanding and positioning in the consumer narrative, the primary aim is to uncover mechanisms of classification, categorisation, distinction and referral criteria to map the ontological interpersonal and the social façade of the latter. Curriculum-compliant inductive Thematic Analysis (TA) approach in methodology with an operating philosophical basis in Critical Realism (CR) was used to conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews of 40 participants recruited by self-selection sampling yielding 56 hours of recorded interviews regarding their personal definitions of the digital and virtual objects, experiences of consumption and categorisation practices, their experiences with technology and how sorting, arranging, cleaning, classifying occurs in a digital context, or more precisely face to digital and virtual objects of consumption, from the participants’ perspective. The thesis is structed in 8 sections starting with (1) a reflexive account where a context for the researcher and professional development endeavours are portrayed in an attempt to humanise and introduce the person and the era behind the thesis, followed by (2) an introduction revealing what is interesting and relevant for marketing research in the study of DVOs followed by (3) a literature review centred around (3.1) the digital and (3.2) the categorical trying to gather varying definitions revolving around what is considered to be digital and/or virtual but also how categories have been studied and why they are relevant to marketing research and (3.3) where a brief post-structuralist introduction is provided for explanation of key terminology setting an agenda for elaboration of (4) the literature gap which uses the exposed assumptions in the previous chapter to underline to what extent a common shared language facilitating research, let alone mere conversation, about a plethora of objects with differing degrees of familiarities and experience for each person is absent for DVOs. In an attempt to probe the distinction criteria, or heuristic commonly used to declutter, sort, organise, deal with the sparse ontology of DVOs, (5) the methodology section delves both into an abstract background of philosophical framework of research and practical design and implementation of the data collection which is followed by (6) the findings section aiming to comprehensively convey major axes and elements of the content of the interviews but also to thematically converge the wide domain of discourse covered by the participants in order to build up to the poiesis-praxis duality in DVO perception and classification. To do so, a section on the digital metanarratives of the contemporary consumer is sketched in 6.2 introducing digital dipping as a recurrent conversational mechanism and elaborating teleological and essentialist branches of digital consumption practices as keys to provide the background for research data and illustrate dominant living philosophical assumptions and general outlook of the participants and outlining cognitive and experiential barriers to categorisation. Whereas a diverse set of definitions, frames, and labels of what is considered an object is sketched in 6.3, where the hexis-habitus distinction and action-objectness for DVOs are introduced. Following from the negative definitions of the latter, the praxis-poiesis duality is investigated. Since what an object is, is inevitably linked to what is not considered one building into boundary drawing attempts are made through sections on digital subjectness in 6.4 which is further extended into collective subjectness and particularly to themes relevant to the public-private axis positioning in 6.5. Experience of categorical dissonance from consumer accounts is recorded and a series of coping, sorting, arrangement strategies are studied under the label of categorization practices in 6.6. Inevitably, clustering criteria are subjective but one assumed universal or relatively transmissible criteria such as value and function, are recurrently referred throughout the thesis. In addition to interspersed discussion elements in (6), (7) a discussion bringing together various elements in findings, and detailing thesis contribution as well as impact, ends with a (8) conclusion where both theoretical and methodical limitations are elaborated and potential future directions for research are presented. Concluding with the major categorically distinctive criteria as identified as stemming from the praxis-poiesis distinction in DVO representation, intermediary findings labelled digital dipping, negative objectivation, action-objectness, process-independent perception of the end-product and many others are provided in a list of concepts in Appendix E which also serves as a summary of findings which should facilitate any attempt to penetrate and/or refer to the main text in appropriate section. The main aim of this facilitating conceptual terminology is to study as comprehensively as possible DVO representation in discourse to uncover the connections to digital habitus in which the object finds itself practiced, perceived and prosumed. One such pattern is digital dipping which illustrates the virality of the digital concept as is profusely used leading to a perhaps market-led erosion of meaning whereby minimal involvement with the digital in object lifecycle or design is inflated is deemed sufficient to claim, establish digitality. Similarly, negative objectivation is presumed to have occurred in order to maintain a distancing of the object from the subject, to be able to distinguish the DVO not as an extension of the self, to bar (self)identification. As a boundary of objectivity, it is coupled with the principle of action-objectness where both process-independent perception of the end-product and permanence-preserving mediation of the object lead to a de-emphasis if not erasure of static features, and the epithetic nominal lists are replaced by action handles. Consequently, any referral made to DVO is made through interactions, steps leading to access, associations of movements and actions largely are taken as DVOs. Within that set, Type I (internal) and II (format) hybrids are distinguished to illustrate perceived redundancy in object design and delivery where assumption of digital superiority operates. Based on participant accounts, categorisation can only occur, without loss of generality and order, (1) after initial encounter, (2) after repeated exposure (or sufficient knowledge), (3) after mediation, (4) after symbolic positioning, (5) after consumption, (6) after malfunction as these events are referred to as barriers for obtaining a full cognitive appreciation of the DVO. Categorisation as an act of consumption and production is evidenced to fall under two representative modalities shifting between praxis and poiesis-based positioning attempts in participant accounts. Thematically, encountered categorisation types can be classified as (1) proximity to self and construal-based, (2) perceived utility, function and evaluation-based, (3) hedonic/interpretative (narrative, nature, soul, character of objects), (4) objective market based (price, logistics, availability, accessibility), (5) evolutionarily naturalised (lethal versus nonlethal, essential versus non-essential), combined with distinctions based on (6) digitality (what constitutes the digital in discourse in 6.2 and 6.3.1) and (7) objectness (in 6.2.3 and its boundaries in 6.2.4). As a first step in making sense of and undoing the categorical dissonance, the praxis-poiesis duality is thus exposed in both representation and concurrent production and consumption of DVOs, definitions of which have been derived from habitus introjected as a succession of negative definitions into an object hexis. Processes of poietisation and praxisation are exemplified through data excerpts to further understand the linguistic output of cognitive and cultural patterns behind implied ontological categorisation(s) of DVOs.