Digital imagination and empirical invisibility: algorithmic power in innovation policies
This article is devoted to a sociological analysis of the transformations in power relations within digital society through the lens of innovation policies. It focuses on social networks and digital platforms as infrastructures that not only facilitate communication but also shape new regimes of visibility, participation, control, and the distribution of symbolic capital. It is demonstrated that contemporary innovation processes are becoming increasingly dependent on algorithmic mechanisms for the selection, ranking, and normalisation of social action, thereby shifting power from open institutional centres to opaque digital infrastructures. The article pays attention to the phenomenon of algorithmic power as a specific form of mediated governance that operates through personalisation, metrics, recommendation systems, and platform-mediated selection. The concept of empirical invisibility has been proposed to describe the structural limitations of sociological knowledge in a platform environment, where the key mechanisms through which social order is produced remain hidden due to the commercial closure of platforms, the opacity of algorithms, and fragmentation of data. Five methodological traps in the analysis of digital innovation policies have been identified: algorithmic, performative, ephemeral, ethical, and reflexive. It is demonstrated that these traps are not random research difficulties but rather structural manifestations of the transformation of power relations in the digital sphere. The article argues that for Ukraine, the analysis of such transformations is of particular importance, as innovation policies are becoming one of the key instruments for the modernisation of public administration, economic recovery, security resilience, and integration into global digital spaces. At the same time, the platformisation of innovation creates new risks: the exacerbation of digital inequality, dependence on private technological infrastructures, the opaque distribution of access to the public sphere, and asymmetry between the state, citizens, and technology corporations.
Bucher, T. (2018). If…then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Harracá, M., Castelló, I., Gawer, A. (2023). How digital platforms organize immaturity: A sociosymbolic framework of platform power. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33 (3), 440-472.
Nieborg, D., Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20 (11), 4275-4292.
Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (1), 1-13.
Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (1), 14-29.
Just, N., Latzer, M. (2017). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39 (2), 238-258.
Katzenbach, C., Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8 (4), 1-18.
Digitalisation for recovery in Ukraine. (2022). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Gritsenko, D., Wood, M. (2022). Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach. Regulation & Governance, 16 (1), 45-62.
Mogensen, K. (2014). Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford and Joshua Green: Spreadable media: Creating Value and meaning in A Networked Culture, New York: New York University Press. 2013. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 30 (56), 4.
Rogers, R. (2018). Otherwise engaged: Social media from vanity metrics to critical analytics. International Journal of Communication, 12, 450-472.
Hargittai, E., Sandvig, C. (Eds.). (2015). Digital research confidential: The secrets of studying behavior online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4 (2), 1-12.
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5 (4), 379-393.
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12 (4), 505-523.
Marwick, A. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gerbaudo, P. (2026). TikTok and the algorithmic transformation of social media publics: From social networks to social interest clusters. New Media & Society, 28 (3), 1019-1036.
Putra, F., Afrilian, P. (2025). Visual culture in social media: A study on the influence of Instagram on aesthetics and youth culture trends. Asian Journal of Media and Culture, 1 (1), 40-56.
Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12 (4), 313-325.
Margetts, H., Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568 (7751), 163-165.