I recently came across a paper by Gunther Eysenbach in the Journal of Internet Medical Research. In this paper, he elaborates on a term I found very intriguing, and have since come to embrace: apomediation. It seems to describe a real modern phenomenon, the effects of which many domains are feeling.
Mediation is an important concept involving economics, access, and power. The traditional type of mediation is intermediation — that is, mediation between one person and another, or between one person or entity and a resource. Intermediaries often block access, or limit it in some way. In some cases, intermediaries exist because there is a scarcity model at work.
Apomediation is a neologism created by introducing the Latin term for “separate, detached, away from.” This is the mediation you experience when you read user reviews on Amazon.com or at a movie site, when you notice a number of people you trust using an iPhone, or when the wisdom of the crowd affects your decision-making. Apomediation is guidance generated and available from peripheral mediators who have no or limited power to affect the ultimate decision or access to the service, resource, or information.
The current, highly saturated information environment makes apomediation relatively painless, endlessly accessible, and competitive with intermediation for value and attention.
Physicians have been moved to a more apomediated role by the preponderance of online information resources. Patients can choose the level of intermediation they prefer, and findings suggest that many patients move from a higher need for intermediation to a desire for apomediation once they have some key facts and have developed competency themselves.
Librarians are being moved from intermediaries (mediating between patrons and information), and some say they are being disintermediated. However, I think they are on their way to becoming apomediaries when it comes to information access.
Publishers have traditionally been intermediaries between authors and readers, but some experiments (PLoS One, Wikipedia and the like) seem to indicate that they are moving into the realm of serving as apomediaries. In the realm of blogs, apomediation is the main force affecting much of the talent running blogs. Publisher intermediation is not what it once was.
Google is perhaps the most prominent apomediary, guiding results to the top based on apomediation.
Apomediation feels like the net effect of an information economy that no longer operates on a scarcity model. Now, information is readily available any time. Intermediaries will still be needed, but less often than before, in fewer roles, and for shorter durations.
And that’s your word of the day.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cd7d2b14-d7bc-4d44-9fb1-b21ba5fb2ed1)
Aug 29, 2008 at 6:01 am
[...] Apomediation: Word of the Day « The Scholarly Kitchen "Librarians are being moved from intermediaries (mediating between patrons and information), and some say they are being disintermediated. However, I think they are on their way to becoming apomediaries when it comes to information access. [...]
Sep 17, 2008 at 6:34 am
[...] few weeks ago, I published a post about a new term I think is important to our future — apomediation. This is the power of disinterested groups to affect the information economy. We just learned a [...]
Feb 3, 2009 at 7:09 am
[...] premise is that while supply was problematic (the scarcity model I’ve talked about here before), demand was never met. This allowed for a different kind of economy to emerge — one based on [...]
Mar 10, 2009 at 8:00 am
[...] may have worked in a scarcity model, but it’s nearly impossible in today’s world of abundance and [...]
Mar 17, 2009 at 6:55 am
[...] are no longer in a scarcity model of [...]
Mar 31, 2009 at 6:49 am
[...] In fact, these times might be eminently suited to a reinvented university press, one that celebrates and validates blogging as a way of unleashing niche knowledge and subject-level passion, that uses the superior distribution of the Internet to achieve mainstream visibility, and that replaces an organizational structure based on the scarcity model (centralized decision-making and intermediation) with one based on plenty (decentralized authority and apomediation). [...]
Sep 24, 2009 at 6:58 am
[...] traditional value chains, yet reflecting on the fact that intermediaries (e.g., Google, blogs, and apomediaries enabled by Facebook, Twitter, and the like) still exist and provide value. It led us to coin a new [...]
Nov 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm
[...] For more information, see Kent Anderson’s blog entry on apomediation at The Scholarly Kitchen. [...]
Feb 22, 2010 at 6:32 am
[...] talked here before about how the world of scarcity has been replaced by the world of abundance, and how this abundance is allowing Web 2.0 and other digital phenomena to occur. Lanier argues [...]
Mar 25, 2010 at 5:13 am
[...] this isn’t Lewis’ fault, but his rating is collateral damage. And in a world of apomediation, a 3-star average [...]