媒介可供性视角下听障带货主播的数字化生计研究——基于快手“手语带货直播间”的考察

A Study of Digital Livelihoods among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing E-commerce Anchors via Media Affordance: Evidence from Kuaishou’s Sign Language Livestreaming

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

李冰心

导师:

贺艳

导师单位:

新闻传播学院(融媒体学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

手语带货直播间;听障主播;数字化生计;媒介可供性;扎根理论

摘要:

内容摘要直播电商的迅速发展为听障群体突破传统就业壁垒、构建新型数字化生计提供了重要契机。快手等短视频平台上涌现的“手语带货直播间”,使听障主播得以将手语这一沟通障碍转化为视觉表达的优势,从而开辟出差异化的就业与收入路径。与此同时,听障主播以平台为依托的可见化生存与数字劳动实践,也为理解技术赋能的运行方式、残障群体的数字融入过程与平台劳动生态的结构特征提供了现实观察入口。然而,既有讨论仍多停留在“技术赋能”的宏观描述层面,对于听障主播数字化生计如何被具体建构、何以运转以及其可持续性张力如何生成,尚缺乏机制化阐释。本文以快手平台“手语带货直播间”的听障主播为研究对象,基于媒介可供性理论视角,系统考察其在直播电商生态中构建数字化生计的实践机制、赋能逻辑与现实困境,并进一步揭示其生计结果中“韧性与脆弱”并存的生成逻辑。研究以质性研究为主的方法开展,对32位相关行动者(听障主播、健听助播、运营人员、MCN管理者及观众)开展深度访谈,并结合对多个直播间的线上参与式观察、线下实地观察获取一手资料;在资料分析上,运用扎根理论进行开放编码、主轴编码与选择性编码,提炼核心范畴并构建分析框架。研究内容主要分为四个部分。第一部分呈现手语带货直播的兴起背景与听障群体生计转型的总体图景,讨论快手平台生态如何为手语直播提供发展土壤,以及听障群体如何从传统就业边缘进入数字平台劳动场域。第二部分聚焦生产可供性的调用机制,揭示听障主播如何通过“视觉化生产”“具身表演”与“物质—数字拼凑”等策略,将平台技术特性转化为可用的生计能力,实现从“听觉缺失”到“视觉资本”的创造性转换。第三部分围绕社交可供性展开,分析听障主播如何通过残障身份的符号重构、群体内信任机制的生成与情感共同体的维系,并在粉丝协同劳动的支持下形成高粘性、强认同的数字信任网络,推动直播间关系结构从交易性流量向“社群性联结”转化。第四部分转向移动——算法可供性内部的双刃结构:在移动技术带来的时空突破与进入便利之外,算法误判、无障碍支持不足、规则压力与供应链弱势等因素共同构成结构性约束,并最终导向本研究的结果命题,即数字化生计的韧性与脆弱并存:韧性体现为在流量生态中持续进行的数据驯化、策略适配与协作补位,脆弱则体现为上述投入难以沉淀为稳定资源与实质议价能力,从而使其生计根基在平台规则与市场权力面前呈现持续的不确定性与不可持续风险。本文表明,听障主播的数字化生计实践并非单向度的“技术赋能”结果,而是在生产、社交与移动——算法三类可供性重构过程中持续协商的复杂实践。研究在经验层面呈现了听障主播数字化生计的建构机制与边界条件,在理论层面拓展了媒介可供性理论对边缘群体数字实践的解释力,并为平台无障碍优化、机构运营实践与相关政策制定提供了基于田野实证的参考。关键词:手语带货直播间;听障主播;数字化生计;媒介可供性;扎根理论

参考文献:

参考文献一、中文参考文献(一)著作类1.陈向明:《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000年版。2.[德] 弗里德里希·基特勒:《留声机 电影 打字机》,邢春丽译,上海:复旦大学出版社,2017年版。3.[法] 列维-斯特劳斯:《野性的思维》,李幼蒸译,北京:商务印书馆,1987年版。4.[法] 皮埃尔·布尔迪厄:《实践理论大纲》,高振华、李思宇译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2017年版。5.[法] 皮埃尔·布尔迪厄:《文化资本与社会炼金术:布尔迪厄访谈录》,包亚明译,上海:上海人民出版社,1997年版,第83页。6.[瑞士] 费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1980年版。7.[美] 罗伯特·麦基:《故事:材质、结构、风格和银幕剧作的原理》,周铁东译,天津:天津人民出版社,2014年版,第22页。8.[美] 威廉·A·科萨罗:《童年社会学》,程福财译,上海:上海社会科学出版社,2014年版,第86页。9.[美] 大卫·M·费特曼:《民族志:步步深入》(第3版),龚建华译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2013年版,第201页。10.[美] 哈里·F. 沃尔科特:《校长办公室的那个人》,杨海燕译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2009年版,第12页。11.[美] 本尼迪克特·安德森:《想象的共同体:民族主义的起源与散布》,吴叡人译,上海:上海人民出版社,2016年版。(二)期刊类12.包国强,陈泰旭,黄诚:“可供性视角下元宇宙的媒体赋能和扩展”,《新媒体与社会》,2022年第1期,第43-62页。13.陈欣杰,宋启明:“微信‘在看’功能对人际关系的建构——基于可供性视角的分析”,《青年记者》,2020年第36期,第25-26页。14.陈义涛,赵军伟,刘茜:“乡村振兴战略下助农直播价值共创机制研究——基于消费者视角的实证分析”,《价格理论与实践》,2024年第1期,第80-84页。15.丁未:“遭遇‘平台’:另类数字劳动与新权力装置”,《新闻与传播研究》,2021年第10期,第20-38页。16.刘金波,丁树佳:“数字灵工:平台创意劳动者‘剪刀手’群体研究”,《中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2025年第9期,第122-135页。17.芮必峰,孙爽:“从离身到具身——媒介技术的生存论转向”,《国际新闻界》,2020年第5期,第7-17页。18.胡翼青,马新瑶:“作为媒介性的可供性:基于媒介本体论的考察”,《新闻记者》,2022年第1期,第66-76页。19.胡创业:“电商直播、产品卷入度与消费者决策”,《商业经济研究》,2022年第17期,第109-112页。20.黄贺铂:“他者的透视:MCN机构与直播平台的想象可供性及反思”,《国际新闻界》,2021年第12期,第77-95页。21.黄震,杨兵:“‘互联网+’时代的残疾人人力资源开发——兼论科技赋能对于残疾人人力资源开发的突破性意义”,《残疾人研究》,2016年第4期,第3-6页。22.黄楚新,吴梦瑶:“我国直播带货的发展状况、存在问题及优化路径”,《传媒》,2020年第17期,第11-14页。23.喻国明,赵睿:“媒体可供性视角下‘四全媒体’产业格局与增长空间”,《学术界》,2019年第7期,第37-44页。24.景义新,沈静:“新媒体可供性概念的引入与拓展”,《当代传播》,2019年第1期,第92-95页。25.贾毅:“电商直播:技术推动下的媒介消费与再消费”,《河南大学学报(社会科学版)》,2022年第1期,第126-132页。26.焦若水,李国权:“残疾人就业:互联网时代的机遇与挑战”,《残疾人研究》,2019年第4期,第45-53页。27.赖德胜,廖娟,刘伟:“我国残疾人就业及其影响因素分析”,《中国人民大学学报》,2008年第1期,第10-15页。28.廖娟:“残疾人就业政策效果评估——来自CHIP数据的经验证据”,《人口与经济》,2015年第2期,第68-77页。29.李纪珍,周江华,谷海洁:“女性创业者合法性的构建与重塑过程研究”,《管理世界》,2019年第6期,第142-160页。30.刘宝臣,王燊成:“数字经济能否重新定义人的劳动能力?——基于31位残疾人电商的案例研究”,《四川行政学院学报》,2020年第5期,第73-83页。31.刘芷欣,杨玉枝:“直播电商中知识型主播胜任力研究——以‘东方甄选’为例”,《新媒体研究》,2022年第24期,第70-73页。32.魏琳,张翔:“后疫情时代网络直播带货营销的现状、问题与反思”,《传媒》,2021年第22期,第85-87页。33.赵世调,周阳:“想象的中介:大学生用户对小红书个性化推荐算法的态度研究”,《中国传媒科技》,2023年第11期,第91-95页。34.孙凝翔,韩松:“‘可供性’:译名之辩与范式/概念之变”,《国际新闻界》,2020年第9期,第122-141页。35.孙萍:“‘算法逻辑’下的数字劳动:一项对平台经济下外卖送餐员的研究”,《思想战线》,2019年第6期,第50-57页。36.苏涛,彭兰:“虚实混融、人机互动及平台社会趋势下的人与媒介——2021年新媒体研究综述”,《国际新闻界》,2022年第1期,第44-60页。37.滕朋,高天遥:“作为政治沟通的‘官员直播带货’的内涵与启示”,《当代传播》,2023年第2期,第66-68页。38.田地,杨可可:“浅析媒介仪式视角下直播带货的消费主义建构与反思”,《今传媒》,2024年第5期,第26-29页。39.王婉:“自我呈现与剧班表演:网红直播带货策略分析——以李佳琦为例”,《视听界》,2021年第1期,第44-49页。40.王磊,王学基:“互动创造消费:旅游电商直播情境下冲动购买的影响机制”,《西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2023年第12期,第132-142页。41.王登洋,颜景毅:“失范与异化:直播带货的整体性批判”,《青年记者》,2023年第18期,第50-52页。42.王惠芬,张霞:“符号资本视角下导师对研究生的培养效应探析”,《研究生教育研究》,2017年第4期,第91-95页。43.王扬眉:“家族企业继承人创业成长金字塔模型——基于个人意义构建视角的多案例研究”,《管理世界》,2019年第2期,第168-184页。44.岳小玲:“电商直播‘带货’的内容生产和优化路径”,《出版广角》,2020年第19期,第64-66页。45.晏青,陈柯伶:“可控与不可控之间:短视频成瘾的媒介可供性”,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2023年第1期,第90-101页。46.曾丽红,叶丹盈,李萍:“社会化媒介赋权语境下女性‘能动’的‘可见性’——兼对B站美妆视频社区的‘可供性’考察”,《新闻记者》,2021年第9期,第86-96页。47.郑秉文,李妍花:“我国网络创业就业特征及其对社会保险可及性的挑战”,《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2018年第4期,第1-13页。48.赵燕平:“残疾人就业的模式创新探索——以长春市有劳动能力的残疾人为例”,《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2010年第1期,第49-53页。49.赵珊珊:“直播带货创新样态发展研究——以‘东方甄选’为例”,《传媒》,2024年第18期,第70-72页。50.张昊,许金琼:“粉丝经济视域下图书直播路径探析”,《新闻研究导刊》,2024年第10期,第64-66页。51.张志安,黄桔琳:“传播学视角下互联网平台可供性研究及启示”,《新闻与写作》,2020年第10期,第87-95页。52.张新红:“数字经济与中国发展”,《电子政务》,2016年第11期,第2-11页。53.潘忠党,刘于思:“以何为‘新’? ‘新媒体’话语中的权力陷阱与研究者的理论自省——潘忠党教授访谈录”,《新闻与传播评论》,2017年第1期,第2-19页。54.周盈,周海燕,余露:“直播助农模式下主播行为对受众购买决策影响机制”,《商业经济研究》,2021年第19期,第96-99页。55.周瑞春,李韬:“认同与规训:直播带货的媒介社会建构路径——以D直播间为例”,《天府新论》,2023年第2期,第144-159页。56.邓锁:“信息化背景下残疾人就业模式及政策支持路径分析”,《残疾人研究》,2016年第1期,第62-68页。(三)学位论文57.侯松延:“隔离或融合:听障者职训与就业历程的社会学分析”,国立台北大学硕士学位论文,2011年。58.俞旦:“聋哑人就业中的社会排斥与融合研究”,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2011年。59.李政:“基于多模态理论的视-听双通道输入教学模式对英语学习技能的影响”,华南师范大学硕士学位论文,2009年。(四)其他类60.中国残疾人联合会:2024年残疾人事业发展统计公报,2025年5月8日,https://www.cdpf.org.cn//zwgk/zccx/tjgb/1706f34657364af9a52b67f77d8c9f2b.htm。61.张迎迎:“2023年,残疾人事业交出‘优异答卷’”,《慈善公益报》2024年1月7日,第5版。62.罗茂林:“快手 营收利润双增长 AI商业化打造增长新引擎”,《上海证券报》2025年3月26日,第6版。二、外文参考文献 (一)著作类63.Blau, P. M., Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, 1964.64.Bryman, A., The Disneyization of Society, SAGE Publications, 2004.65.Collins, R., Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton University Press, 2004.66.Charmaz, K., Constructing Grounded Theory, SAGE Publications, 2014.67.Gibson, J. J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Psychology Press, 1986.68.Goffman, E., Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice Hall, 1963.69.Heidegger, M., The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays, translated by Lovitt, W., Harper & Row, 1977.70.Hochschild, A. R., The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press, 1983.71.Jenkins, H., Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York University Press, 2006.72.Ihde, D., Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth, Indiana University Press, 1990.73.Hutchby, I., Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet, Polity Press, 2001.74.Kozinets, R. V., Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online, SAGE Publications, 2010.75.McLuhan, M., Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McGraw-Hill, 1964.76.Norman, D., The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition, Basic Books, 2013.77.Polanyi, K., The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Amereon House, 1944.78.Scholz, T., Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory, Routledge, 2013.79.Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, 1986.80.Morse, J. M., “Strategies for sampling,” in Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue, SAGE Publications, 1991, pp. 127-145.81.Bucher, T. & Helmond, A., “The affordances of social media platforms,” in The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, SAGE Publications, 2018, pp. 233-253.82.Blair, J. A., “The rhetoric of visual arguments,” in Hill, C. A. & Helmers, M. eds., Defining Visual Rhetoric, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, pp. 41-62.83.Jensen, K. B., “Metamodernity as the key to understanding the present era,” in The Metamodernity of Mediated Communication, Routledge, 2016, pp. 3-20.84.Schopp Laura H., “Telework for persons with disabilities in the EU and the USA: What can we learn from each other?,” in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, IOS Press, 2004.(二)期刊类85.Alper, M. & Goggin, G., “Digital technology and rights in the lives of children with disabilities,” New Media & Society, 19(5), 2017, 726-740.86.Bruyère, S. M., Erickson, W. & VanLooy, S., “Information technology (IT) accessibility: Implications for employment of people with disabilities,” WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 27(4), 2006, 397-405.87.Bileviciene, T. & Bileviciute, E., “Telework organization model as method of development of disabled persons’ employment quality,” Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 2010, 71-74.88.Blumer, H., “What is wrong with social theory?,” American Sociological Review, 19(1), 1954, 3-10.89.Bourdieu, P., Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Nice, R., Harvard University Press, 1984.90.Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, 1990.91.Bourdieu, P., “Social space and symbolic power,” Sociological Theory, 7(1), 1989, 14-25.92.Crang, P., “It’s showtime: On the workplace geographies of display in a restaurant in Southeast England,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(6), 1994, 675-704.93.Dayan, D., “Conquering visibility, conferring visibility: Visibility seekers and media performance,” International Journal of Communication, 7, 2013, 137-153.94.Gandini, A., “Digital labour: An empty signifier?,” Media, Culture & Society, 43(2), 2021, 369-380.95.Gelfgren, S., Ineland, J. & Cocq, C., “Social media and disability advocacy organizations: Caught between hopes and realities,” Disability & Society, 37(7), 2022, 1085-1106.96.Hogan, B., “The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 2010, 377-386.97.Lash, S., “Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation?,” Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 2007, 55-78.98.Maroto, M. & Pettinicchio, D., “Disability, structural inequality, and work: The influence of occupational segregation on earnings for people with different disabilities,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 38, 2014, 76-92.99.Merton, R. K., “Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 1972, 9-47.100.Mills, K. A., Scholes, L. & Brown, A., “Virtual reality and embodiment in multimodal meaning making,” Written Communication, 39(3), 2022, 335-369.101.Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K., “The development of constructivist grounded theory,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 2006, 25-35.102.Mladenov, T., “AI and disabled people’s independent living: A framework for analysis,” AI & SOCIETY, 41(3), 2026, 2593-2605.103.Oliver, M. & Barnes, C., “Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(5), 2010, 547-560.104.Paakkari, A., Rautio, P. & Valasmo, V., “Digital labour in school: Smartphones and their consequences in classrooms,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 2019, 161-169.105.Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., et al., “Organizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use: Organizational media affordances,” Journal of Communication, 67(1), 2017, 106-130.106.Chen, H., Dou, Y. & Xiao, Y., “Understanding the role of live streamers in live-streaming e-commerce,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 59, 2023, 101266.107.Liu, D. & Yu, J., “Impact of perceived diagnosticity on live streams and consumer purchase intention: Streamer type, product type, and brand awareness as moderators,” Information Technology and Management, 25(3), 2024, 219-232.108.Lu, Y. & Duan, Y., “Strategic live streaming choices for vertically differentiated products,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 2024, 103582.109.Li, H., Wang, Z., Yuan, Z., et al., “Multidimensional evaluation of consumers’ shopping risks under live-streaming commerce,” Sustainability, 15(19), 2023, 14060.110.Ali, M. A., Alam, K. & Taylor, B., “The mediating effect of information and communication technology usages on the nexus between assistive technology and quality of life among people with communication disability,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(5), 2020, 338-345.111.Snyder, S. L. & Mitchell, D. T., “Re-engaging the body: Disability studies and the resistance to embodiment,” Public Culture, 13(3), 2001, 367-390.112.Schrock, A. R., “Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality,” International Journal of Communication, 9, 2015, 1229-1246.113.Terranova, T., “Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy,” Social Text, 18(2), 2000, 33-58.114.Wu, H., “Research on the marketing strategy of Tik Tok live broadcast with goods,” The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 4(7), 2022, 65-69.115.Kažemikaitienė, E. & Bilevičienė, T., “Problems of involvement of disabled persons in E. government,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(2), 2008, 184-196.116.Cao, B., He, C., Zhou, M., et al., “Sparkling silence: Practices and challenges of livestreaming among deaf or hard of hearing streamers,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2023, pp. 1-15.

提交日期

2026-08-28

引用参考

李冰心. 媒介可供性视角下听障带货主播的数字化生计研究——基于快手“手语带货直播间”的考察[D]. 西南政法大学,2026.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 媒介可供性视角下听障带货主播的数字化生计研究——基于快手“手语带货直播间”的考察
  • dc.title
  • A Study of Digital Livelihoods among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing E-commerce Anchors via Media Affordance: Evidence from Kuaishou’s Sign Language Livestreaming
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20230552002161
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李冰心
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 新闻传播学院(融媒体学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 新闻与传播硕士专业学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2026
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 电商直播
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 贺艳
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 新闻传播学院(融媒体学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 手语带货直播间,听障主播,数字化生计,媒介可供性,扎根理论
  • dc.subject
  • Keywords: Sign Language Live Commerce Rooms; Hearing-Impaired Streamers; Digital Livelihoods; Media Affordances; Grounded Theory
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 内容摘要直播电商的迅速发展为听障群体突破传统就业壁垒、构建新型数字化生计提供了重要契机。快手等短视频平台上涌现的“手语带货直播间”,使听障主播得以将手语这一沟通障碍转化为视觉表达的优势,从而开辟出差异化的就业与收入路径。与此同时,听障主播以平台为依托的可见化生存与数字劳动实践,也为理解技术赋能的运行方式、残障群体的数字融入过程与平台劳动生态的结构特征提供了现实观察入口。然而,既有讨论仍多停留在“技术赋能”的宏观描述层面,对于听障主播数字化生计如何被具体建构、何以运转以及其可持续性张力如何生成,尚缺乏机制化阐释。本文以快手平台“手语带货直播间”的听障主播为研究对象,基于媒介可供性理论视角,系统考察其在直播电商生态中构建数字化生计的实践机制、赋能逻辑与现实困境,并进一步揭示其生计结果中“韧性与脆弱”并存的生成逻辑。研究以质性研究为主的方法开展,对32位相关行动者(听障主播、健听助播、运营人员、MCN管理者及观众)开展深度访谈,并结合对多个直播间的线上参与式观察、线下实地观察获取一手资料;在资料分析上,运用扎根理论进行开放编码、主轴编码与选择性编码,提炼核心范畴并构建分析框架。研究内容主要分为四个部分。第一部分呈现手语带货直播的兴起背景与听障群体生计转型的总体图景,讨论快手平台生态如何为手语直播提供发展土壤,以及听障群体如何从传统就业边缘进入数字平台劳动场域。第二部分聚焦生产可供性的调用机制,揭示听障主播如何通过“视觉化生产”“具身表演”与“物质—数字拼凑”等策略,将平台技术特性转化为可用的生计能力,实现从“听觉缺失”到“视觉资本”的创造性转换。第三部分围绕社交可供性展开,分析听障主播如何通过残障身份的符号重构、群体内信任机制的生成与情感共同体的维系,并在粉丝协同劳动的支持下形成高粘性、强认同的数字信任网络,推动直播间关系结构从交易性流量向“社群性联结”转化。第四部分转向移动——算法可供性内部的双刃结构:在移动技术带来的时空突破与进入便利之外,算法误判、无障碍支持不足、规则压力与供应链弱势等因素共同构成结构性约束,并最终导向本研究的结果命题,即数字化生计的韧性与脆弱并存:韧性体现为在流量生态中持续进行的数据驯化、策略适配与协作补位,脆弱则体现为上述投入难以沉淀为稳定资源与实质议价能力,从而使其生计根基在平台规则与市场权力面前呈现持续的不确定性与不可持续风险。本文表明,听障主播的数字化生计实践并非单向度的“技术赋能”结果,而是在生产、社交与移动——算法三类可供性重构过程中持续协商的复杂实践。研究在经验层面呈现了听障主播数字化生计的建构机制与边界条件,在理论层面拓展了媒介可供性理论对边缘群体数字实践的解释力,并为平台无障碍优化、机构运营实践与相关政策制定提供了基于田野实证的参考。关键词:手语带货直播间;听障主播;数字化生计;媒介可供性;扎根理论
  • dc.description.abstract
  • AbstractThe rapid development of live-streaming e-commerce has provided a significant opportunity for the hearing-impaired community to break through traditional employment barriers and build new forms of digital livelihood. The emergence of "sign-language live commerce rooms" on short-video platforms such as Kuaishou has enabled hearing-impaired streamers to transform sign language—a communication barrier—into an advantage in visual expression, thereby carving out a distinct path for employment and income generation. At the same time, the platform-based visible existence and digital labor practices of hearing-impaired streamers also offer a practical observational entry point for understanding how technological empowerment operates, how disabled groups integrate into the digital realm, and the structural characteristics of the platform-based labor ecosystem. However, existing discussions still largely remain at the macro level of describing "technological empowerment," lacking a mechanistic explanation of how the digital livelihoods of hearing-impaired streamers are specifically constructed, how they function, and how their sustainability tensions arise.This paper takes hearing-impaired streamers in Kuaishou's "sign-language live commerce rooms" as its research subject. From the theoretical perspective of media affordances, it systematically investigates the practical mechanisms, empowering logic, and real-world dilemmas involved in their construction of digital livelihoods within the live-streaming e-commerce ecosystem. It further reveals the underlying logic that leads to the coexistence of "resilience and fragility" in their livelihood outcomes. The study employs a primarily qualitative methodological mix, including netnography, participatory observation, and in-depth interviews. In-depth interviews were conducted with 32 relevant actors (hearing-impaired streamers, hearing assistants, operational staff, MCN managers, and viewers), supplemented by sustained observation and content recording of multiple live-streaming rooms to gather first-hand data. For data analysis, grounded theory was used to perform open, axial, and selective coding, extracting core categories and constructing an analytical framework.The research content is divided into four main parts. The first part presents the background of the rise of sign-language live commerce and the overall picture of the livelihood transition of the hearing-impaired community. It discusses how the Kuaishou platform ecosystem provides fertile ground for sign-language streaming and how the hearing-impaired community has moved from the margins of traditional employment into the digital platform labor arena. The second part focuses on the mechanisms of mobilizing production affordances, revealing how hearing-impaired streamers transform platform technical features into usable livelihood capabilities through strategies such as "visualized production,""embodied performance," and "material-digital bricolage," achieving a creative transformation from "lack of hearing" to "visual capital." The third part centers on social affordances, analyzing how hearing-impaired streamers, through the symbolic reconstruction of disabled identity, the generation of in-group trust mechanisms, and the maintenance of emotional communities—supported by the collaborative labor of fans—form a highly cohesive, strongly identified digital trust network, thereby shifting the live-stream room's relational structure from transactional traffic to "communal bonding." The fourth part turns to the dual-edged structure within mobility-algorithmic affordances: beyond the spatio-temporal expansion and access convenience brought by mobile technology, factors such as algorithmic misjudgment, insufficient accessibility support, regulatory pressure, and weak bargaining power in supply chains collectively constitute structural constraints. This ultimately leads to the study's concluding proposition: the coexistence of resilience and fragility in digital livelihoods. Resilience is manifested through continuous data domestication, strategic adaptation, and collaborative supplementation within the traffic-flow ecosystem, while fragility is reflected in the difficulty of translating these efforts into stable resources and substantive bargaining power. Consequently, the foundation of their livelihoods exhibits persistent uncertainty and unsustainable risks in the face of platform rules and market power.This paper demonstrates that the digital livelihood practices of hearing-impaired streamers are not a one-dimensional outcome of "technological empowerment." Rather, they constitute a complex practice of ongoing negotiation within the process of reconstructing three types of affordances: production, social, and mobility-algorithmic. At the empirical level, the study delineates the construction mechanisms and boundary conditions of hearing-impaired streamers' digital livelihoods. At the theoretical level, it expands the explanatory power of media affordance theory regarding the digital practices of marginalized groups. Furthermore, it provides field-based insights for platform accessibility optimization, institutional operational practices, and related policy formulation.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-06-04
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2026-05-12
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 参考文献一、中文参考文献(一)著作类1.陈向明:《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000年版。2.[德] 弗里德里希·基特勒:《留声机 电影 打字机》,邢春丽译,上海:复旦大学出版社,2017年版。3.[法] 列维-斯特劳斯:《野性的思维》,李幼蒸译,北京:商务印书馆,1987年版。4.[法] 皮埃尔·布尔迪厄:《实践理论大纲》,高振华、李思宇译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2017年版。5.[法] 皮埃尔·布尔迪厄:《文化资本与社会炼金术:布尔迪厄访谈录》,包亚明译,上海:上海人民出版社,1997年版,第83页。6.[瑞士] 费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1980年版。7.[美] 罗伯特·麦基:《故事:材质、结构、风格和银幕剧作的原理》,周铁东译,天津:天津人民出版社,2014年版,第22页。8.[美] 威廉·A·科萨罗:《童年社会学》,程福财译,上海:上海社会科学出版社,2014年版,第86页。9.[美] 大卫·M·费特曼:《民族志:步步深入》(第3版),龚建华译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2013年版,第201页。10.[美] 哈里·F. 沃尔科特:《校长办公室的那个人》,杨海燕译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2009年版,第12页。11.[美] 本尼迪克特·安德森:《想象的共同体:民族主义的起源与散布》,吴叡人译,上海:上海人民出版社,2016年版。(二)期刊类12.包国强,陈泰旭,黄诚:“可供性视角下元宇宙的媒体赋能和扩展”,《新媒体与社会》,2022年第1期,第43-62页。13.陈欣杰,宋启明:“微信‘在看’功能对人际关系的建构——基于可供性视角的分析”,《青年记者》,2020年第36期,第25-26页。14.陈义涛,赵军伟,刘茜:“乡村振兴战略下助农直播价值共创机制研究——基于消费者视角的实证分析”,《价格理论与实践》,2024年第1期,第80-84页。15.丁未:“遭遇‘平台’:另类数字劳动与新权力装置”,《新闻与传播研究》,2021年第10期,第20-38页。16.刘金波,丁树佳:“数字灵工:平台创意劳动者‘剪刀手’群体研究”,《中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2025年第9期,第122-135页。17.芮必峰,孙爽:“从离身到具身——媒介技术的生存论转向”,《国际新闻界》,2020年第5期,第7-17页。18.胡翼青,马新瑶:“作为媒介性的可供性:基于媒介本体论的考察”,《新闻记者》,2022年第1期,第66-76页。19.胡创业:“电商直播、产品卷入度与消费者决策”,《商业经济研究》,2022年第17期,第109-112页。20.黄贺铂:“他者的透视:MCN机构与直播平台的想象可供性及反思”,《国际新闻界》,2021年第12期,第77-95页。21.黄震,杨兵:“‘互联网+’时代的残疾人人力资源开发——兼论科技赋能对于残疾人人力资源开发的突破性意义”,《残疾人研究》,2016年第4期,第3-6页。22.黄楚新,吴梦瑶:“我国直播带货的发展状况、存在问题及优化路径”,《传媒》,2020年第17期,第11-14页。23.喻国明,赵睿:“媒体可供性视角下‘四全媒体’产业格局与增长空间”,《学术界》,2019年第7期,第37-44页。24.景义新,沈静:“新媒体可供性概念的引入与拓展”,《当代传播》,2019年第1期,第92-95页。25.贾毅:“电商直播:技术推动下的媒介消费与再消费”,《河南大学学报(社会科学版)》,2022年第1期,第126-132页。26.焦若水,李国权:“残疾人就业:互联网时代的机遇与挑战”,《残疾人研究》,2019年第4期,第45-53页。27.赖德胜,廖娟,刘伟:“我国残疾人就业及其影响因素分析”,《中国人民大学学报》,2008年第1期,第10-15页。28.廖娟:“残疾人就业政策效果评估——来自CHIP数据的经验证据”,《人口与经济》,2015年第2期,第68-77页。29.李纪珍,周江华,谷海洁:“女性创业者合法性的构建与重塑过程研究”,《管理世界》,2019年第6期,第142-160页。30.刘宝臣,王燊成:“数字经济能否重新定义人的劳动能力?——基于31位残疾人电商的案例研究”,《四川行政学院学报》,2020年第5期,第73-83页。31.刘芷欣,杨玉枝:“直播电商中知识型主播胜任力研究——以‘东方甄选’为例”,《新媒体研究》,2022年第24期,第70-73页。32.魏琳,张翔:“后疫情时代网络直播带货营销的现状、问题与反思”,《传媒》,2021年第22期,第85-87页。33.赵世调,周阳:“想象的中介:大学生用户对小红书个性化推荐算法的态度研究”,《中国传媒科技》,2023年第11期,第91-95页。34.孙凝翔,韩松:“‘可供性’:译名之辩与范式/概念之变”,《国际新闻界》,2020年第9期,第122-141页。35.孙萍:“‘算法逻辑’下的数字劳动:一项对平台经济下外卖送餐员的研究”,《思想战线》,2019年第6期,第50-57页。36.苏涛,彭兰:“虚实混融、人机互动及平台社会趋势下的人与媒介——2021年新媒体研究综述”,《国际新闻界》,2022年第1期,第44-60页。37.滕朋,高天遥:“作为政治沟通的‘官员直播带货’的内涵与启示”,《当代传播》,2023年第2期,第66-68页。38.田地,杨可可:“浅析媒介仪式视角下直播带货的消费主义建构与反思”,《今传媒》,2024年第5期,第26-29页。39.王婉:“自我呈现与剧班表演:网红直播带货策略分析——以李佳琦为例”,《视听界》,2021年第1期,第44-49页。40.王磊,王学基:“互动创造消费:旅游电商直播情境下冲动购买的影响机制”,《西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2023年第12期,第132-142页。41.王登洋,颜景毅:“失范与异化:直播带货的整体性批判”,《青年记者》,2023年第18期,第50-52页。42.王惠芬,张霞:“符号资本视角下导师对研究生的培养效应探析”,《研究生教育研究》,2017年第4期,第91-95页。43.王扬眉:“家族企业继承人创业成长金字塔模型——基于个人意义构建视角的多案例研究”,《管理世界》,2019年第2期,第168-184页。44.岳小玲:“电商直播‘带货’的内容生产和优化路径”,《出版广角》,2020年第19期,第64-66页。45.晏青,陈柯伶:“可控与不可控之间:短视频成瘾的媒介可供性”,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2023年第1期,第90-101页。46.曾丽红,叶丹盈,李萍:“社会化媒介赋权语境下女性‘能动’的‘可见性’——兼对B站美妆视频社区的‘可供性’考察”,《新闻记者》,2021年第9期,第86-96页。47.郑秉文,李妍花:“我国网络创业就业特征及其对社会保险可及性的挑战”,《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2018年第4期,第1-13页。48.赵燕平:“残疾人就业的模式创新探索——以长春市有劳动能力的残疾人为例”,《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2010年第1期,第49-53页。49.赵珊珊:“直播带货创新样态发展研究——以‘东方甄选’为例”,《传媒》,2024年第18期,第70-72页。50.张昊,许金琼:“粉丝经济视域下图书直播路径探析”,《新闻研究导刊》,2024年第10期,第64-66页。51.张志安,黄桔琳:“传播学视角下互联网平台可供性研究及启示”,《新闻与写作》,2020年第10期,第87-95页。52.张新红:“数字经济与中国发展”,《电子政务》,2016年第11期,第2-11页。53.潘忠党,刘于思:“以何为‘新’? ‘新媒体’话语中的权力陷阱与研究者的理论自省——潘忠党教授访谈录”,《新闻与传播评论》,2017年第1期,第2-19页。54.周盈,周海燕,余露:“直播助农模式下主播行为对受众购买决策影响机制”,《商业经济研究》,2021年第19期,第96-99页。55.周瑞春,李韬:“认同与规训:直播带货的媒介社会建构路径——以D直播间为例”,《天府新论》,2023年第2期,第144-159页。56.邓锁:“信息化背景下残疾人就业模式及政策支持路径分析”,《残疾人研究》,2016年第1期,第62-68页。(三)学位论文57.侯松延:“隔离或融合:听障者职训与就业历程的社会学分析”,国立台北大学硕士学位论文,2011年。58.俞旦:“聋哑人就业中的社会排斥与融合研究”,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2011年。59.李政:“基于多模态理论的视-听双通道输入教学模式对英语学习技能的影响”,华南师范大学硕士学位论文,2009年。(四)其他类60.中国残疾人联合会:2024年残疾人事业发展统计公报,2025年5月8日,https://www.cdpf.org.cn//zwgk/zccx/tjgb/1706f34657364af9a52b67f77d8c9f2b.htm。61.张迎迎:“2023年,残疾人事业交出‘优异答卷’”,《慈善公益报》2024年1月7日,第5版。62.罗茂林:“快手 营收利润双增长 AI商业化打造增长新引擎”,《上海证券报》2025年3月26日,第6版。二、外文参考文献 (一)著作类63.Blau, P. M., Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, 1964.64.Bryman, A., The Disneyization of Society, SAGE Publications, 2004.65.Collins, R., Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton University Press, 2004.66.Charmaz, K., Constructing Grounded Theory, SAGE Publications, 2014.67.Gibson, J. J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Psychology Press, 1986.68.Goffman, E., Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice Hall, 1963.69.Heidegger, M., The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays, translated by Lovitt, W., Harper & Row, 1977.70.Hochschild, A. R., The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press, 1983.71.Jenkins, H., Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York University Press, 2006.72.Ihde, D., Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth, Indiana University Press, 1990.73.Hutchby, I., Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet, Polity Press, 2001.74.Kozinets, R. V., Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online, SAGE Publications, 2010.75.McLuhan, M., Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McGraw-Hill, 1964.76.Norman, D., The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition, Basic Books, 2013.77.Polanyi, K., The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Amereon House, 1944.78.Scholz, T., Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory, Routledge, 2013.79.Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, 1986.80.Morse, J. M., “Strategies for sampling,” in Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue, SAGE Publications, 1991, pp. 127-145.81.Bucher, T. & Helmond, A., “The affordances of social media platforms,” in The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, SAGE Publications, 2018, pp. 233-253.82.Blair, J. A., “The rhetoric of visual arguments,” in Hill, C. A. & Helmers, M. eds., Defining Visual Rhetoric, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, pp. 41-62.83.Jensen, K. B., “Metamodernity as the key to understanding the present era,” in The Metamodernity of Mediated Communication, Routledge, 2016, pp. 3-20.84.Schopp Laura H., “Telework for persons with disabilities in the EU and the USA: What can we learn from each other?,” in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, IOS Press, 2004.(二)期刊类85.Alper, M. & Goggin, G., “Digital technology and rights in the lives of children with disabilities,” New Media & Society, 19(5), 2017, 726-740.86.Bruyère, S. M., Erickson, W. & VanLooy, S., “Information technology (IT) accessibility: Implications for employment of people with disabilities,” WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 27(4), 2006, 397-405.87.Bileviciene, T. & Bileviciute, E., “Telework organization model as method of development of disabled persons’ employment quality,” Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 2010, 71-74.88.Blumer, H., “What is wrong with social theory?,” American Sociological Review, 19(1), 1954, 3-10.89.Bourdieu, P., Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Nice, R., Harvard University Press, 1984.90.Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, 1990.91.Bourdieu, P., “Social space and symbolic power,” Sociological Theory, 7(1), 1989, 14-25.92.Crang, P., “It’s showtime: On the workplace geographies of display in a restaurant in Southeast England,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(6), 1994, 675-704.93.Dayan, D., “Conquering visibility, conferring visibility: Visibility seekers and media performance,” International Journal of Communication, 7, 2013, 137-153.94.Gandini, A., “Digital labour: An empty signifier?,” Media, Culture & Society, 43(2), 2021, 369-380.95.Gelfgren, S., Ineland, J. & Cocq, C., “Social media and disability advocacy organizations: Caught between hopes and realities,” Disability & Society, 37(7), 2022, 1085-1106.96.Hogan, B., “The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 2010, 377-386.97.Lash, S., “Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation?,” Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 2007, 55-78.98.Maroto, M. & Pettinicchio, D., “Disability, structural inequality, and work: The influence of occupational segregation on earnings for people with different disabilities,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 38, 2014, 76-92.99.Merton, R. K., “Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 1972, 9-47.100.Mills, K. A., Scholes, L. & Brown, A., “Virtual reality and embodiment in multimodal meaning making,” Written Communication, 39(3), 2022, 335-369.101.Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K., “The development of constructivist grounded theory,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 2006, 25-35.102.Mladenov, T., “AI and disabled people’s independent living: A framework for analysis,” AI & SOCIETY, 41(3), 2026, 2593-2605.103.Oliver, M. & Barnes, C., “Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(5), 2010, 547-560.104.Paakkari, A., Rautio, P. & Valasmo, V., “Digital labour in school: Smartphones and their consequences in classrooms,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 2019, 161-169.105.Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., et al., “Organizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use: Organizational media affordances,” Journal of Communication, 67(1), 2017, 106-130.106.Chen, H., Dou, Y. & Xiao, Y., “Understanding the role of live streamers in live-streaming e-commerce,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 59, 2023, 101266.107.Liu, D. & Yu, J., “Impact of perceived diagnosticity on live streams and consumer purchase intention: Streamer type, product type, and brand awareness as moderators,” Information Technology and Management, 25(3), 2024, 219-232.108.Lu, Y. & Duan, Y., “Strategic live streaming choices for vertically differentiated products,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 2024, 103582.109.Li, H., Wang, Z., Yuan, Z., et al., “Multidimensional evaluation of consumers’ shopping risks under live-streaming commerce,” Sustainability, 15(19), 2023, 14060.110.Ali, M. A., Alam, K. & Taylor, B., “The mediating effect of information and communication technology usages on the nexus between assistive technology and quality of life among people with communication disability,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(5), 2020, 338-345.111.Snyder, S. L. & Mitchell, D. T., “Re-engaging the body: Disability studies and the resistance to embodiment,” Public Culture, 13(3), 2001, 367-390.112.Schrock, A. R., “Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality,” International Journal of Communication, 9, 2015, 1229-1246.113.Terranova, T., “Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy,” Social Text, 18(2), 2000, 33-58.114.Wu, H., “Research on the marketing strategy of Tik Tok live broadcast with goods,” The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 4(7), 2022, 65-69.115.Kažemikaitienė, E. & Bilevičienė, T., “Problems of involvement of disabled persons in E. government,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(2), 2008, 184-196.116.Cao, B., He, C., Zhou, M., et al., “Sparkling silence: Practices and challenges of livestreaming among deaf or hard of hearing streamers,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2023, pp. 1-15.
回到顶部