COMPOLÍTICAS
Grupo interdisciplinario de Estudios en Comunicación, Política y Cambio Social
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Dr. David Montero (Universidad de Sevilla)
davidmontero@us.es
-----------------------------------------------------Abstract
The process of filming, editing, distributing and screening analogical video implies in itself a
certain degree of productive cooperation among a number of agents. Within the field of
participatory methodologies (participatory action research, in particular), such collaborative
potential has been harnessed in order to promote local development through so-called
participatory video (PV) experiences since the late 1960s. These practices have basically meant
empowering specific communities to work via consensus in order to elaborate a creative
discourse which targets community needs and aspirations. In the words of Shirley White, PV
acts as “a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community (…). It
brings about a critical awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication.
Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change” (White,
2003: 64).
However, the stress here has clearly been placed on the collaboration process facilitated by
analogical working routines. Over the last decade, digital video has brought a profound
transformation in the ways video is made and distributed. The popularity of extremely
portable audiovisual equipment (digital cameras and mobile phones), plus the availability of
video editing software and the reach of on-line distribution platforms such as YouTube or
Vimeo seem to have shifted the focus from the collective production process to the
articulation of on-line communities of individual viewers/producers which gather around
particular interests. The political implications of such phenomenon are already present in
terms such as “cultural citizenship” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 77) or “participatory culture”
(Jenkins, Puroshotma, Clinton, Wiegel y Robinson, 2006); nonetheless, the complex ways in
which digital video is changing political participation on the Internet and, more specifically,
how it has transformed the patterns established by PV remain in need of further scholarly
discussion.
In the light of such changes, this paper foregrounds the need to rethink PV as a methodology
for academia to engage fruitfully with collective dynamics of production, reception and sharing
of digital video present in today's activism. The potential of on-line video is discussed
considering its limitations in detail and with a view to assess whether current practice truly
works towards establishing an on-line public sphere or whether, on the contrary, participatory
patterns within on-line video practice put forward a different idea of participation.
2
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Introduction
There are two insights which have motivated me to write this paper. The first is the general
idea behind Henry Jenkinˈs (2009) article "What Happened Before YouTube". Four years after
it was launched, Jenkins defines YouTube not as something new and unprecedented, but as a
site made possible by the emergence of very different participatory cultures and practices over
previous decades. As Jenkins explains, "corporations rarely create communities; (they) court
pre-existing communities with their own traditions, their own values and norms, their own
hierarchies, their own practices, and their own leadership" (Jenkins, 2009: 110). Jenkins
himself goes on to examine the ways in which several of these communities, including activists
working on video, have adopted, rejected, resisted or negotiated the arrival of YouTube.
However, crucial issues remain beyond the scope of Jenkinˈs article; most notably, how the
concept of participation itself is being redefined within digital environments.
The second insight (by Armand Mattelart) points out that "each new generation of technology
revived the discourse of salvation, the promise of universal concord, decentralized democracy,
social justice and prosperity" (Mattelart, 2003: 23). Indeed technologies of information and
communication in general, and the Internet in particular, have very often been portrayed
under an overtly utopian light (see Bell (1981), Davis, Elin and Reeher (2002), Lévy (2002),
Negroponte (1998) and Rheingold (2002). Social networking sites have not escaped their share
of utopianism. Terms such as “prosumer”, “produser” or “co-creation” tend to
unproblematically emphasize the liberating effects of technological developments for users
(Potts, 2008; Arvidsson, 2008; Zwass, 2010), while conveniently ignoring profound inequalities
in the relation between the latter and service providers, not to mention the question of usergenerated labor. Furthermore, cybertarianism usually ignores truly transformative uses and
hence hinders any attempt to gauge their true participatory value.
In different ways, Jenkins and Mattelartˈs insights invite an analytic approach which places
technological developments in relation to deeper participatory dynamics that develop
culturally over time and that might express themselves in a number of ways depending of the
tools communities have at their disposal. Analyzing then both participatory dynamics and
participation tools in their own historical context becomes paramount if we want to
understand how a new technological development might enhance, curtail, transform or
undermine participation.
In line with this, this paper will focus on participatory dynamics articulated around video
technology with a view to establish how the emergence of on-line practice has been
negotiated by the PV community. It is the intersection between established routines,
modulated by concrete aims and by years of practice, and the cutting edge claims that usually
accompany technological innovations which provides an opportunity to critically evaluate the
latter, revealing to what extent and how they respond to the needs of a particular group.
Following this, I will first approach PV as a methodological tool within participatory
action/research approaches, highlighting how participation is articulated and the role played
by different routines. Then I will study briefly how actors working with PV are using digital
technology and YouTube in particular, before moving on to
3
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
sketch changes in participatory patterns and question critically several discourses associated
with video and participation in digital environments.
Participatory video as a methodology
According to practitioners Nick and Chris lunch participatory video is “a set of techniques –and
a process - to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film. (...) This
process can be very empowering, enabling people to take action to solve their own problems
and also to communicate their needs and ideas to decision-makers and/or other groups and
communities” (Lunch and Lunch, 2006). As a methodological tool PV has been mostly used in
the context of communication for development projects, whether as a tool for disseminating
popular knowledge (Lunch, 2004), influence policymakers (Ferreira, 2000) or give a voice to
marginalized collectivities (Dudley, 2003).
Practices under the label of participatory video have therefore specific production dynamics
which revolve around the collective involvement of a community (or at least a representative
section of it) in the tasks of planning, producing, editing and distributing a film. Community
building and agreed decision-making play a central role as the films themselves usually revolve
around community issues. A key figure is the so-called “facilitator” whose task is to assist
participants not only in relation to technical elements, but also in identifying and analyzing
what participants want to talk about. These dynamics also establish the members of a
particular community as the primary audience for a participatory film (Odutola, 2003),
although specific goals might encourage making these films available to wider audiences, from
political authorities and international institutions to YouTube users, in order to influence policy
decisions or mobilize international support.
Several authors have pointed out the socially transformative potential of participatory video.
Shirley White, for instance, defines PV as:
a tool for individual, group and community development. It can serve as a powerful
force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become
conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical
awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has
the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change” (White,
2003: 64).
The Freirian term "empowerment" and, in general, metaphors involving power are very often
mentioned in relation to the aims of PV. Empowerment can be conceived of merely in terms of
involvement in socially and politically relevant actions (Friedmann, 1992) or underline the fact
that empowerment increases the political capabilities of the poor (Williams, 2004).
More power-conscious academics have pointed out that empowerment is an essential
precondition for social change and hence necessarily involves a challenge to the status quo,
emphasizing that “empowerment promoted by those who are already in power ends
necessarily in perpetuating the existent power relations” (Nelson and Wright, 1995: 11). This
has been a contentious issue within development projects which incorporate PV as most of
them rely on political administrations or corporate donors as significant stakeholders. Interests
4
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
often clash, revealing the tensions which sometimes structure PV experiences (see, for
instance, Enghel, 2006. 9).
Many of these key conflicts are washed out by the depoliticizing effect of the words such as
"participation" and “community” might have in certain contexts. Used in a void, detached from
specific aims or lacking a clear direction, participation might hide hierarchical, top-down
approaches (Molony, Zonie and Goodsmith, 2007, Odutola, 2003), which mask a complex web
of interests. Equally, the term community rarely evokes the sort of conflict which is very often
present within many of the groups taking part in PV initiatives (Tomaselli, 1989). On the
contrary, it suggests all sorts of positive, idealistic meanings generally associated with the
term, in particular in the context of development studies (see Cleaver, 2001: 44; Nelson and
Wright, 1995)
It is worth bearing in mind that power conflicts within PV revolve directly around the question
of technology: who owns the equipment? Which uses of technology are expected from the
community? Which are the interests of stakeholders? How is knowledge shared? Which
technological resources would allow participants to use their knowledge once the intervention
is over? Undoubtedly, difference within PV interventions is located at the centre of the process
sharing the technical knowledge and ability. Hence, technological developments (and, in
general, any issue which determines which technology is available to a particular community
have a direct effect on PV practices.
Digital networks
As the production and distribution of video is transformed by digital technology, it becomes
paramount to assess the ways in which these changes are influencing PV practice. Do they
offer new possibilities for cooperation? Has the Internet made capacity building and
participatory training more readily available to a wider number of communities and
individuals? Have digital environments contributed to the definition of more sustainable PV
projects? Have on-line video platforms enabled contacts between communities of practice
separated geographically?
An assessment of recent PV work at grassroots level reveals that digital environments and
work dynamics have had limited impact among practitioners.i Oxford based NGO Insightshare,
for instance, has used PV as a methodology for almost 15 years. Projects coordinator Soledad
Muñiz explains that digital video websites have barely affected Insightshare´s production
routines on the ground, although they have favored "a more robust informed consent process
when a project has the goal to share the videos outside the community via internet (hence,
creating a YouTube channel or in the website/channel of a project stakeholder)" (Muñiz,
2013). Things are different when advocacy is involved, as on-line video platforms then provide
the means to reach bigger audiences and mobilize support for a cause. Insightshare projects
do therefore include training in on-line video, but only in the cases when this is a requirement
of the project itself.
In general, we can argue that, as the importance of participatory patterns of production
recedes, the possibilities made available by digital technology seem to gain relevance.
Community building, for instance, is less central for video for change NGO Witness which
5
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
focuses on denouncing human rights violations through the use of video equipment. Here
individual patterns of action, or profoundly hierarchical ones, are not a problem and hence the
use of production routines and training which make use of digital dynamics has become more
widespread and entrenched within the organization. Witness does offer on-line video tutorials
on how to record human rights violations, for instance; and encourage people to wear cameras
with them, film and share through social networking sites.
It is relevant to note that Witness approach to on-line video platforms such as YouTube or
Vimeo changed in 2010. Witness had up until that point favored what we might term a
selective approach, choosing which human rights videos where appropriate for wider
distribution through social networking sites and which ones needed to be placed in a more
defined human rights context. This materialized in The Hub, a digital space developed by
Witness where human rights videos where uploaded, accessed and shared among activists
while still available to the general public. Their new strategic vision, however, privileges virality
over context. Witness has also launched campaigns in order to lobby on-line video sharing
sites into incorporating a more human right conscious approach when it comes to privacy
control, the preservation of anonymity and, in general, the safety the users which denounce
human rights violations through video.
An exception to the general lack of participatory approaches based on the use of digital video
resources is the case of ZaLab, a non-profit organization which hosts PV workshops in different
countries within the Meditarranean basin. ZaLab conceives PV as an "open space to exchange
narrations and audiovisual technical knowledge (…) with the aim to define a collective, nonconventional point of view over contemporary reality". Its activities differ from more
traditional approaches to PV in at least two important aspects: on the one hand, a more
comprehensive use of digital dynamics and, in line with this, a more porous relation between
individual and collective undertakings.
Between 2005 and 2008, for instance, ZaLab developed ZaLabTv, a Euro-Mediterranean
network of PV workshops funded by the Anna Lindh Foundation, the Catalonian Agency for
Cooperation and Development and the Catalonian regional government. ZaLab TV was
designed mainly as a virtual space fostering exchange among participants in the PV workshops
which took place in Palestine, Tunisia (El Jem and Kerchau), Barcelona (Poble Sec and
Barcelona) and Rome. The web of the project, for instance, featured a forum where
participants could upload video drafts in order to receive suggestions and ask for advice. Each
of the hubs which emerged from the workshops run its own blog which contained a diary
detailing activities and referred to audiovisual material hosted in YouTube. Finished films were
also distributed on-line. Apart from that, workshops followed in general the basic hallmarks of
PV methodology: a facilitator and a group of participants (in this case marginal youngsters,
mostly) who get together in the process of making a film about themselves and their situation.
To YouTube or not to YouTube?
The experience of ZaLab TV illustrates some of the paths participatory work using on-line video
might follow in the near future. However, even in this case, the use of digital networks remains
limited to the tasks of making the videos available to anyone, anywhere; sharing information
6
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
about the workshops and basic interaction between participants in different countries. Recent
technological developments already suggest more radically transformative uses of on-line
video technology in the context of PV experiences. Editing on the cloud, video webinars or
collaborative video production are only some of the options which might enhance PV
methodology in a number of ways.ii
The uneasiness of PV practitioners and their general lack of enthusiasm in adopting digital
dynamics of use might be motivated for a number of reasons. The perceived validity of the
method might induce resistance to change. Participatory video requires a controlled
environment. The role played by the facilitator is crucial and his/her decisions on the ground
might determine whether the process succeeds in promoting social change or simply
reproduces dynamics of power already present in the community. Technological conditions
might also determine whether using digital and on-line resources is an option at all, for
instance in rural or isolated communities.
Nonetheless, I think it is also worth examining in more detail whether on-line patterns of
participation and civic engagement are actually in line with the aims of PV, as this can help us
in gauging the distance between different conceptions of what constitutes a participatory
effort. Our analysis will focus on two specific aspects which are central to PV experiences and
which current digital tools might not particularly favor: contribution towards common good
and participation devoid of economic interest.
The first of these issues connects with the long debated issue of the Internet as a
democratizing force. The central question here has been whether the Internet can constitute
itself as a public sphere and revitalize democratic practice in contemporary society. Arguments
in favor point out that the Internet increases the quality of information available, promotes
tighter control over politicians (transparency), allows information to be disseminated by
people other than powerful media conglomerates, improves opportunities to engage with the
estate and in general fosters a deliberative model of democracy.
On a more skeptic note, other voices have remarked that such benefits do not in themselves
constitute a public sphere or have an effect on the quality of democratic systems. For instance
we can mention here readings of the Net as an agonistic space by Chantal Mouffe or the
argument which mentions that the Internet seems in fact to be fragmenting the public sphere
and replacing it with an infinity of rhizomatic audience members (See Cunha 2004). This is in
fact Habermas position with regard to on-line discussion and the public sphere. He discards the
idea of the Internet as an instance of the public sphere, arguing that commercialization has
actually compromised public discourse on the Net (Habermas 2009, 157-58).
All in all, on-line video platforms such as YouTube remain complex nodes where participatory
potential and artistic creativity coexist with increasing commercialization and clear top-down
structures of power. Mayo Fuster Morel proposes the term On-line Creative Communities
(OCC) to study "networks of individuals that communicate, interact and collaborate; in several
forms and degrees of participation which are eco-sistemically integrated; mainly via a platform
of participation on the Internet, on which they depend; and aiming at knowledge making and
sharing" (Fuster, 2012: 229). In her text, Fuster Morel explores the conditions which are
7
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
necessary for OCCs to contribute to the creation of a digital commons and she comes up with a
number of elements which should be considered: openness, integration, decentralization,
publicity, autonomy, action and governance. While the rest of categories are seen as a
precondition for meaningful participation on a number of levels, it is governance where Fuster
focuses in order to determine whether OCCs contribute to the communicative wealth of a
particular community or whether, on the contrary, it co-opts participation for private gain. The
main criteria is whether participants have a meaningful say on the mechanisms which regulate
interaction, as well as over the resources generated by collective involvement.
In both cases, YouTube falls short. Decisions about mechanisms of intervention are taken
following a top-down structure, sometimes taking direct action without previous notice to
users. These are not questioned over their preferences, let alone incorporated into decisionmaking processes. Even the idea of an active YouTube community (fostered by YouTube itself
during its first years of existence) seems to have given way to an overt emphasis on individual
users and their personal contributions to the site. The sense of collaborating towards a
common achievement, a shared representation of the problems and issues affecting the
community is central to PV, while the technological mechanisms informing YouTube.com tend
to privilege solipsism at the production stage.
The YouTube user´s lack of control over the environment which frames participation has
already been emphasized by a number of scholars. José Van Dijck, for instance, examines user
agency, questioning the participatory tag placed on YouTube and explaining that most analyses
which consider YouTube as the epitome of participatory culture, “neglect the substantial role a
site´s interface play in maneuvering individual users and communities. YouTube users are
steered towards a particular video by means of coded mechanisms which heavily rely on
promotion and ranking tactics” (Van Dijck, 2008: 45).
In fact, the question of YouTube´s participatory culture is profoundly tied in with the website´s
attempt to capitalize on its huge following, trying to find ways to turn audiences into revenue
and profit. This is a process which mirrors what has happened on the Internet as a whole and
YouTube´s case can actually be considered paradigmatic of the more general wave of
commercialization on the net (see Kim, 2012: 54). In YouTube, attempts to monetize user
generated content have led to the gradual marginalization of amateur voices on the site,
privileging entertainment and limiting more socially significant modes of engagement (Fabos,
2004; Farchy, 2009).
Several authors have already contributed to a political economy analysis of YouTube by
focusing on issues such as Google´s approach to copyright (Kim, 2012: 54-56; Burguess and
Green, 2009: 30-35) and usage data management (Van Dijck, 2008: 46-49; Andrejevic, 2009:
414-416). I would like to concentrate on YouTube´s mediascape and in the ways in which it has
consistently and consciously attempted to control user generated content. Methods to do this
range from the placement of ad-friendly videos in prominent positions of the website, to much
criticized redesigns and to a monetization program which promotes what Wasko and Erickson
term “corporation sanctioned user-generated content (Wasko and Erickson, 2009: 381).
8
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Looking at the evolution of YouTube´s mediascape it seems clear that, particularly since being
acquired by Google in a $1.6 billion operation, there is a clear move away from the early focus
on promoting user generated content. It has been pointed out that, by acquiring a start-up
without a clear business plan and which had made no profit up to that point, Google followed
the logic which led to the dotcom boom: “first acquire a popular site and then figure out how
to make money from it” (Andrejevic, 2009: 407). Google´s jigsaw had complex pieces to fit in.
For a start, YouTube had alienated big players in the media game by adopting a freedom
fighter position in relation to copyright issues affecting the website. Also, advertising, which is
core to Google´s activities, was not a relevant feature of YouTube and the YouTube community
(the company´s main asset) was firmly opposed to it.iii
Since acquiring YouTube, Google´s dealings have been led by the will to maximize profit at the
cost of YouTubers. Important measures were introduced to implement copyright control and
appease media corporations, some of whom are nonetheless still unhappy, although most
have entered in partnerships with YouTube. Advertising does now populate YouTube in many
different forms: static banners, the possibility of buying video promotion, bidding for video
placement through keywords search, pre-roll advertising, transparent banners embedded in
videos, etc… However, Youtube´s mediascape (beyond controlled spaces such as the
homepage) still remains relatively add free. Only 3% of total videos contain some form of
advertising as marketers are still wary of being associated with user generated content which
might be inappropriate or even critical of their products.
YouTube´s courting of more professional, ad friendly video has also been a central criteria
behind the website´s constant redesign. As Patricia Dias da Silva has pointed out in her own
analysis of YouTube´s evolution since 2006,” YouTube has increasingly downplayed its own
social web features in its platform: there, video is king and increasingly so at each redesign”
(Dias da Silva, 2012: 112). This is in line with what Joshua Green and Jean Burgess underline by
saying that community features in YouTube were added “as an afterthought” (Burgess and
Green, 2009: 105), explaining that community help forums were only added to the website in
2008, well after the YouTube community developed other forms of discussing and sharing
ideas with each other outside the platform. This comes to confirm that YouTube in itself has
never provided the means in order to consolidate a community of practice, but has rather tried
to control it and benefit from it.
YouTube´s most ambitious attempt at controlling user generated content comes in the guise of
the website´s partners program which rewards economically those video makers who are able
to attract more viewers and subscribers to their channels. The system works by putting banner
ads in videos and sharing the revenue with the copyright holders. The partner´s program is
obviously thought with professional generated content in mind, as a certain number of
reproductions in your videos is needed to access the system and no user with copyright claims
can take part. The result is that around 3000 major media partners featured advertising in
their videos as opposed to 70 independent partners (Wasko and Erickson, 2009: 380). YouTube
has also launched a series of videos and tutorial which help video makers in finding “effective
ways of editing video, developing a quality production and improving video structure”… In
short, help in how to make their videos more professional and earn money in the process.
9
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Individualization, lack of control over content, focus on profit, top-down hierarchical
structures… these are all features which depart widely from the aims of PV and which points
towards whether it is possible to speak of participatory approaches devoid of a political
position that takes into account who has the power to decide and who is benefited by
different courses of action.
Conclusion
Even when YouTube as a platform does not seem the most appropriate context for PV
practices, this does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used to develop successful
participatory experiences in different ways. As Zizi Papacharissi points out, technology might
determine the environment and privilege preferred uses, but “it does not contain the agency
to effect social change. Individuals, on the other hand, possess differing levels of agency”
(Papacharissi, 2008). There are in fact different degrees in which online video platforms such
as YouTube and other video services which might effectively contribute to the aims of PV,
although they need to be approached from a logic of appropriation rather than mere use.
The concept of appropriation is therefore directly related to the idea of empowerment, linking
abstract processes of technological innovation to the needs of specific communities of use. It
involves “a popular action of transforming meaning and experience which goes beyond
objective and manifest forms of collective action and, of course, transcends the notion of
neutrality and the nature of technology as an agent of progress” (Sierra, 2013: 34). Therefore,
appropriation is a fight for the code about making it our own, using/transforming technology
in a way that fits the reality of diverse communities of practice in a defiant act of subversion
against standardization and homogenization. Several experiences, stemming directly from
social movements, have already illustrated how YouTube technology can be used in socially
transformative projects such as Toma la Tele (http://www.tomalatele.tv).
The PV community resistance to on-line dynamics of production, edition and reception
underlines the way in which the term “participatory” has been used in relation to video
practices on the Internet. Concepts such as “participatory culture”, “prosumers” or “cocreation” are in need of a thorough critical revision in order to reframe the conditions under
which participation occurs in on-line environments. Participation and civic engagement cannot
be alienated from their political commitment to social transformation and empowerment. The
assessment of YouTube as an example of participatory cultures on-line needs to be rethought,
mobilizing criteria which take into account the aims and conditions under which the
involvement of users takes place.
Bibliography
ANDREJEVIC, M. (2009) "Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of User-Generated Labor" in
Snickars, P. and Vonderau P. (eds) The YouTube Reader. National Library of Sweden:
Stockholm.
10
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
ARVIDSSON, A. (2008). “The Ethical Economy of Customer Coproduction,” Journal of
Macromarketing. N. 4, pp. 326 – 328.
BELL, D. (1981). “The social framework of the information society”. In T. Forester (Ed.), The
microelectronics revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
BURGESS, J. and GREEN, J. (2009). YouTube. Online Video and Participatory Culture. Polity:
London
CLEAVER, F. (2001). “Institutions, Agency, and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to
Development” in Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed
Books
COLOM, A. (2009). Participatory Video and Empowerment: The Role of Participatory Video in
Enhancing the Political Capability of Grass-roots Communities in Participatory Development.
Dissertation MSc in Development Studies. University of London. Unpublished.
CUNHA, T.C. (2004). Argumentaçao e Critica. Almedina: Coimbra
DAVID, S., ELIN, L., and REEHER, G. (2002). Click on Democracy: The Internet’s Power to Change
Political Apathy into Civic Action. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.
DIAS DA SILVA, P. (2012). The Politics of YouTube. Studying Online Video and Political
Discussion. PhD Dissertation (unpublished).
ENGHEL, F. (2006). “Documental participativo y comunicación para el desarrollo. Reflexiones a
partir de dos experiencias con comunidades indígenas”. UNIrevista, Vol. 1, N. 3
FARCHY, J. (2009) "Economics of Sharing Platforms" in Snickars, P. and Vonderau P. (eds) The
YouTube Reader. National Library of Sweden: Stockholm.
FABOS, B. (2004). Wrong Turn on the Information Superhighway: Education and the
Commercialization of the Internet. New York: Teachers College Press.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. London:
Blackwell
HABERMAS, J. (2009). Europe: The Faltering Project. Polity: Cambridge and Malden
JENKINS, H. (2009). "What Happened Before YouTube" in Burgess, J. and Green J. (eds),
YouTube. Online Video and Participatory Culture. Polity: London
KIM, J. (2012). “The institutionalization of YouTube: From user generated content to
professionally generated content”. Media Culture Society. Vol. 34. N. 1
LÉVY, Pierre (2002). Ciberdemocracia. Ensayo sobre filosofía política. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
LUNCH, N. and LUNCH C. (2006). Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the field.
Insight: Oxford.
11
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
LUNCH, C. (2004). “Participatory Video: Rural People Document their Knowledge and
Innovations”. Indigenous Knowledge Notes, N. 71.
MATTELART, A. (2003). The Information Society: An Introduction. Sage Publications: London
MILLER, T. (2009). "Cybertarians of the World Unite: You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Tubes"
in Snickars, P. and Vonderau P. (eds) The YouTube Reader. National Library of Sweden:
Stockholm.
MOLONY, T., ZONIE, Z. y GOODSMITH, L. (2007), “Through Our Eyes: Participatory Video in
West Africa”. Forced Migration Review. N. 27, pp. 37-38.
MOREL FUSTER, M. "Acción colectiva a través de redes online: Comunidades de Creación
Online para la construcción de bienes públicos digitales" in Redes.com. N. 6, pp. 215-229.
MOUFFE, C. (2005). On the Political. London: Routledge.
NELSON, N. and WRIGHT, S. (eds) (1995). Power and Partcipatory Development. Theory and
Practice. London: ITDG
NEGROPONTE, N. (1998). “Beyond digital”. Wired, 6, 12, 288.
ODUTOLA, K.A. (2003). “Participatory use of Video: A case study of community involvement in
story construction”. Global Media Journal, Vol. 2, N. 2.
POTTS, J. and HARTLEY, J. et al.(2008). “Consumer Co-Creation and Situated Creativity.”
Industry & Innovation. N. 5, pp. 459 – 474.
TOMASELLI, K., (1990). “Transferring Video Skills to the Community: The Problem of Power”.
The Australian Journal of Media & Culture. Vol. 3, N. 2
VAN DIJCK, J. (2008). “Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content”. Media
Culture Society. Vol. 31. N. 1
WASKO, J. and ERICKSON, M. (2009). "The Political Economy of YouTube" in Snickars, P. and
Vonderau P. (eds) The YouTube Reader. National Library of Sweden: Stockholm.
WHITE, S. (2003). Participatory Video: Images that transform and Empower. Sage: Londres.
WILLIAMS, G. (2004). “Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and
(re)politicization”. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 25, N.3, pp.557-578.
Endnotes
i
Conclusions are drawn from a sample of nine of the most prominent organizations using participatory
video methodology and video for social change: Insightshare, My View, ZaLab, Living Lens, Film Aid,
Proplaneta, Witness, The Rights Exposure Project and La Lupa. Research involved content analyses of
12
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
each of these organizations websites and personal interviews with workers, facilitators and project
managers.
ii
These features are already commercially available from companies such as Google
(http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/onair.html) or WeVideo (http://www.wevideo.com/)
iii
In its first stages YouTube featured only participatory ads which were rated by the YouTube
community and a number of brand channels. Only in 2009 there were a significant increase in
homepage ad formats, from one to seven.