“If print culture shaped the environment in which the Enlightenment blossomed and set the scene for the Industrial Revolution, participatory media might similarly shape the cognitive and social environments in which twenty-first-century life will take place (a shift in the way our culture operates)” (Rheingold, 2008, pp 99-100)

His talk at the TED conference — viewable here — encapsulates some of the thrilling possibilities for democracy, collaboration, and (in my mind) health promotion in our century.

Above left is the middle section of our concept model (the string represents the order in which to achieve these goals) and on the right are our community partners (Lily, Larry, Shawn, and Brittnay).

Above left you can see more of the space at the Ashe Cultural Center in which we held the training and will hold the participant training on March 15 - 16th. On the right is a Theme Chart that Caricia compiled out of word groupings that the trainers put together (these came out of five adjectives that everyone wrote down to describe New Orleans).

We handed out pre and post evaluation sheets to everyone and we had great feedback about how to make the next round of trainings more accessible and hopefully even more successful. The trainers/community partners are all highly motived, highly sensitive and with them we will be leading the participant training for the filmmakers of NOLA VVC. Here is a flyer for the upcoming training:

We’ve learned a lot about the community and how to better target potential participants. Even the flyer above was put together in a participatory manner by everyone at the training. We hope that as this process continues that everyone involved feels a sense of ownership — I for one can’t wait to start looking through the footage I shot while I was down there.

Here is an excerpt by Lisa Pickoff-White from our Participatory Media Guidebook, which I describe in the last blog, explaining what bookmarking is and how to use it to make your life easier.

Definition
Bookmarking is a system where people work together to bring together articles and works throughout the Internet by tagging them. For example, people can vote on something if it is informative as a suggestion for others to read it, or add it to a list of articles on the same topic.

My Favorite Examples
Del.icio.us, Digg

Why use it?
Sites such as Digg receive about 20 million hits a month. People who find something via social bookmarking are also more likely to trust the source, because it has been pre-approved by a human, instead of a list generated by a search engine. It’s also any easy way for people to check out what their friends are reading, and stumble across your site that way.

Sites such as Del.icio.us can be really helpful in saving, organizing, managing, and categorizing all of the websites that you want to remember. It’s easy to share tags through digg and find key websites by looking at others’ use of the same tag. Del.icio.us also allows you to see all of your bookmarks online, so you can access them and add to them from any computer.

Use Cases: Videovoice Example
Check out Caricia’s del.icio.us tag on all of the websites on “videovoice” that she has come across during the last 5 months. Here is a tag cloud of all her tags, including videovoice and dozens more, that she has used.

How to use
Sign up of an account at one of the social bookmarking sites above. Most of them will insert a toolbar, so whenever you see something relevant to your organization, tag-it!

Helpful/Interesting Links

• A general review of Social Bookmarking Tools (from D-Lib Magazine)
• Digg’s failing democracy (from the Download Squad)

After months of reading, analyzing, discussing, blogging, and tagging, we are happy to announce our final project: The Participatory Media Guidebook.

We created the Participatory Media Guidebook to introduce a range of participatory media tools for collective action to activists and social justice organizations around the world. The guide discussed what tools to use and when to use them. It is a wiki, so it will always be evolving and updating. Please participate by adding your own expertise on how to use new media to change the world.

New media offer an incredibly unique and new opportunity to address our current public health crisis. There are countless examples of this already happening with enormous success around the world. Sharing videos about condoms online can educate people in India about HIV, despite the mass media ban on such conversations. Blogging about outbreaks can get information about deadly epidemics to the World Health Organization well before a national government would admit to having a problem that might discourage tourist from coming to their coasts. Social networking sites can facilitate community organizing and mobilization of diasporas, such as Mexican migrant workers, that would otherwise not have the numbers to be a political force to demand healthy working conditions or access to medical treatment.

Caricia Catalani

Shirley White, the editor and primary author of the book “Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower” (2003), has taught participatory video methods since the 1970s. She is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Communications at Cornell University.

For a youngster like myself, I find it hard to fathom participatory video in the days before cheap and easy to operate digital cameras, digital video tape that costs about 5-cents per minute, digital editing programs that are free on most computers, and instant connection to millions of viewers for free through online video sharing sites. You have to hand it to Professor White. If you are looking for a book that can provide you with first-person experiences of participatory film, “Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower” does just that. The book is mostly descriptive and focused on the use of participatory video as a community development strategy in resource-poor environments.

However, as a researcher and as a person immersed in a very different technological world, I found myself a little disappointed. Although the book was published in 2003, there is really no mention of the changes that I mention above–changes that are monumental in the world of participatory video and changes that result in millions of non-professionals around the world engaging in digital storytelling. Just this month, people in Burma broadcast videos from mobile phones and cheap cameras, effectively leaping over the media black out and revealing human rights abuses to the world. The same is happening in Pakistan. And in China. And the United States. Recognizing this new and nearly global use of technology, Witness launched HUB–the first participatory media site for human rights.

Professor White, a participatory video champion during much more challenging time, nostalgically confesses: “I am still using my decade-old VHS camera and editing system.” Wow!

And, now, I will have to admit my graduate student bias around rigor and research. “Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower” makes many claims about participatory video, most of which I agree with whole-heartedly, but it is not enough to say that it is “transformative” and “empowering.” As a student of science, my ability to believe has been forever ruined by this mantra: Prove it. Professor White and her colleagues do not spend much time referring to practitioners, philosophers, or scholars who spent most of their lives exploring, defining, and analyzing these concepts–people like Paulo Freire and his ideas around empowerment. And they do not spend much time describing what exactly they mean by, for example, empowerment. This word is used a lot in everyday conversations, among people fighting oppression, in political contexts, nearly everywhere… But, what does it mean? What does it not mean? Does empowerment mean that you are a better person? Does it mean that you are free from the constraints of oppression? Does it mean that you are DOING something to change your world? What does it mean to say that participatory video empowers? And, does it really? If so, then show me because my unimaginative scientific brain is dying to see the evidence! If so, then this is one of the biggest breakthroughs, well, ever. If the evidence already exists, then I can retire my dissertation project now.

Professor White’s book is an incredible contribution to practitioners of participatory video. It is one of perhaps 3-4 books written on this subject; an early adapter extraordinaire that is sure to be followed by a flood of books on participatory video in the coming years! Professor White’s book reminds us that we are arriving at a truly miraculous era of participatory media and culture. We have a lot to be thankful for because it has never been easier to collaborate, produce, and distribute videos with communities across the globe.

Just to begin writing in this blog, I feel like a lot of introductions are necessary. Not just people, but also ideas. Idea 1, meet idea 2. This kind of meet and greet is happening in my head all of the time.

So, here is a new idea to participatory research and a well known idea to participatory media. I have a bit of a crush on this idea and feel pretty proud to introduce it around.

******

Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Law School professor and the author of the already well revered book “The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,” (available in full) has some incredible observations of interest to anyone wondering about participatory media or participatory research. Or… participatory anything.

Benkler describes a major global shift in the production and exchange of information, knowledge, and culture. Like the critical theorists, Benkler agrees that the market through which these intangibles emerge has profound influence on human freedom and development.

Through his observations on the trend of economic change enabled by the affordability and rise of a networked, computer-mediated communications environment, Benkler develops the concept of a networked information economy. The network information economy, as he observes, is a

“system of production, distribution, and consumption of information goods characterized by decentralized individual action carried out through wildly distributed, nonmarket means that do not depend on market strategies.” (Benkler 2006, p. 3)

By decentralization, Benkler is referring to the disappearance of economic middlemen, those traditional economic brokers that control the valve at the end of market bottlenecks because of their unique ownership of the means of production. For example, if you wanted to be a singer twenty years ago, you would need to have your music embraced by a major record company. They alone had the power to distribute your songs through contract deals with music broadcasters and retailers. Today, the barrier to entering cultural economies like music is substantially lower and although not everyone can afford access to a computer with Internet connection, this is all it takes to share your song with hundreds of thousands of people.

One of the “market strategies” that Benkler refers to is propriety, or ownership of an informational good. Sole ownership does not fit into the networked information economy, when goods are commonly produced by hundreds of thousands of volunteers brought together from all corners of the globe through network technology. For example, Wikipedia is now the most serious competitor to encyclopedia makers. Forty years ago, you had to buy a set of encyclopedias for your home or hope that you had access to a subsidized public library to access this wealth of information. Today, Wikipedia gives hundreds of thousands of people from around the world free access to information production and consumption. More than 75,000 active writers, working on nearly 9 million articles in more than 250 languages, produce Wikipedia (statistics). This is, in effect, the world’s largest participatory research project.

Benkler’s theories on the networked information economy reveal an entirely new vision of an economy in which participatory production of information, knowledge, and culture are not only possible but also given wings. Whether we know it or not, our work in participatory media and community-based participatory research will be profoundly impacted by the networked information economy.

Caricia Catalani, MPH
Updated: November 3, 2007

Videovoice is an approach to participatory video that is rooted in the practices and conceptual frameworks of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and participatory media. As the graphic below depicts, these approaches to research and media have a number of common influences, such as critical theory, and disparate influences, such as new media theorists and the intellectual contributions of Paulo Freire.

Conceptual Roots of Community-Based Participatory Research

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to research that has been increasingly recognized and adopted by public health practitioners during the last ten years. Although it not necessarily a theory, CBPR has strong theoretical roots that inform its practice. As a form of community-based and participatory research, videovoice is the intellectual progeny of CBPR and, therefore, heavily informed by its the theoretical framing, cause-and-effect assumptions, and aspired impacts of videovoice.

In an analysis of the conceptual roots of CBPR, Wallerstein and Dunn distinguish between a Northern tradition, rooted in Kurt Lewin’s action research, and a Southern tradition, rooted in Freirian empowerment education for critical consciousness (Wallerstein & Dunn, 2003). Lewin developed Action Research in opposition to the positivist research paradigm, which legitimizes researcher interpretation and creation of knowledge. This scientific paradigm has long argued that researchers, as methodologically trained and objective observers are most capable of collecting, analyzing, and communicating truth. Lewin proposed an approach to research that involved a cycle of planning, action, and investigating the results of action (Lewin, 1997). According to Wallerstein, the Northern school of CBPR is conceptually derived from Talcott Parsons and his predecessors, “who view social progress as rational decision making based on applying ever-increasing scientific knowledge to world problems.” (Wallerstein, pp 29)

Although the Northern tradition has strong roots in CBPR, videovoice is more strongly aligned with the Southern tradition. The Southern tradition of CBPR has significant conceptual roots in critical theory and the work of Paulo Freire.

Critical theory, originally referred to as the Frankfurt School, was initially developed in Germany during the late 1930s to early 1950s (Ingram & Simon-Ingram, 1992). Max Horkheimer, the first critical theorist, describes it as a radical and emancipatory form of Marxist theory that critiques the model of science put forward by logical positivism (Horkheimer, 1937). During its initial development, critical theory became a complex social criticism that combined Marx’s ideas about class conflict and domination, Freud’s ideas about the development of personality, and the utopian style of philosophy concerned with freedom, justice, and happiness (Ingram & Simon-Ingram, 1992). Critical theory was born during a unique time in European history, characterized by authoritarianism and anti-Semitism, the growth of the labor movement, and the opposing expansion of Soviet Communism and Western Capitalism.

Critical theorist, rooted in Marxist social theory, expanded on the more traditional Marxist concern with inequitable distribution of the resources for industrial production. They argued that in addition to industrial production, elite’s control over the production of culture and knowledge is also a central feature of hegemony over the masses (Ingram & Simon-Ingram, 1992). Both classic and modern critical theorists write extensively about the subtle process of social domination through ideology, the production of knowledge, and the hegemonic powers of mass media communication. According to critical theory and in agreement with Foucault, knowledge is socially and historically constructed (Foucault, 1980; Habermas, 1987; Ingram & Simon-Ingram, 1992). The production of knowledge is mediated through the perspectives of the elite class.

To emancipate society from the control of the elite and to produce knowledge that empowers the public, critical theorist Jurgen Habermas argued we must aspire to build a more ideal democratic public sphere (Habermas, 1989b). Habermas’ concept of the democratic public sphere is central to the development of participatory research and participatory media and so, in turn, to videovoice. The public sphere, according to Habermas, is the systems and organizations that mediate between private interests of everyday life and the public concerns of social life (Habermas, 1989a). Within an ideally democratic public sphere people freely assemble to rationally discuss, debate, and find consensus on public issues. Although this concept is controversial, countless numbers of papers have been written on processes/organizations that either enhance or reduce the public sphere according to their adherence to the following characteristics defined by Habermas: participation is open to all, all participants are considered equal, and issues of public concern can be raised for rational debate (Habermas, 1997).

Taking these theoretical concepts one step further, radical pedagogist Paulo Freire examined the process through which any person could engage in the kind of powerful and deliberative democracy to which Habermas refers. Freire worked with illiterate and non-formally educated people in rural Brazil. He wrote his most influential works, including “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Education for Critical Consciousness,” during the early 1970s. At the time, authoritarian regimes controlled much of Latin America and Freire was forced to leave Brazil for his writing on critical consciousness, emancipation, and social justice.

Freire demonstrated that critical dialogue with others could result in the ability to “perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality but as a reality in the process of transformation.”(Freire, 1970) In effect, Freire proved that the poor and the uneducated could form their own powerful public sphere. The concept of critical consciousness, or conscientização in his native Portuguese, is central to this demonstration and highly influential in the CBPR approach. Conscientização is the process of “learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality.” (Freire, 1970)(pp35). Through this process, oppressed men and women come to identify and question the power structures (political, economic, historic, and social) that enable and/or disable communities. Freire’s technique for critical group dialogue and conscientização involves an iterative cycle of reflection and action, or praxis. To motivate praxis, Freire often used visual images and artifacts (Freire, 1973) to motivate discussion and provoke action.

Participatory Media

The conceptual roots of participatory media lie in the traditions of critical theory and the recently developed new media theory. Critical theorists Adorno, Habermas, and Marcuse are known for their philosophical contributions to mass media theory. Writing during the eve of Europe’s totalitarian era, Adorno theorized that under the control of dominant classes, mass media serves as a mechanism of social control (Adorno, 1954). Television, he argued, automatizes individual behavior, manipulates individual’s use of language, and weakens the forces of individual resistance by subversively altering our expectations of reality.

Habermas, taking Adorno’s critique a step further, contended that media and technology will never be a force toward the development of a democratic public sphere (Habermas, 1971, 1989a, 1998). According to Habermas’ analysis, the media destroys the public sphere by replacing rational deliberation with the manufactured and manipulative opinions of media experts (Habermas, 1989a). As such, the media shapes, constructs, and limits public discourse to those themes validated by media corporations. Thus, it transforms rational democratic participants into citizen-consumers, who ingest and passively absorb entertainment and information. Even in the era of Internet-based media, Habermas holds to his former analysis that all mass media leads society away from the ideals of a participatory democracy (Habermas, 1998). This assertion by Habermas has been the subject of intense debate by media theorists.

Herbert Marcuse, a critical theorist and contemporary of Habermas’, agreed with his colleagues’ theories on the power of mass media. However, Marcuse theorized that media and technology could be emancipated and used as a powerful tool to oppose totalitarian forces (Ingram & Simon-Ingram, 1992). He argued:

“The more technological rationality, freed from its exploitative features, determines social production, the more will it become dependent on political direction – on the collective effort to attain a pacified existence, with the goals which the free individuals may set for themselves.” (pp 109)

With this statement and his theoretical work on technology as a means for equality, Marcuse led the conceptual development of new media theory.

New media theorists include hundreds of public intellectuals that are building the conceptual framework with which to describe, analyze, and predict the social ramifications of new technologies in mass media. The burgeoning of new media theory is in step with the advent of technological tools and systems that alter the production, distribution, and consumption of media. Of these technologies, none has changed media more than the Internet. With the birth of the Internet and into the 1990s, new media theorists have developed a set of conceptual frameworks that explore the social meaning of the change from traditional mass media to more participatory forms of media. These theorists agree overwhelmingly that the era of participatory media, introduced by the popularization of the Internet, alters the structure of social networks and of the media so fundamentally that Habermas’ dismissal of the media as a positive force for democracy can no longer be applied universally to all forms of media (Benkler, 2006; Best & Kellner, 2001; Castells, 2004b, 2007; Castells & Cardoso, 2006; Castells & Catterall, 2001; Jenkins, 2006a, 2006b; Jenkins, Thorburn, & Seawell, 2003; Kellner, 2006; Rheingold, 1985, 2002).

Given the radical changes in media production, distribution, and consumption that have occurred during the last ten years, authors are all writing and theorizing about very contemporary phenomenon. Douglas Kellner, the Philosophy of Education Chair of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at the University of California in Los Angeles, most directly confronts Habermas’ assumptions that media cannot be an emancipatory force (Durham & Kellner, 2006; Kellner, 1984, 1995, 2003, 2005, 2006; Marcuse & Kellner, 1998; Ryan & Kellner, 1988). Kellner’s basic contention is that:

“…the media, state, and business are the major institutional forces of contemporary capitalist societies, that the media “mediate” between state, economy, and social life, and that the mainstream broadcasting media have not been promoting democracy or serving the public interest and thus are forfeiting their crucial structural importance in constructing a democratic society.” (Kellner, 2006)

According to Kellner, globalization and new technologies require further development of the concept of a public sphere today. Kellner’s new global public sphere includes participatory modes of media and communication that facilitate and enhance debate, discussion, and information distribution. The implications of this new theoretical construction of the public sphere are that a democratic politics “will teach individuals how to use the new technologies, to articulate their own experiences and interests, and to promote democratic debate and diversity, allowing a full range of voices and ideas…” (Kellner, 2006) And, therefore, according to Kellner’s theories, democratization of the media is not only possible, it is essential. The process of media democratization will take place through mass education and media literacy (Kellner, 1998, 2004).

Manuel Castells, Chair of Communication and Technology at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication, has written over twenty books on technology, society, and the Internet. In many of them, he contributes to the overwhelming consensus among new media authors that power in society is achieved through networks and the fundamental structure of networks are changing and democratizing. He argues:

“But power does not reside in institutions, not even the state or large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure society. Or, rather, in what I propose to call the ‘switchers’; that is, the mechanisms connecting or disconnecting networks on the basis of certain programs or strategies. For instance, in the connection between the media and the political system.” Pg 224 (Castells, 2004a)

Of course, Castells does not assume that the growth and globalization of a networked society will necessarily introduce more equity. However, the conceptual understanding that networks are the underlying structure of our lives must inspire practices to counter these structures with alternative networks, “networks that disrupt certain connections and establish new ones, such as disconnecting political institutions from the business-dominated media and re-anchoring them in civil society through horizontal communications networks.” (pg 224)

Yochai Benkler, a professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School and the author of the already well revered book “The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,” argues that networks… Benkler examines the ways in which new information technology permits extensive forms of collaboration that may potentially have transformative consequences for economy and society (Benkler, 2006). Commons-based peer production… Networked information economy to describe a “system of production, distribution, and consumption of information goods characterized by decentralized individual action carried out through wildly distributed, nonmarket means that do not depend on market strategies” (Benkler 2006, p. 3). (Benkler, 1996)
Henry Jenkins… (Jenkins, 2006a, 2006b; Jenkins et al., 2003; McPherson, Shattuc, & Jenkins, 2002; Thorburn, Jenkins, & Seawell, 2003)

Participatory media advocates argue that new forms of grassroots, community, and citizen media build new networked possibilities for enhancing our democratic public sphere. Conceptual work on this front has included participatory media techniques like blogging (Jenkins, 2006b), social networking (Rheingold, 2002), community radio and access television (Jankowski & Prehn, 2002), the creation of participatory media collectives like IndyMedia (Jong, Shaw, & Stammers, 2005), and participatory video (White, 2003) (?)

References

Adorno, T. W. (1954). How to Look at Television. Quarterly of Film, Radio an Television, 8(3), 213-235.
Benkler, Y. (1996). Rules of the road for the information superhighway : electronic communications and the law. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks : how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (2001). The postmodern adventure : science, technology, and cultural studies at the Third Millennium. New York: Guilford Press.
Castells, M. (2004a). Afterward: Why Networks Matter. In M. Helen, P. Miller & P. Skidmore (Eds.), Network Logic: Who Governs in an Interconnected World? London: Demos.
Castells, M. (2004b). The network society : a cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham ;: Northampton, MA, USA : Edward Elgar.
Castells, M. (2007). Mobile communication and society : a global perspective : a project of the Annenberg Research Network on international communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (2006). The network society : from knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Castells, M., & Catterall, B. (2001). The making of the network society. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts.
Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. (2006). Media and cultural studies : keyworks (Rev. ed. ed.). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Addition, 2000 ed.). New York: The Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Toward a Rational Society (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1989a). Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1989b). The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. London: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1997). Institutions of the Public Sphere. In C. Newbold (Ed.), Approaches to Media: A Reader (pp. 235-244). London: Arnold.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditional and Critical Theory. Frankfurt.
Ingram, D., & Simon-Ingram, J. (Eds.). (1992). Critical Theory: The Essential Readings. New York: Paragon House.
Jankowski, N., & Prehn, O. (Eds.). (2002). Community Media in the Informational Age. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006a). Convergence culture : where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006b). Fans, bloggers, and gamers : exploring participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Thorburn, D., Ph. D., & Seawell, B. (2003). Democracy and new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jong, W. d., Shaw, M., & Stammers, N. (Eds.). (2005). Global Activism Global Media. Ann Arbor and London: Pluto Press.
Kellner, D. (1984). Herbert Marcuse and the crisis of Marxism. London: Macmillan.
Kellner, D. (1995). Media culture : cultural studies, identity, and politics between the modern and the postmodern. London ; New York: Routledge.
Kellner, D. (1998). Multiple Literacies and Critical Pedagogy in a Multicultural Society. Educational Theory, 48(1), 103-122.
Kellner, D. (2003). Media spectacle. London ; New York: Routledge.
Kellner, D. (2004). Technological Transformation, Multiple Literacies, and the Re-visioning of Education E-Learning, 1(1), 9-37.
Kellner, D. (2005). Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy : terrorism, war, and election battles. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm.
Kellner, D. (2006). Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Marcuse, H., & Kellner, D. (1998). Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse technology, war, and fascism. London ; New York: Routledge.
McPherson, T., Shattuc, J., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Hop on pop : the politics and pleasures of popular culture. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Rheingold, H. (1985). Tools for thought : the people and ideas behind the next computer revolution. New York: Computer Book Division/Simon & Schuster.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs : the next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub.
Ryan, M., & Kellner, D. (1988). Camera politica : the politics and ideology of contemporary Hollywood film. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
Thorburn, D., Ph. D., Jenkins, H., & Seawell, B. (2003). Rethinking media change : the aesthetics of transition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wallerstein, N., & Dunn, B. (2003). The Conceptual, Historical, and Practice Roots of Community Based Participatory Research and Related Participatory Traditions. In M. Minkler, Wallerstein, N. (Ed.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
White, S. (2003). Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower: Sage Publications.