Advertisement

Exploring the Ethics of the Participant-Produced Archive: The Complexities of Dissemination

  • Casey Burkholder
  • Katie MacEntee
Chapter

Abstract

Cellphilm methodology is a process where research participants create short cellphone videos in an effort to move toward social change. Cellphilms can be disseminated across physical spaces (eg. through sharing phone-to-phone and through screenings) and digital spaces (eg. by uploadig to social media sites). This chapter focuses on the use of participatory digital archives, such as YouTube, as a means for teachers to view and review their cellphilms to encourage reflection on teacher identity and the use of cellphilms as an educational tool. We see cellphilming as an emerging participatory research methodology and its integration with online participatory digital archives holds both promise and challenges. As such, our chapter explores the development of a researcher/participant collaborative cellphilm archive in a project with pre-service social studies teachers at the University of Prince Edward Island in Canada. We discuss some of the ethical issues that are associated with relying on YouTube as a digital archival space when conducting visual participatory research with pre-service teachers.

Keywords

Professional Identity Participatory Action Research Social Media Platform Digital Archive Teacher Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ball, Arnetha. 2000. Empowering pedagogies that enhance the learning of multicultural students. The Teachers College Record 102(6): 1006–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, Jamie. 2014. The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brake, David. 2014. Are we all online content creators now? Web 2.0 and digital divides. Journal of ComputerMediated Communications 19: 591–609.Google Scholar
  4. Buckingham, David. 2009. Speaking back? In search of the citizen journalist. In Video Cultures Media Technology and Everyday Creativity, ed. David Buckingham, and Rebecca Willett, 93–114. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, Jean, and Joshua Green. 2013. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, Geoffrey V., and Sarah J. Arroyo. 2011. Tubing the future: Participatory pedagogy and YouTube U in 2020. Computers and Composition 28(4): 292–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charmaz, Kathy. 2005. Grounded theory for the 21st century. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, ed. Norman Denzin, and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 507–535. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Chau, Clement. 2011. YouTube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Youth Development 2010(128): 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa, Arthur, and Bena Kallick. 1994. Assessment in the learning organization: Shifting the paradigm. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  10. Dockney, Jonathan, Kenyan Tomaselli, and Thomas Bongani Hart. 2010. Cellphilms, mobile platforms and prodsumers: Hyper-individuality and film. In The Citizen in Communication: Revisiting Traditional, New and Community Media Practices in South Africa, ed. Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, 202–223. Cape Town: Juta Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dockney, Jonathan, and Keyan Tomaselli. 2009. Fit for the small(er) screen: Films, mobile TV and the new individual television experience. Journal of African Cinema 1: 126–132.Google Scholar
  12. Gehl, Robert. 2011. The archive and the processor: The internal logic of web 2.0. New Media & Society 14(8): 1228–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gubrium, Aline, and Krista Harper. 2013. Participatory Visual and Digital Methods. California: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hopkins, Peta, Jo Hare, Jessie Donaghey, and Wendy Abbott. 2014. Geo, audio, video, photo: How digital convergence in mobile devices facilitates participatory culture in libraries. The Australian Library 64(1): 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, Sarah, Roy Pea, and Joseph Rosen. 2010. Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information 49(3): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacEntee, Katie. 2015a. Using cellphones and participatory visual methodologies in rural South Africa to address gender-based violence in and around schools: Reflections on research as intervention. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity 29(3): 22–31.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2015b. Using cellphones to discuss cellphones: Gender-based violence and girls’ sexual agency in and around schools in rural South Africa in the age of AIDS. In Being Young in a Neoliberal Time: Transnational Perspectives on Challenges and Possibilities for Resistance and Social Change, ed. Katja Gillander Gådin, and Claudia Mitchell, 31–52. Sundsvall: Forum for Gender Studies at Mid Sweden University.Google Scholar
  18. MacEntee, Katie, and April Mandrona. 2015. From discomfort to collaboration: Teachers screening cellphilms in a Rural South African school. Perspectives in Education 33(4): 42–56.Google Scholar
  19. MacEntee, Katie, Casey Burkholder, and Joshua Schwab-Cartas. 2016. What’s a cellphilm? Integrating mobile phone technology into participatory visual research and activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mitchell, Claudia. 2011. Doing Visual Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, Claudia, and Naydene De Lange. 2013. What can a teacher do with a cellphone? Using participatory visual research to speak back in addressing HIV & AIDS. South African Journal of Education 32(4): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell, Claudia, Naydene de Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane. 2015. Me and my cellphone: Constructing change from the inside through cellphilms and participatory video in a rural community. Area 2014: 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. Newman, Michael Z. 2014. Video Revolutions: On the History of a Medium. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, Eun G., Claudia Mitchell, and Naydene de Lange. 2008. Social uses of digitization within the context of HIV/AIDS: Metadata as engagement. Online Information Review 32(6): 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, Gillian. 2014. On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contemporary visual culture. The Sociological Review 62(1): 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skinnell, Ryan. 2010. Circuitry in motion: Rhetoric (al) moves in YouTube’s archive. Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture 8 .Accessed 20 May 2015. http://enculturation.net/circuitry-in-motion
  27. Snelson, Chareen. 2015. Integrating visual and media literacy in YouTube video projects. In Essentials of Teaching and Integrating Visual and Media Literacy, ed. Danilo M. Baylen, and Adriana D’Alba, 165–183. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Snickars, Pelle, and Patrick Vondereau. 2009. The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.Google Scholar
  29. Tripp, Stephanie. 2012. From TVTV to YouTube: A genealogy of participatory practices in video. Journal of Film and Video 64(1): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waycott, Jenny, Kathleen Gray, Rosemary Clerehan, Margaret Hamilton, Joan Richardson, Judithe Sheard, and Celia Thompson. 2010. Implications for academic integrity of using web 2.0 for teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity 6(2): 8–18.Google Scholar
  31. Wheeler, Joanne. 2012. Using participatory video to engage in policy processes: Representation, power, and knowledge in public screenings. In The Handbook of Participatory Video, ed. Elizabeth-Jane Milne, Claudia Mitchell, and Naydene de Lange, 242–256. Lanham: AltaMira.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Casey Burkholder
    • 1
  • Katie MacEntee
    • 1
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations