Digital media innovations through participatory action research: Interventions for digital place-based experiences

This article reports the process and findings from an action-research study in rural Sweden, which conducted a media innovation process utilising local engagement in developing digital place-based experiences. The study was part of a destination development initiative for the nature reserve Glaskogen (Arvika), the waterfront area of Kristinehamn (Lake Vänern), and the cultural scene situated around Sunne.

Lately, the tourism sector has seen a growing number of initiatives in the shape of digitally enhanced experiences, where visitors on-site use location-aware mobile media, or so-called geomedia technologies. Examples include audiovisual routes, historical representations, or position games, and they constitute a digital layer of experiences overlapping the physical topology through digital devices (mobile phones, tablets, watches, or similar). Turning to contemporary critical studies on the impact of geomedia technologies, we argue that the implications of place-based technologies are not reflected upon enough within the development process. Geomedia technologies risk having a negative impact on a place (see, e.g., Adams & Jansson, 2012; Fast et al., 2018; McQuire, 2016), neglecting local perspectives as well as social and cultural impact, and do so, as it is often argued, in favour of visitors and economic growth (Dwyer, 2017; Jansson, 2020; Mosedale, 2016). Also, destination actors and stakeholders lack the knowledge and understanding of the implications that media may have on a place (see also Ek Styvén & Wallström, 2017). We therefore take our standpoint from Lefebvre's (1991) theory on the production of space, acknowledging that a place is not a fixed entity but is produced in negotiation between politics, everyday practices, and its representations in minds and media, as well as being highly entangled with its past, present, and future. Taking these aspects into consideration through action research elevates critical perspectives and promotes a more nuanced development process for geomedia technologies while simultaneously fostering creativity. We therefore propose the following research question: How do we conduct a nuanced and spatially sensitive development of digitally based experiences (geomedia technologies)?

Through participatory action research, we investigated how to facilitate and utilise local prerequisites and critical geomedia theory into the development of geomedia technologies on-site. Our entry point was interventionist (Reimer, 2018), informed by the action-research based methods design for social change (Ehn et al., 2014) and collaborative media (Löwgren & Reimer, 2013). These methods allowed us to unpack the complexity and reshape the development of place-specific mediated experiences (see also Eikeland, 2012; Nyre, 2014; Tufte, 2017).

The study illustrates how to conduct interdisciplinary action research in a way that turns media innovation development into a means for reflective development, dissemination of knowledge, and knowledge production. We also answer the call for a more nuanced development process, including environmental, social, cultural, and political consequences of media innovations (see also Bhroin & Milan, 2020; Gössling & Hall, 2019; Gretzel et al., 2020).

In the first section of the article, we present the theoretical underpinnings, addressing geomedia technologies specifically. Thereafter, we introduce participatory action research and its application within media and communication research. We then account for the destination development initiative that constitutes the core of this study and address how interventions were performed at the intersection of theoretical perspectives, research results, and participants’ knowledge. In the final section, we discuss the study's results and how action research contribution to the field of geomedia studies and to media communication and media innovation in general.

Media technologies have and continue to move into our everyday lives and routines. We use technologies to handle simple tasks, such as paying for public transit, viewing a film or television series, or keeping up with our social relations. As more and more digital functions depend on our physical position, tracking and integrating our whereabouts, technologies are gradually becoming interwoven with places and actions as well as how we understand and interact with a place (Ash et al., 2018; Couldry & McCarthy, 2004; de Souza e Silva et al., 2017; Kitchin & Dodge, 2011; Sutko & de Souza e Silva, 2011), especially due to the locative media services and tracking provided by smartphones (Fast et al., 2019; Goggin, 2011; Nyre, 2014). This kind of location-sensitive media have come to be addressed as geomedia technologies. These media bring new perspectives on the materialisation of media in space and shift how we engage with and perceive media and a place (Fast et al., 2019). Geomedia is understood here as being one part of a technological regime in media studies that is replacing the previous regime of mass media (Adams & Jansson, 2012; Jansson, 2019). McQuire (2016) argues that geomedia rises at the intersection of convergence (the fusion of different media technologies and its impact on institutions and regulations), ubiquity (the omnipresence of media in everyday life), location-awareness (media tracking and adapting to users’ whereabouts), and real-time feedback (immediate responses between users or technology and users). Thereby, a specific location may frame both content and functionality (McQuire, 2016, 2018). Fast and colleagues (2018) conclude that the emerging use of geomedia technologies calls for research that engages with the role that place holds in organising and giving meaning to mediated processes and activities, as well as the other way around – media's role in organising and giving meaning to processes and activities in space, which has been termed the field of geomedia (see also Adams & Jansson, 2012). Kitchin and Dodge (2011) argue that software creates new spatialities in our everyday lives through, for example, functions such as supermarket checkouts or public transport planning. Nyre and colleagues (2012) make use of geomedia technologies, or what they refer to as locative media, to reconnect journalistic work with a specific geographical place. As such, the field of geomedia emerges at the intersection between media and geography (Adams, 2009; Falkheimer & Jansson, 2006). The task at hand is, therefore, to understand the impact of geomedia technologies in a wider social and spatial context, both in the study of such technologies as well as the development of the same.

A growing body of work investigates how media technologies impact different places. A prominent example is studies of the house-rental platform Airbnb and how the use of the platform has led to gentrification, over-tourism, and conflicts between visitors and locals (Gurran et al., 2018; Ioannides et al., 2019; Krotz, 2017; Mermet, 2017). This example goes hand in hand with the critique of how media developments within tourism focus on the visitor rather than the place, and thereby risk disconnecting the visitor from a place's history, values, and practices (Briassoulis & van der Straaten, 2013). However, whereas geomedia technologies may have a negative impact on a place, they simultaneously offer opportunities. Drawing on Lefebvre's (1991) production of social space, we understand a place as being under constant construction, with media as a part of it. A place is comprised of the relationship between politics, everyday practices, and its representation in minds and media (Lefebvre, 1991). Inevitably, these relationships are also entangled with a place's past, present, and future visions. A place is thereby interwoven in complex power structures with spatial and sociocultural impact (Lefebvre, 1991; see also Massey, 2005) where media plays a part and has an impact. However, when media are place-sensitive, they offer an opportunity to create “a new sense of place” (Lemos, 2010: 1) – a way to enhance social awareness and form political mobilisation. A sense of place, as Massey (2013) would put it, incorporates all established and unestablished interactions, simultaneously aimed inwards towards the local and outwards towards the global. Tarkka (2010) also addresses this potential and emphasises that location-aware media provide possibilities for new regimes of power when cultural producers intervene in the technological landscape, asking, “what kind of potentialities, of thinking and acting, are performed into being?” (2010: 132). McQuire (2016) draws on the work of the artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer to illustrate how interactive art in public spaces allows users and viewers to explore and understand spaces in new ways, and he discusses how geomedia technologies may rearticulate the local and relations to a place through creative interactions (see also de Souza e Silva & Frith, 2014). There are also studies of how place-based digital services and games change individuals’ perceptions and use of, as well as activities in, a specific place (see, e.g., de Souza e Silva et al., 2017; Licoppe & Inada, 2006; Wilken, 2014).

Approaching geomedia technologies as possibilities for changing perceptions brings attention to the potential of shifting perspectives through careful design. Recently, several scholars have expressed a need for more nuanced and critically initiated media innovation processes (Ek Styvén & Walltröm, 2017; Frith, 2014; Hjalager, 2010; Sigala, 2018). Murray (2012: 2) argues:

[Digital innovations] pervade our lives, and the design decisions that shape them affect the way we think, act, understand the world, and communicate with one another. But the pace of change has been so rapid that technical innovation is outstripping design [emphasis original].

This is rearticulated in Bhroin and Milan's (2020) call for a new research agenda at the intersection of media innovation and social implications. In their overview of contemporary media innovation literature, they identify that media innovation tends to focus on business and economic growth, and they therefore call for critical perspectives and analyses within media innovation research, both concerning the development process and the social, cultural, environmental, and political consequences of media innovations (Bhroin & Milan, 2020; see also Gössling & Hall, 2019; Mura & Wijesinghe, 2021). Gössling (2021) brings attention to the potential of media innovations to make a substantial contribution towards more sustainable tourism and a sustainable future, but there are significant barriers to overcome regarding critical conceptualisations and awareness of complexities in relation to digital implementations. Jovicic (2019) argues the need to critically conceptualise digital tourism by reimagining tourism destinations themselves. These notions have long been requested by tourism scholars advocating community-based approaches to tourism development as a means for increasing environmental and social sustainability (e.g., Lenao, 2017; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2017). Researchers’ call for new approaches to tourism development highlights the substantive needs and well-being of people as well as the procedural aspects of, for example, empowerment, resilience, and governance required to facilitate it (Helgadóttir et al., 2019).

We therefore suggest that perceiving media innovation processes through a critical lens of geomedia – investigating media's role in organising and giving meaning to processes and activities in space and vice versa (Fast et al., 2018) – will bring critical conceptualisations and awareness of complexities to media development and contribute to more nuanced development practices.

Participatory action research is defined as research that is conducted “together with” and not “on”, where the intention is to promote change (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003; Ingold, 2018). This approach emphasises that research should be participatory and in democratic processes, integrating theory and practice, and traces back to work by Dewey, Lewin, and Schön (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). As such, participatory action research is not only a method, but a perspective on the role of research in society that we will understand the world by interacting with it (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Action research hence stems from the idea that research is not neutral, that knowledge is socially constructed, and that research is conducted to challenge and ultimately transform undemocratic systems and practices (Anderson & McLachlan, 2016). The intention is to form joint knowledge production at the intersection of action, reflection, theory, practice, and, centrally, to do so in collaboration with actors outside academia (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). The researcher has an active part within the setting, case, situation, or phenomenon, in opposition to keeping distance from the object of study. Participatory-oriented action calls for engagement across different sectors or knowledge areas and may include practitioners, citizens, organisations, and communities. Thus, while the research is forming new theory, it is also generating knowledge that is useful and valid for those partaking in the study – both on an individual level and within communities or organisations – and making change that is motivated by participation and empowerment (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003; Styhre & Sundgren, 2005).

Action researchers can apply a variety of methods for data collection, both qualitative and quantitative (Bradbury-Huang, 2010); however, the emphasis is on authenticity rather than statistically significant or generalisable conclusions (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Significant for participatory action research is a research design of performing multiple cycles of three recurring stages: inquiry, action, and reflection (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Each cycle informs the next and enables new questions to emerge; the cyclic process ensures that theory and practice intersect and inform each other. However, participatory-oriented work is also challenging and open to critique. There is a risk of manipulating data and selecting participants to fulfil the research agenda, funders’ agenda, or stakeholders’ agenda rather than a community's needs (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014; David, 2002). There may also be limitations in how researchers clarify their interpretations or risk projecting their own assumptions in the analysis rather than allowing different perspectives to emerge through the data (Forsythe, 1999). Therefore, researchers are asked to continuously reflect individually throughout the process (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014; Forsythe, 1999). In our study, the research group continuously discussed and reflected on our own and the group's preconceptions, interpretations, and goals (following Forsythe, 1999). Working in collaboration with different stakeholders (such as companies, municipalities, regions, and civic organisations), the actors involved may not share the same interest, potentially causing frictions (David, 2002). Also, as Anderson and McLachlan (2016) address, participants have individual expectations that may or may not be fulfilled, which can complicate further collaboration or result in mistrust. A major concern in the presented study has been to gain the engagement of diverse actors and allow for friction without discouraging participation, which resulted in carefully outlined workshops, which we describe below.

The data collection was conducted over two years at three places in the county of Värmland, Sweden: Glaskogen nature reserve (Arvika), the waterfront of Kristinehamn (Lake Vänern), and the cultural scene around Sunne. These places are all well-known destinations and attract national as well as international (mainly central European) visitors. Throughout the project, we collaborated with different local actors (entrepreneurs, local organisations within culture and heritage, volunteers, and individuals involved in local engagement) and stakeholders (the municipality, the region of Värmland, and the Värmland County Administrative Board) from each place. The research team consisted of researchers from media and communication studies, human geography, tourism studies, and sociology. Part of the team was also a locally based digital innovation bureau which contributed knowledge of media technologies, technological development, digital storytelling, and prototyping throughout the process.

While setting up our research plan, we defined a set of key aspects: First, the place should be at the core of each step in the process to ensure local anchoring (Ehn et al., 2014), and the participants of the action-research process should be based at the selected place. Second, the development process should include multiple perspectives (see, e.g., Murray et al., 2010), which was ensured by in-depth studies of each place, interviews with visitors, and inviting a variety of participants with diverse perspectives into the process (then also including researchers and our theoretical underpinnings as well as the innovation bureau). Third, we mobilised knowledge by allowing theoretical perspectives, research results, and participants’ knowledge to build on each other throughout the process (see, e.g., Anderson & McLachlan, 2016). One of the most challenging aspects of action research, especially when the processes are to initiate or provoke development, is to trigger collaboration. On the one hand, the process needs to be open, and on the other, there is a need for direction and progress. These needs must be set up to facilitate collaborations among a variety of participants bringing their different competencies, agendas, and mandates into the transformation process and mobilising knowledge (Anderson & McLachlan, 2016; Löwgren & Reimer, 2013; Ren et al., 2017). It was also crucial to build an inclusive development process promoting long-term relationships between different actors in order to collaboratively explore possibilities as well as dilemmas (e.g., Emilson, 2014).

We developed a series of workshops with the intention of capturing and involving diverse knowledge from different actors in creative, collaborative making. The first set of workshops was to build knowledge and identify possibilities and limitations through simple prototyping, whereas the intention of the last part of the workshop series was to specify an open-ended concept for each destination.

Examples of the prototypes and concepts, as well as photos and supporting documentation of the workshops, are available upon request. Please contact the corresponding author at linda.ryan-bengtsson@kau.se.

Figure 1

The research design allowed us to conduct multiple cycles of inquiry, action, and reflection (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). The in-depth study of the place and interviews with visitors formed the first cycle, then we conducted one cycle for each individual workshop, and the evaluation formed the final cycle. Table 1 presents the rich and diverse data collection and use of data sources throughout the process.

The following section describes the study and accounts for each part of the participatory action-research process. Each section focuses on an analysis cycle and how each cycle brings knowledge into the next.

The study establishes that the process of intersecting knowledge, critical thinking, and development allowed participants to develop new perspectives, broadened the potential narratives surrounding each destination, and encouraged local entrepreneurs and municipalities to try new things. Several actors expressed feeling empowered after the process, due to knowledge development and because of the network of local resources they identified through the workshops. As one of the participants concluded, “being creative together makes innovation” (local entrepreneur, 8 March 2019). The evaluation shows that the process gave entrepreneurs the opportunity to update their digital knowledge and explore media innovations, and hence increased their ability to control their business development. Entrepreneurs expressed less dependency on existing platforms and tools to pursue mediated experiences after the process. Participants also gained new ways to pursue business development and support digital development and a greater awareness of contradictions between the interests of locals and those of the tourism sector (Ren & Jóhannesson, 2017). Other local actors expressed satisfaction from contributing with their specific local knowledge and the ability to bring awareness to their perspectives. As several locals noted, this was a rare opportunity to be included in a local development process.

During the project, some entrepreneurs and stakeholders established new initiatives and initiated their own development projects. For example, the municipality of Kristinehamn developed a digital story trail exploring local history and narratives aimed at both locals and visitors, and Glaskogen initiated a new network among local entrepreneurs. Partaking in the process allowed for a dialogue within a wider – but local and spatially anchored – context, as called for by Jansson (2020).

Disagreements are a risk when gathering different perspectives in a collaborative process, and sometimes we had to push the process carefully. For example, the representatives from a stakeholder organisation in Glaskogen stated that they fight for those typically ignored, but local participants pointed out that this is in opposition to stakeholders’ previous decisions allowing logging in parts of the forest. There were also notable discussions concerning some of the results from our in-depth studies, especially as we, in some instances, came to question how these places perceived themselves. For example, pointing out that some perspectives or experiences were lacking representation of children and women or engagement in the present made some participants uncomfortable and provoked a discussion. At one stage, we had to conduct a separate discussion with some stakeholders and entrepreneurs to avoid collapse of the process. However, comparing the initial workshops with the final workshop (several participants attended both), we identified how research results that were initially uncomfortable were later addressed as a prerequisite for valuable development. Hence, though these research results were provocative or uncomfortable at first, they became important interventions and creative insights during the process. These are examples of how dissonances in practices, understandings, and representations among different actors allow for engagement with the uncomfortable and question-established standpoints. Actors then shifted perspective and moved beyond preconceptions concerning both the given place and digital technologies (see also Löwgren & Reimer, 2013).

Several participants highlighted how the setup of the workshops fostered creativity and new perspectives. Entrepreneurs, especially, identified how creative collaborative and spatially anchored processes are useful tools for developing the future. In the analysis of the evaluation form and focus groups, we detected an awareness of the necessity of listening to and capturing diverse narratives and representations of a place. As a participant expressed, “the insights we can gain if we allow others to tell their own story about us” (local entrepreneur, 3 May 2019). We thereby identified sensitivity to local perspectives and inclusion of local history and culture, but also how local and critical perspectives enable the identification of unique assets. To be spatially sensitive hence allows one destination to distinguish itself from others.

Several participants expressed a more nuanced understanding of media's role in the production of space – in particular, media as a carrier of how a place is represented and that such a media representation may be in dissonance with local perspectives and understandings. One of the municipality representatives reflected upon how “we need to think about what types of feelings we mediate” (stakeholder representative, 8 March 2019). Whereas several scholars have concluded that individuals may change their understanding and experience of place through geomedia technologies (de Souza e Silva et al., 2017; McQuire, 2016; Wilken, 2014), we conclude that partaking in a development process for geomedia technologies facilitates an even deeper and much needed understanding of the interconnection between media and place. Considering the growing scholarly critique of geomedia technologies, this study acknowledges the importance of discussing these issues early in a development process.

We have presented a nuanced and spatially sensitive innovation process for geomedia technologies. Through action research, we have performed an inclusive and locally anchored process that explores the limitation and possibilities of media and builds awareness of the relationship between media and place among participants.

First, let us revisit what has been stated above as the foundation of the geomedia field – the study of how place organises and gives meaning to mediated processes and activities – as well as media's role in organising and giving meaning to processes and activities in space (Fast et al., 2018): The study pinpoints the complexity of our contemporary (geo)media landscape, and how these are joint, complex, and messy processes with no definite start or endpoint (as suggested by Massey, 2005, 2013). In this setting, conducting action research allowed us to engage with the messiness and layers of data that a place holds, from contemporary social media platforms to historical archives, previous social and cultural everyday practices, and the entanglement with diverse media practices and representations. Action research allows for insights into these phenomena in a real-life setting (Reimer, 2018; Styhre & Sundgren, 2005), experimenting at the site of development (Wagemans & Witschge, 2019). We identified dissonances in practices, understandings, and representations, which gave insight into complex asymmetries of visible and invisible power structures, different aspects of privileges, and roles in a community. Simultaneously, we brought attention to how addressing asymmetries lowers the risk of them being reproduced in diverse forms of media representations. When comparing the results from the three places, different perspectives surface. Even though these places are geographically close – within the same county – they differ in their digital representation; the relationship between local inhabitants, tourism entrepreneurs, and stakeholders; their local history; and their local community. These differences finally materialised in the concept developed for each place.

Second, placing this research and the role of action research in a wider context of social inequality and our contemporary neoliberal society (Anderson & McLachlan, 2016), a critical and reflexive analysis of media's role in reproducing and (sometimes) strengthening inequality is important to address within media innovation literature. Action research here offers a way for researchers to bring existing theory and perspectives into development processes to at least slightly shift the joint forces of economic growth and techno-determinist perspectives that dominate digital innovation today (Tufte, 2017; Wagemans & Witschge, 2019). It draws attention to the fact that media innovations are not solely an issue for media industries or media practitioners. Through the lens of geomedia, it has implications across society, where critical perspectives on media can bring much needed insight to provoke more nuanced media innovation processes in different areas (see also Bhroin & Milan, 2020; Murray, 2012) concerning digital transformation. By understanding space as a production (Lefebvre, 1991), we offer an approach of exploring and identifying alternative nuanced and more spatially sensitive ways to innovate the addressing of sociocultural issues. In this setting, the development of media innovations provides engagement in experimentation and the creation of new imaginaries that aid in conceptualising a sustainable future (Ehn et al., 2014; Gössling, 2021; Smith & Iversen, 2018).

Third, whereas the result and process were used to develop geomedia technologies for place-based experiences, they were also the means for reflective development, dissemination of knowledge, and knowledge production. Staging an innovation process offered the opportunity to collect rich data on a phenomenon as well as a creative setting for learning and knowledge exchange among a variety of participants. We want to highlight that including research-based knowledge provides validity to alternative perspectives and brings creativity to the process, and thus important interventions, even though uncomfortable at first. As Löwgren and Reimer (2013: 169) note, it is not necessarily the design that makes the difference, but the process of “engaging with other actors in collaborative work integrating inventions, analysis, and criticism”.