1. bookVolume 2 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)
    Participation across Institutional and Disciplinary Boundaries
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2246-3755
First Published
01 Nov 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Differentiating between access, interaction and participation

Published Online: 30 Mar 2021
Volume & Issue: Volume 2 (2015) - Issue 2 (December 2015) - Participation across Institutional and Disciplinary Boundaries
Page range: 7 - 28
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2246-3755
First Published
01 Nov 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Participation has regained a remarkable presence in academic debates within Communication and Media Studies, amongst other fields and disciplines. At the same time, the concept of participation has remained vague because of its frequent and diverse usages and its intrinsically political nature, which renders it difficult to use in an academic context. Conceptual clarity is generated through a combination of negative-relationist and interdisciplinary strategies. The former means that an argument is made in favour of a more focussed meaning of participation, on the basis of a comparison with two other concepts, access and interaction. The interdisciplinary strategy consists of a broad theoretical re-reading that focuses on the academic literature in which these distinctions are made, or where the independent nature of one of the three concepts is particularly emphasized. At the end of this text, the different meanings of access, interaction and participation are structured and integrated in a model, which is labelled the AIP model.

Keywords

Andrejevic, M. (2004). Reality TV. The work of being watched. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.10.1080/01944366908977225Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, O., Cammaerts, B., & Carpentier, N. (2007). Understanding alternative media. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barker, J., & Tucker, R.N. (1990). The interactive learning revolution: Multimedia in education and training. London: Kogan Page.Search in Google Scholar

Bauwens, M. (2009). Co-creation and the new industrial paradigm of peer production. Fibreculture, 14. Retrieved from http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue14/issue14_bauwens.html.Search in Google Scholar

Baym, N.K. (2002). Interpersonal life online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of the new media. The social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 62-76). London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Berrigan, F.J. (1979). Community communications. The role of community media in development. Paris: UNESCO.Search in Google Scholar

Bey, H. (1985). The temporary autonomous zone, ontological anarchy, poetic terrorism. Brooklyn: Autono-media.Search in Google Scholar

Bunge, M.A. (1977). Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology I: The furniture of the world. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-94-010-9924-0Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, N. (2003). Access and participation in the discourse of the digital divide. The European perspective at/on the WSIS. In J. Servaes (Ed.), The European information society. A reality check (pp. 99-120). Bristol: Intellect.Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, N. (2006). Participation and power in the television program Temptation Island. In N. Carpentier, et al. (Eds.), Researching media, democracy and participation. The intellectual work of the 2006 European media and communication doctoral summer school (pp. 135-147). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, N., & Patyn, N. (2007). MUDs and power. Reducing the democratic imaginary? Studies in Communication / Estudos em Comunicação, 2, 1-45.Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation. A site of ideological-democratic struggle. Bristol: Intellect.Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, N., & Doudaki, V. (2013). Community media for reconciliation. A Cypriot case study. Communication, Culture and Critique, 7(4), 415-434.Search in Google Scholar

Cassarino, I., & Richter, W. (2008). Swarm creativity. The legal and organizational challenges of open content film production. DIME Working Papers on Intellectual Property Rights no. 45. Retrieved from http://www.bbk.ac.uk/innovation/publications/dime/docs/WP45-IPR.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Children’s Partnership (2000). Online content for low-income and underserved Americans: An issue brief. Retrieved from http://www.contentbank.org/ataglance_issuebrief.asp, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485-507.10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9Search in Google Scholar

Debruyne, P., & Gielen, P. (Eds.). (2011). Community art. The politics of trespassing. Amsterdam: Valiz Antennae.Search in Google Scholar

DeFleur, M.L., & Dennis, E.E. (1994). Understanding mass communication. A liberal arts perspective (5th edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente. La ricerca semiotica e il metodo strutturale/The absent structure. Semiotic research and the structuralist method. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar

Festinger, L., & Thibaut, J. (1951). Interpersonal communication in small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 92-99.10.1037/h0054899Search in Google Scholar

Fierlbeck, K. (1998). Globalizing democracy. Power, legitimacy and the interpretation of democratic ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar

Fiske, J. (1989). Understanding popular culture. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality, Part 1. An introduction. New York: Pantheon.Search in Google Scholar

Garton, A. (1995). Social interaction and the development of language and cognition. Hove: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology (5th edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gist, N.P. (1950). Social interaction and social process. In S. Eldridge (Ed.), Fundamentals of sociology; A situational analysis (pp. 361–380). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Search in Google Scholar

Guattari, F. (1993). Machinic heterogenesis. In V. Andermatt Conley (Ed.), Rethinking technologies (pp. 13-27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gurstein, M. (2000). Community informatics: Enabling communities with information and communications technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc (IGI).10.4018/978-1-878289-69-8Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Haeckel, S.H. (1998). About the nature and future of interactive marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 63-71.10.1002/(SICI)1520-6653(199824)12:1<63::AID-DIR8>3.0.CO;2-CSearch in Google Scholar

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall (Ed.), Culture, media, language. Working papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128-138). London: Hutchinson.Search in Google Scholar

Hartmann, M. (2008). Fandom without the trimmings? EURO 2008, public viewing and new kinds of audiences. In N. Carpentier et al. (Eds.), Democracy, journalism and technology. New developments in an enlarged Europe (pp. 255-266). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hasebrink, U., Herzog, A., & Eilders, C. (2007). Media users’ participation in Europe from a civil society perspective. In P. Baldi & U. Hasebrink (Eds.), Broadcasters and citizens in Europe. Trends in media accountability and viewer participation (pp. 75-91). Bristol: Intellect.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 58-60.10.1177/002224299606000304Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, B. (2003). Medienpädagogik: eine Einführung in Theorie und Praxis/Media pedagogics. An introduction in theory and praxis. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh (UTB).Search in Google Scholar

Horton, D., & Wohl, R.R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, P.T., & Bowman, C.A. (2005). Understanding disability: Inclusion, access, diversity, and civil rights. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, J.F. (1998). ‘Interactivity’: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies”, Nordicom review, 19(1), 185-204.Search in Google Scholar

Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilisation of mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications. Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Kolodzy, J. (2006). Convergence journalism: Writing and reporting across the news media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, J.-S. (2000). Interactivity: A new approach. Paper presented at the 2000 Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, Arizona.Search in Google Scholar

Lindlof, T.R. (1988). Media audiences as interpretative communities. Communication Yearbook, 11, 81-107.Search in Google Scholar

Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1996). Talk on television. Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

MacBride Commission [The International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems] (1980). Many voices, one world. Towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order. Report by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Paris and London: UNESCO & Kogan Page.Search in Google Scholar

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

McMillan, S. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents and systems. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of the new media. The social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 163-182). London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Merrill, F.E., & Eldredge, H. W. (1957). Society and culture: An introduction to sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Morley, D., & Silverstone, R. (1990). Domestic communication – Technologies and meanings. Media, Culture and Society, 12(1), 31-55.10.1177/016344390012001003Search in Google Scholar

Morton, L., Bitto, E., Oakland, M., & Sand, M. (2008). Accessing food resources: Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food. Agriculture & Human Values, 25(1), 107-119.10.1007/s10460-007-9095-8Search in Google Scholar

Neeson, J.M. (1996). Commoners: Common Right, enclosure and social change in England, 1700–1820. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Newhagen, J.E., & Bucy, E.P. (2004). Routes to media access. In E.P. Bucy & J.E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 3-26). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Page, R.E. (2011). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J.D. II (1985). An expectancy-value approach to media gratifications. In K.E. Rosengren, P. Palmgreen & L. Wenner (Eds.), Media gratification research (pp. 61-73). Beverly Hills & London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720444Search in Google Scholar

Penchansky, R., & Thomas, J.W. (1981). The concept of access: Definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Medical Care, 19(2), 127-140.10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001Search in Google Scholar

Penny, S. (1995). Consumer culture and the technological imperative. In Simon Penny (Ed.), Critical issues in electronic media (pp. 47-73). New York: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Persson, P., Höök, K., & Simsarian, K. (2000). Human–computer interaction versus reception studies: Objectives, methods and ontologies. NorFA Research Seminar Reception: Film, TV, Digital Culture, Department of Cinema Studies. Retrieved from http://www.sics.se/~perp/AComparisonofHuman.Search in Google Scholar

Potts, J.D., Hartley, J., Banks, J.A., Burgess, J.E., Cobcroft, R.S., Cunningham, S.D., & Montgomery, L. (2008). Consumer co-creation and situated creativity. Industry and Innovation, 15(5), 459-474.10.1080/13662710802373783Search in Google Scholar

Radway, J. (1988). Reading the romance. Women, patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R.P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science. Merging mass & interpersonal processes (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Renckstorf, K., McQuail, D., & Jankowski, N. (1996). Media use as social action. A European approach to audience studies. London: Libbey.Search in Google Scholar

Rice, R.E. (2002). Primary issues in Internet use: Access, civic and community involvement, and social interaction and expression. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of the new media. The social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 105-129). London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez, C. (2011). Citizens’ media against armed conflict. Disrupting violence in Colombia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.10.5749/minnesota/9780816665839.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Roig, A. (2009). Cine en conexión: Producción industrial y social en la era cross-media. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.Search in Google Scholar

Rokeby, D. (1995). Transforming mirrors: Subjectivity and control in interactive media. In S. Penny (Ed.), Critical issues in electronic media (pp. 133-158). New York: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2011). Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities: Value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era. Production Planning & Control, 22(5-6), 447-472.10.1080/09537287.2010.536619Search in Google Scholar

Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for development. One world, multiple cultures. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sharma, R.K. (1996). Fundamentals of sociology. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Dist.Search in Google Scholar

Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464-474.10.1504/IJWBC.2005.008111Search in Google Scholar

Stein, L. (2001). Access television and grassroots political communication in the United States. In J. Downing, with T.V. Ford, G. Gil & L. Stein (Eds.), Radical media. Rebellious communication and social movements (pp. 299-324). London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Steyaert, J. (2002). Inequality and the digital divide: Myths and realities. In S. Hick & J. McNutt (Eds.), Advocacy, Activism, and the Internet. Community organization and social policy (pp. 199-211). New York: Lyceum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Szuprowicz, B.O. (1995). Multimedia networking. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Tabing, L. (2002). How to do community radio. A primer for community radio operators. New Delhi: UNESCO.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, J.B. (1995). The media and modernity. A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, J.H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wegerich, K., & Warner, J. (2004). The politics of water: A survey. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

White, S. (Ed.). (1994). Participatory communication. Working for change and development. Beverly Hills: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo