Participation Space Studies: a socio-technical exploration of activist and community groups’ use of online and offline spaces to support their work

Participation Space Studies explore eParticipation in the day-to-day activities of local, citizen-led groups, working to improve their communities. The focus is the relationship between activities and contexts. The concept of a participation space is introduced in order to reify online and offline contexts where people participate in democracy. Participation spaces include websites, blogs, email, social media presences, paper media, and physical spaces. They are understood as sociotechnical systems: assemblages of heterogeneous elements, with relevant histories and trajectories of development and use. This approach enables the parallel study of diverse spaces, on and offline. Participation spaces are investigated within three case studies, centred on interviews and participant observation. Each case concerns a community or activist group, in Scotland. The participation spaces are then modelled using a Socio-Technical Interaction Network (STIN) framework (Kling, McKim and King, 2003). The participation space concept effectively supports the parallel investigation of the diverse social and technical contexts of grassroots democracy and the relationship between the case-study groups and the technologies they use to support their work. Participants’ democratic participation is supported by online technologies, especially email, and they create online communities and networks around their goals. The studies illustrate the mutual shaping relationship between technology and democracy. Participants’ choice of technologies can be understood in spatial terms: boundaries, inhabitants, access, ownership, and cost. Participation spaces and infrastructures are used together and shared with other groups. Non-public online spaces, such as Facebook groups, are vital contexts for eParticipation; further, the majority of participants’ work is non-public, on and offline. It is informational, potentially invisible, work that supports public outputs. The groups involve people and influence events through emotional and symbolic impact, as well as rational argument. Images are powerful vehicles for this and digital images become an increasingly evident and important feature of participation spaces throughout the consecutively conducted case studies. Collaboration of diverse people via social media indicates that these spaces could be understood as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989). The Participation Space Studies draw from and contribute to eParticipation, social informatics, mediation, social shaping studies, and ethnographic studies of Internet use.

Television and the Second Screen.

This book examines an emerging and fast evolving phenomena: that a growing number of people engage with two screens whilst watching television. It seems a simple concept – until we discover the important implications. In doing this, this book will move way beyond the study of online and multimedia content. It will go past the impact of mobile and multi-platform technology on the media. Instead it will examine how this new concept of second screen interactivity changes the way we watch, produce, commission and monetise television programmes in the UK.

Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.