http://con.sagepub.

com/
Technologies
Journal of Research into New Media
Convergence: The International
http://con.sagepub.com/content/19/3/287
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1354856513486529
2013 19: 287 originally published online 16 May 2013 Convergence
Nico Carpentier, Peter Dahlgren and Francesca Pasquali
practices in the media sphere
Waves of media democratization : A brief history of contemporary participatory

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Technologies
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Additional services and information for

http://con.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://con.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://con.sagepub.com/content/19/3/287.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- May 16, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 26, 2013 Version of Record >>

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Debate
Waves of media
democratization: A brief
history of contemporary
participatory practices
in the media sphere
Nico Carpentier
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium; Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic
Peter Dahlgren
Lund University, Sweden
Francesca Pasquali
University of Bergamo, Italy
Abstract
The article aims to provide a more historically grounded approach to the relationship between
communication and participation, by distinguishing different waves of media democratization. The
article first discusses the concept of participation and some of its complexities, and then sketches a
series of intense moments of participation in and through the media in (mainly the second half) the
20th and the 21st century. At the same time, care is taken not to organize a linear-historical nar-
rative, keeping in mind that the history of the democratization of Western societies and their
media spheres is characterized by a series of continuities and discontinuities, dead ends and sedi-
mented practices. Despite these ever-present fluctuations, the article argues that we can still see
that structures, cultural resources and subjective dispositions have over time been geared more
towards participation and equality, also within the media sphere.
Keywords
Community media, democratization, participation, participation in and through the media, talk
shows, Web 2.0
Corresponding author:
Nico Carpentier, Department of Media and Communication Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050
Brussels, Belgium.
Email: nico.carpentier@vub.ac.be
Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies
19(3) 287-294
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354856513486529
con.sagepub.com
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Introduction
In the past decade, the relationship between communication and participation has regained pro-
minence on the public and academic agenda, feeding the hope of the (continued) democratization
of our societies. But the unfolding of history is convoluted and contradictory, and one is ill-advised
to expect utopian outcomes. Yet, in this article, we still retain a degree of guarded optimism, a stance
that we would claimrests on analysis rather than on some wishful thinking, to showthat when we use
a long-termperspective (at the expense of a multitude of relevant details), we can indeed see an inten-
sification of the democratic revolution within the media sphere. We offer this perspective as a
broader, historical counterpoint to the understandably troubled portrait that characterizes the analyses
of contemporary democracies and the functioning of (mainstream) media organizations, but also to
the reductionist privileging of digital media as the ultimate sites of participation.
This article aims to provide a more historically grounded approach to the relationship between
communication and participation, by distinguishing different waves of media democratization.
Focusing on (mainly the second half of ) the 20th and the 21st centuries, this article aims to briefly
but still carefully sketch a series of intense moments of participation in and through the media,
arguing that the recent wave of media democratization in and through the Internet should not be
privileged and that we should not give amnesia when it comes to writing participatory histories.
But given the complexity of the concept of participation, it is still very necessary to first initiate a
debate about the concept of participation itself, avoiding that this concepts meaning becomes
too fluid, open and under theorised,
1
which would impede upon any attempt to produce a more
historically grounded approach towards media participation.
The concept of media participation and its complexities
The concept of media participation is surprisingly complex. One level of complexity arises because
the concept of media participation is a conflation of two interrelated forms of participation, which
can be termed participation in the media and through the media, similar to the way by which Janet
Wasko and Vincent Mosco (1992: 7) distinguish between democratization in and through the
media. Participation through the media deals with the opportunities for mediated participation in
public debate and for self-representation in the variety of public spaces that characterize the social.
The media sphere serves as a location, where citizens can voice their opinions and experiences and
interact with other voices. Obviously, the structures and cultures of the media sphere itself (and its
many components), and the ideological-democratic environment, have a strong impact on the
intensity of the participation. Participation in the media then deals with participation in the produc-
tion of media output (content-related participation) and in media organizational decision-making
(structural participation).
A second complexity is related to the limits of the concept of participation itself, which we see
as a political process, where the actors involved in decision-making processes are positioned
towards each other through power relationships that are (to an extent) egalitarian. The debates
on participation in institutionalized politics and in all other societal fields (see Carpentier,
2011), including media participation, always produce very different contexts, but they also have
a lot in common in that they all focus on the distribution of power within society, ranging from
the macro- to the microlevel. The balance between peoples inclusion in the implicit and explicit
decision-making processes within these fields, and their exclusion through the delegation of power
(again, implicit or explicit), is central to discussions on participation in all fields.
2
288 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 19(3)
288
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
This connection with power (and the political) renders the concept of participation contingent;
in other words, the concept itself is part of the power struggles in society, which further com-
plicates the notion of participation. The meanings attributed to participation are part of a politics of
definition (Fierlbeck, 1998: 177), since its specific articulation shifts depending on the ideological
framework that makes use of it. More particularly, the definition of participation is one of the many
societal fields, where a political struggle is waged between the minimalist and the maximalist
variations of democracy. In the minimalist model, democracy is confined mainly to the processes
of representation, participation to elite selection and the political to politics. In the maximalist
model, democracy is seen as a more balanced combination of representation and participation,
where attempts are made to maximize participation. The political is considered a dimension of the
social, which allows for a broad application of participation in many different social fields
(including the media), at both micro- and macro level, and with respect to societal diversity.
A similar logic can be used to describe minimalist and maximalist media participation. In (very)
minimalist forms, media professionals retain strong control over process and outcome often
restricting participation to mainly access and interaction to the degree that one wonders whether
the concept of participation is still appropriate. Participation remains articulated as a contribution
to the public sphere but often mainly serving the needs and interests of the mainstream media
system itself, instrumentalizing and incorporating the activities of participating non-professionals.
This media-centred logic leads to a homogenization of the audience and a disconnection of their
participatory activities from other societal fields and from the broad definition of the political,
resulting in the articulation of media participation as non-political. In the maximalist forms, (pro-
fessional) control and (popular) participation become more balanced and attempts are made to
maximize participation. Here, we see the acknowledgement of audience diversity and heterogene-
ity and of the political nature of media participation. The maximalist articulation allows for a rec-
ognition of the potential of media participation for macroparticipation and its multidirectional
nature.
Moreover and this again adds complexity to the concept of participation we would like to
argue that a participatory process requires the presence of several actors, and the potential presence
of a power imbalance between actors that take diverse positions, which is then addressed (and
limited) through the participatory process itself, rendering it egalitarian (to an extent).
3
First of all,
if we look at the etymology of participation, there is a strong emphasis on taking part, which
unavoidably implies the presence of more than one actor in the participatory process. Ad absur-
dum: It is rather difficult to participate with oneself. This limit to participation impacts on the
analysis of participatory processes in relation to the media. For instance, in cases of single-
authored self-administered publications, it is difficult to use the concept of participation at the level
of the production process itself labelling it participation in the media as there is only one person
involved. Of course, this kind of publishing act still remains a form of participation through the
media because that one person enters a broader community, in which she/he then participates
through that publication.
The second requirement the potential presence of a power imbalance that is redressed
would, for instance, imply that medieval scribes, when merely copying manuscripts, are not seen as
engaging in participation.
4
Moreover, the modernist conceptions of ownership and authorship are
necessary components to understand contemporary forms of media participation (Hamilton, 2003).
This type of argument is supported by the core structure of democratic theory, where we can
always find a balance between participation and representation in democracy (Held, 1996: 3). The
logics of representation imply the delegation of power, which in turn implies that a power
Carpentier et al. 289
289
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
imbalance between rulers and ruled is generated, which is then (partially) addressed by partici-
patory processes such as elections. When we look at the mainstream media, media production is
restricted to a specific group of people, who are here termed media professionals, who are
characterized by the possession of specific forms of expertise and skills, institutional embedd-
edness and autonomy and the deployment of management and power strategies to achieve specific
objectives.
5
In these mainstream media contexts, one can again wonder whether the concept of
participation is appropriate for the activities of media professionals in the process of media pro-
duction. The concept seems to fit better for the activities of non-professionals that are granted
access and (some degree of) participation to the professional system. But things might be more
complicated, as media professionals often find themselves excluded from the management of the
media organization itself they do have a much weaker power position here and participation
might still be a valuable concept to describe, for instance, the mechanisms where media profession-
als become involved in managerial processes. A second complication is that at least at first sight
community and alternative media organizations risk becoming excluded from this definition of
participation. The resolution to this definitional problem can be found in the argument that com-
munity and alternative media organizations are characterized by internal diversity, which also gen-
erates many different power positions within these organizations. Moreover, as a whole, the
rhizomatic field of community and alternative media organizations can be seen as a way to redress
the power imbalances within the mainstream media.
Waves of media democratization
Historically, the debate about the definition of participation matters for contextualizing the early
phases of participation in media production. Although we can go even further back in history, as
the example of the scribes shows, it was the invention of the printing press in particular that
generated a structural shift in the use of media technologies for self-expression. Books, newspa-
pers, leaflets, almanacs and so on became key resources for participation through the media
(Keane, 1991: 3637). The question here becomes whether these forms of media production also
allowed for participation within the media. At first sight, and unfortunately there is not much
research to build upon, we often see small groups of publishers and editors, situated in fairly sim-
ilar power positions, which do not fit well with the defining characteristic of the potential presence
of a power imbalance between actors that take diverse positions (which is then redressed). Again,
we believe that it is perfectly legitimate to consider this a process of participation through the
media, but want to raise doubts whether these are cases of participation in the media, given the lack
of diversity in the positions within the production environment.
Darlings (2008) work on the print media in Spains American colonies in the early 19th century
indicates that there are exceptions, though, as she writes: Newspapers were inventing themselves
and everyone was welcome to be part of that process of invention (Darling, 2008: 69). In the case of
these print media, this openness enabled the (sometimes very prominent) inclusion of reader contri-
butions and letters to the editor, which can be considered as forms of participation in the media.
Interestingly, she adds the suggestion that the professionalization and institutionalization of these
newspapers led to the foreclosure of this participatory openness. As Griffen-Foley (2004: 535) argues,
some late 19th century periodicals also allowed for personalized editor/reader interaction. Asimilar
point can be made for radio technologies, which were used in more participatory ways in the 1920s, for
instance in radio clubs, before radio became institutionalized. Radiothenbecame a tool of distribution,
despite, for instance, Brechts (2001) call for it to be used as a tool for communication.
290 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 19(3)
290
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
The rise of industrial capitalism and private media empires tended to quite effectively thwart
any popular participation in the press and commercial radio and television. Traditionally, reg-
ulatory mechanisms aimed at commercial media in regard to their output have been at best
modestly successful, and the distance between such regulation and participation is quite long. Only
in the realm of public service broadcasting systems did any kind of participatory structures
develop, in the form of civil society representation. Despite its growing problems, public service as
a manifestation of democratic input into media decision-making has had enormous significance as
an effort to politically establish democratic control and accountability in the media. Yet today,
public service is on the defensive and not always very different from commercial broadcasters
in (not) organizing participation.
The institutional closure, especially for radio but also for print media, opened up in the 1960s
and 1970s, which we can consider as the first wave of post-World War II media democratization,
where participation in and through the media were combined. All around the world, a heterogeneous
galaxy of independent, underground, alternative, community, citizens, participatory and
radical media flourished, comprising radio stations, newspapers, fanzines, independent theatres,
filmmakers, music labels and publishers, revolutionary libraries and bookshops and so on. What
these communicational practices shared was access by the community and participation of the com-
munity (and its constituent subgroups). One of many illustrations can be found in Howleys (2005: 4)
work, when he describes community media as locally oriented, participatory media (that facilitate
the) process of collective identity construction in geographically defined communities.
If participation in media structures and decision-making has mostly been marginal from a
societal perspective, the political impact of alternative, community and radical small media has
by no means been insignificant (see Atton, 2002; Bailey et al., 2007; Downing et al., 2001; Gir-
ard, 1992; Ostertag, 2007; Rodriguez, 2001), also because it was supported by debates within
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (MacBride Com-
mission, 1980). The history of various political and social movements underscores the important
role they have played, for example, from class-based and union politics to ecological and
womens struggles and in recent decades antiwar movements and a vast variety of groups
focused on identity politics. The relevance of such media linkages to political practices flows
directly into the contemporary situation with Web 2.0, to which we will return shortly.
Many of those journals, radio stations and so on did not survive the 1970s, although some of
them still exist, such as the very first community radio station in Europe, Radio S

tudent in
Ljubljana (Slovenia), which was established in 1968. After these participatory decades, television
successfully adopted talk show formats from radio (see Munson, 1993), creating another upsurge
of participatory programming, but this time the mainstream setting led to much less radical less
maximalist versions of participation. The television talk show became a popular subgenre that
differed considerably from set format programmes (see Carbaugh, 1988; Livingstone and Lunt,
1996; Peck, 1995). Despite these intragenre differences, all these programmes were based on the
principle that an active role is accorded to the studio audience which participates in a discussion
about social, personal or political problems under the supervision of a presenter (Leurdijk, 1999: 37,
our translation). Moreover, they relied on heavy forms of professional management that limited the
participatory intensity, rendering them more minimalist-participatory, a process that only intensified
when the talk shows successor, reality television, became popular (Andrejevic, 2004). In addition,
as, for instance, Jenkins (1992) argued, popular culture, through the logics of fandom, became a site
of participatory culture, where audience members not only displayed forms of media activism but
also organized the production of a wide variety of media texts (e.g. fan fiction).
Carpentier et al. 291
291
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
A new wave of media democratization came about with the popularization of the Internet,
especially Web 2.0. While in the pre-Web 2.0 phase, the debates about participation through the
media were often restricted to the Internets potential for organizing forms of direct democracy
(see e.g. Budge, 1996), the Web 2.0 phase was seen to have triggered more extensive forms of par-
ticipation. A series of e-concepts was used to point out the possibilities for increased participation
in institutionalized politics. Moving beyond institutionalized politics, the deliberative turn also
affected new media studies, where these deliberative models were seen to conceive of a more
complex horizontal and multidirectional interactivity (Chadwick, 2006: 100). Through counter-
public (Fraser, 1990) approaches, (new) information and communications technologies (ICTs) also
become articulated as mobilization tools, assisting in political (in the broad sense) recruitment,
organization and campaigning, again contributing to participation through the Internet.
In contrast to participation through the Internet (and ICTs), participation in the Internet focuses
on the opportunities provided to non-media professionals to (co-)produce media content them-
selves and to (co-)organize the structures that allow for this media production. In new media the-
ory, the opportunities for bypassing mainstream media organizations and professionals are put as
one of the key arguments in favour of the Internets democraticparticipatory potential, although
its limits and problems are also often acknowledged (Andrews, 2011; Fuchs, 2011). One entry into
this debate, which also captures some of its complexities, is the concept of user-generated content
(UGC), which is frequently used to describe Internet content production. Although the term UGC
often implies the incorporation of users in commercial production environments, the broad cate-
gory of UGC also leaves room for a wide variety of nonmainstream practices and forms of online
alternative journalism (see Atton and Hamilton, 2008, for a broad approach to alternative journal-
ism), which allows for more maximalist versions of participation. One example is the Indymedia
network (Kidd, 2003), which uses the principle of open publishing to allow for these more intense
forms of participation in the media.
Conclusion
The objective of this article was not to organize a linear-historical narrative, leading up to a parti-
cipatory media (Internet) heaven. The history of the democratization of Western societies, and
their media spheres, is characterized by a series of continuities and discontinuities, dead ends and
sedimented practices. Despite these ever-present fluctuations, we can see that structures, cultural
resources and subjective dispositions have been geared towards more participation and equality, also
within the media sphere. Although different societal spheres have different social logics, they are at
the same time overdetermined, and it would make little sense to privilege one sphere over the others,
attributing to that specific sphere, such as, for instance, the media sphere, determining powers.
This raises the impossible question of whether this structural shift, favouring participation in
and through the media, will persist or whether it will even intensify. Obviously, there is still a lot of
space for democraticparticipatory innovation, for instance with regard to mainstream media, but
also in relation to the Internet. Moreover, there is no guarantee that this long-term increase in par-
ticipation will continue. Democracy is always unfinished, but it is also always threatened. What
this brief history does show, and what we can see as a reason for hope, is that, deeply embedded
within our cultures, there is a need for control over our communicational practices. The right to
communicate might not be acknowledged as a human right (at least not in the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights), but in the many different participatory practices, using a variety of media
technologies, we can see the continued materialization of this right to communicate.
292 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 19(3)
292
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Notes
1. See Pateman (1970: 1) for an older critique on this matter.
2. Some prudence is called for here, as power is often reduced to the possession of a specific societal group.
Authors such as Foucault (1978) have argued against this position, claiming that power is an always pres-
ent characteristic of social relations. In contemporary societies, the narrations of power are complex narra-
tions of power strategies, counterpowers and resistance.
3. Alternative and community media might be seen to fall outside this definition. Arguably, they can still be
included as their origins lie in a response to the power imbalances within mainstream media, and as within
these organizations different (but informal) power positions still exist.
4. Of course, when these scribes added commentaries to the manuscripts, as sometimes happened (see
Aldens (2010: 145) discussion of St Bonaventures classification of scribes), they were participating in
the media, as creators of content.
5. In some cases, we can add a commitment to public service and the possession of an ethical framework.
References
Alden J (2010) Songs, Scribes, and Society: The History and Reception of the Loire Valley Chansonniers.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Andrejevic M (2004) Reality TV. The Work of Being Watched. Oxford, UK: Rowman Littlefield.
Andrews L (2011) I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Atton CH (2002) Alternative Media. London, UK: Sage.
Atton CH and Hamilton JF (2008) Alternative Journalism. London, UK: Sage.
Bailey O, Cammaerts B and Carpentier N (2007) Understanding Alternative Media. Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University Press.
Brecht B (2001) Brecht on Film and Radio (M. Silberman, ed). London, UK: Methuen Drama.
Budge I (1996) The Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Carbaugh D (1988) Talking American. Cultural Discourses on DONAHUE. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Company.
Carpentier N (2011) Media and Participation. A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol, UK: Intellect.
Chadwick A (2006) Internet Politics. States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Darling J (2008) Inviting comment: public creation of content in early Spanish American newspapers. In:
Carpentier N and De Cleen B (eds) Participation and Media Production. Critical Reflections on Content
Creation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishers, pp. 6983.
Downing J with Ford TV, Gil G and Stein L (2001) Radical Media. Rebellious Communication and Social
Movements. London: Sage.
Fierlbeck K (1998) Globalizing Democracy. Power, Legitimacy and the Interpretation of Democratic Ideas.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Foucault M (1978) History of Sexuality, Part 1: An Introduction. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Fraser N (1990) Rethinking the public sphere. Social Text 25/26: 5680.
Fuchs CH (2011) Foundation of Critical Media and Information Studies. Abington, MA: Routledge.
Girard B (ed) (1992) A Passion for Radio. Montreal, UK: Black Rose Books.
Griffen-Foley B (2004) From tit-bits to big brother: a century of audience participation in the media. Media,
Culture and Society 26(4): 533548.
Hamilton JW (2003) Remaking media participation in early modern England. Journalism 4(3): 293313.
Held D(1996) Models of Democracy. 2nd ed. Cambridge and Stanford: Polity Press and StanfordUniversity Press.
Howley K (2005) Community Media. People, Places, and Communication Technologies. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Carpentier et al. 293
293
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Jenkins H (1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Keane J (1991) The Media and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kidd D (2003) Indymedia.org: a new communications commons. In: McCaughey M and Ayers MD (eds)
Cyberactivism. Online Activism in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 4770.
Leurdijk A (1999) Televisiejournalistiek over de Multiculturele Samenleving/Television Journalism on the
Multicultural Society. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Spinhuis.
Livingstone S and Lunt P (1996) Talk on Television, Audience Participation and Public Debate. London, UK:
Routledge.
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 Commu-
nication Order. Report by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Paris
and London: UNESCO & Kogan Page.
Munson W (1993) All Talk. The Talkshow in the Media Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ostertag B (2007) Peoples Movements, Peoples Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Pateman C (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peck J (1995) Talk shows as therapeutic discourse: the ideological labor of televised talking cure. Commu-
nication Theory 5(1): 5881.
Rodriguez C (2001) Fissures in the Mediascape. An International Study of Citizens Media. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Wasko J and Mosco V (eds) (1992) Democratic Communications in the Information Age. Toronto and
Norwood, NJ: Garamond Press & Ablex.
Author biographies
Nico Carpentier is an Associate Professor at the Communication Studies Department of the Vrije Universi-
teit Brussel (VUB Free University of Brussels) and Lecturer at Charles University in Prague. He is also an
executive board member of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)
and served as vice-president of the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA)
from 2008 to 2012. His theoretical focus is on discourse theory and his research interests concern the relation-
ship between media, journalism, politics and culture, focusing especially on social domains including war and
conflict, ideology, participation and democracy.
Peter Dahlgren is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Communication and Media, Lund University,
Sweden. His work focuses on media and democracy, from the perspective of late modern social and cultural
theory. Along with various journal articles and book chapters, his recent publications include The Political
Web (Palgrave, forthcoming 2013), Media and Political Engagement (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and
the co-edited volume Young People, ICTs and Democracy (Nordicom, 2010), as well as the collection Young
Citizens and New Media (Routledge, 2007).
Francesca Pasquali (PhD in Linguistics and Communication Studies, 1999, Universita` Cattolica of Milan
Italy) is an Associate Professor of Sociology of Media and Culture and New Media Studies at the Department
of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Communication Studies, University of Bergamo (Italy). A senior
researcher at OssCom (Universita` Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan), she has published books, book chap-
ters and essays in both national and international journals on the following topics: media and participation,
cultural production and author theory, media and generations, media innovation and domestication, digital
literature and storytelling, new media audiences and qualitative research methodology.
294 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 19(3)
294
at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on July 26, 2013 con.sagepub.com Downloaded from