DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Study of Discourses, Practices, and Structures of Digital Health in the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparative Study of Discourses, Practices, and Structures of Digital Health in the U.S The Frictions and Flows of Data-Intensive Transformations: A Comparative Study of Discourses, Practices, and Structures of Digital Health in the U.S. and India Brittany Fiore-Silfvast A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Kirsten Foot, Co-Chair Gina Neff, Co-Chair Philip Howard Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Communication i ©Copyright 2014 Brittany Fiore-Silfvast ii University of Washington Abstract The Frictions and Flows of Data-Intensive Transformations: A Comparative Study of Discourses, Practices, and Structures of Digital Health in the U.S. and India Brittany Fiore-Silfvast Co-Chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Associate Professor, Kirsten Foot Assistant Professor, Gina Neff Department of Communication This dissertation examined the social and organizational implications of data-intensive transformations in healthcare through studying digital health and processes of informationalization in the U.S. and India. These transformations bring challenges of how to mobilize digital health data across different contexts of use and make data valuable for multiple stakeholders. To study these challenges I employed a combination of discourse analysis, ethnographic methods, and a comparative case study analysis to investigate digital health innovation across rural healthcare and urban consumer health and wellness settings in the U.S. and India. Through a communication lens this research examines sociotechnical interoperability for data across domains on three levels: discourses, communicative practices, and organizational structures and labor. Across the discourses and practices of different communities, I found communication gaps around health and wellness data. To explain these gaps I propose the concept of data iii valence to represent the different expectations and social values that mediate the social performance of data. Analysis through a data valence lens generated the following typology: actionability, connection, self-evidence, truthiness, discovery, accountability, and transparency. Mapping the multiple, and sometimes conflicting valences across contexts accounts for the multiple social and material lives of data and highlights tensions across stakeholder groups. I argue that this typology is portable to other fields of data-intensive work. In comparing cases of digital health pilot projects, the differences between reinforcing and redrawing professional boundary relations, and in the role of intermediary labor in translation of digital health data for clinical and administrative sensemaking, patient engagement, and algorithmic calibration, at one time support polyvalent data in the U.S. Telehealth case and hinder it in India mHealth. Further, in the aftermath of the terminated U.S. Telehealth project, aspects of the technology continued to materialize within organizational practices and structures, such that organizational changes became the technological residue of the pilot projects. This suggests digital health’s emphasis on technological innovation overlooks essential organizational and communicative dimensions of informationalizing healthcare and needs to be expanded beyond measures of success and failure to account for how technological innovation extends into and co-evolves with a wider network of organizational practice. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Introduction of the Problem ............................................................................................ 2 Defining Digital Health ............................................................................................... 3 The Problem of Data-Intensive Transformation .......................................................... 5 Description of Study .................................................................................................. 10 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 12 Understanding Data-Intensive Transformation through Communication and Technology Theory ................................................................................................................ 13 Digital Innovation in Organizing ............................................................................... 19 Digital Health Ecologies ............................................................................................ 24 Informationalization of Bodies, Patients, and Populations........................................ 26 Digital Health Discourses and Practices ....................................................................... 33 The Doing of Digital Health Discourses ................................................................... 33 Technology-in-Practice ............................................................................................. 33 Framing the Relationship of Technology and Social Change ................................... 35 Themes Characterizing Technology and Social Change ........................................... 36 Challenges for Data Use and Reuse Across Domains of Digital Health ...................... 43 Co-configuration of Technology and (Re)Use .......................................................... 44 Entangled Social and Material Lives of Data ............................................................ 46 Organizational Restructuring and Intermediary Labors ................................................ 48 An Occasion for Organizational Restructuring ......................................................... 50 Labors of technology-in-practice ............................................................................... 52 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 57 Discourses of the Field/in the Field ........................................................................... 60 Practices and Communities of Digital Health ........................................................... 62 Organizational Structures and Labor in Context: A Comparative Case Study Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 66 Digital Health Pilot Projects .......................................................................................... 69 U.S. Telehealth .......................................................................................................... 69 India mHealth ............................................................................................................ 73 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................... 75 Chapter 2 Discursive Contexts for Healthcare and Technology 77 U.S. Rural Healthcare and Technology ......................................................................... 80 The State of U.S. Healthcare ..................................................................................... 80 v Healthcare System Optimization ............................................................................... 84 Data Liberation, Data Regulation .............................................................................. 86 Partnerships and Cross-Sector Collaboration ............................................................ 90 U.S. Consumer Health and Wellness and Technology ................................................. 91 Consumerization of Health and Wellness ................................................................. 91 The Entrepreneurial Engine of Digital Health ........................................................... 93 Big Data and the Macroscope .................................................................................... 95 Data-based Partnerships ............................................................................................ 96 India Rural Healthcare and Technology........................................................................ 98 State of Indian Rural Health and Healthcare ............................................................. 98 ICTD in India........................................................................................................... 102 Big Data and Development...................................................................................... 106 Multi-stakeholder Partnerships ................................................................................ 109 India Consumer Health and Wellness and Technology .............................................. 111 Affordable Health Care and the Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid .................. 112 MedTech Innovation the Indian Way ...................................................................... 113 Data Governance ..................................................................................................... 115 Public Private Partnerships ...................................................................................... 116 Chapter 3 Discourses of Technology and Social Change in the Field of Digital Health 118 Institutional Change .................................................................................................... 119 Filling Institutional Gaps ......................................................................................... 120 Strengthening Institutions .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human-Machine Communication
    Volume 2, 2021 ISSN 2638-602X (print)/ISSN 2638-6038 (online) Human-Machine Communication ISSN 2638-602X (print)/ISSN 2638-6038 (online) Copyright © 2021 Human-Machine Communication www.hmcjournal.com Human-Machine Communication (HMC) is an annual peer-reviewed, open access publication of the Communication and Social Robotics Labs (combotlabs.org), published with support from the Nicholson School of Communication and Media at the University of Central Florida. Human- Machine Communication (Print: ISSN 2638-602X) is published in the spring of each year (Online: ISSN 2638-6038). Institutional, organizational, and individual subscribers are invited to purchase the print edition using the following mailing address: Human-Machine Communication (HMC) Communication and Social Robotics Labs Western Michigan University 1903 W. Michigan Ave. 300 Sprau Tower Kalamazoo, MI 49008 Print Subscriptions: Regular US rates: Individuals: 1 year, $40. Libraries and organizations may subscribe for 1 year, $75. If subscribing outside of the United States, please contact the Editor-in-Chief for current rate. Checks should be made payable to the Communication and Social Robotics Labs. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License . All articles in HMC are open access and can be distributed under the creative commons license. Human-Machine Communication Volume 2, 2021 Volume Editor Leopoldina Fortunati, University of Udine (Italy) Editor-in-Chief Autumn Edwards, Western Michigan University (U.S.A.) Associate Editors Patric R. Spence, University of Central Florida (U.S.A.) Chad Edwards, Western Michigan University (U.S.A.) Editorial Board Somaya Ben Allouch, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands) Maria Bakardjieva, University of Calgary (Canada) Jaime Banks, West Virginia University (U.S.A.) Naomi S.
    [Show full text]
  • © Copyright 2018 Samuel Christopher Woolley
    © Copyright 2018 Samuel Christopher Woolley Manufacturing Consensus: Computational Propaganda and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Samuel Christopher Woolley A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2018 Reading Committee: Philip N. Howard, Chair Benjamin Mako Hill Gina Neff Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Communication 2 University of Washington Abstract Manufacturing Consensus: Computational Propaganda and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Samuel Christopher Woolley Chair of Supervisory Committee Dr. Philip N. Howard This dissertation is an investigation of the ways three political actor groups used and interacted with bots and computational propaganda during the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States of America: political campaigns, journalists, and digital constituents. It is informed by data from over nine months of fieldwork, from February 2016 to after November 2016, in and around the U.S. campaign including attendance at pivotal party events, participant observation of campaigns, and consistent collection and parsing of online and offline information related to bots, computational propaganda, and the race. Over 40 interviews with a variety of experts from each of the three actor groups were done for this project. Three core working theoretical concepts emerged from this research: manufacturing consensus, the bot as an information radiator, and the bot as a proxy for the creator. The first describes the usage of bots and computational propaganda in attempts to amplify content online and give political ideas and actors the illusion of popularity in an effort to create bandwagon support. The second related to how journalists use bots as prostheses for reporting—to write simple stories, collect and parse data, and continuously communicate with the public about important information.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization from Communities
    INNOVATION, SOCIAL STRUCTURE & THE CREATION OF NEW INDUSTRIES Sonali K. Shah University of Washington Foster School of Business [email protected] Cyrus C.M. Mody Rice University Department of History [email protected] Both authors are equal contributors. ABSTRACT An industry is a set of firms producing products and a market of consumers for those products. Firms and markets are the basic institutions of capitalism, and yet we know little about the emergence of (1) an industry’s initial firms and (2) a product’s initial market. Using comparative, longitudinal data from probe microscopy and three sports, this paper inductively derives a framework for understanding the social and economic processes that lead to the development of new industries seeded by user innovations. We identify four modes of social, economic, and technological development around each product: innovator, community, network exchange, and industry. Each mode describes a distinct social structure through which producers and users interact. Specifically, we distinguish between who produces and who consumes as the social structure evolves from innovator mode (when the producer and the consumer are the same individual) to industry mode (when firms produce and consumers consume). We describe the individual-level motives that trigger each mode and the social structures that underlie them. The four modes form a temporal sequence in some industries; in others a single mode dominates over time or the modes emerge in a variety of sequences. Keywords Industry development, innovation, entrepreneurship, motivation, community-based innovation, user innovation Acknowledgments The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and National Science Foundation (under Cooperative Agreement No.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND POLICY iserp COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK JUSTIFICATION AND INDULGENCE DETERMINANTS OF JUSTIFICATION AND INDULGENCE Ran Kivetz Graduate School of Business Columbia University Yuhuang Zen Graduate School of Business Columbia University August 2005 ISERP WORKING PAPER 05-05 PIONEERING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY JUSTIFICATION AND INDULGENCE Determinants of Justification and Indulgence Ran Kivetz Graduate School of Business Columbia University Yuhuang Zheng Graduate School of Business Columbia University ISERP Working Paper 05-05 August 2005 ~13,350 Words 4 Figures Ran Kivetz (E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 212-854-4555) is the Sidney Taurel Associate Professor of Business and Yuhuang Zheng (e-mail: [email protected]) is a doctoral candidate, both at the Graduate School of Business of Columbia University. The research reported in this article was supported by a research grant to Ran Kivetz from Columbia University’s Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ran Kivetz, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, NY, NY 10027. Abstract The decision to indulge is often painful because it evokes guilt and requires sacrificing prudence and necessities. While prior research and common sense suggest that people will allow themselves to indulge when they have a compelling justification, we still know very little about the determinants of such justification and consequent indulgence. Building on prior analyses in the social sciences, we propose two complementary routes to justifying indulgence: one through hard work or excellent performance (an entitlement justification) and the second through the attainment of indulgence without depleting income or monetary resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Activities 2016–2017 Data & Society Is a Research Institute Focused on the Social and Cultural Issues Arising from Data-Centric Technological Development
    Report on Activities 2016–2017 Data & Society is a research institute focused on the social and cultural issues arising from data-centric technological development. 2016–2017 About Data & Society In the 2016-17 year, Data & Society enjoyed a We are delighted to watch our research mature period of rapid growth, expansion, and evolution and our network grow. Data & Society conducts research and in all areas of our work. We are profoundly grateful Over this year, as we watched our field deepen to all the supporters, advisors, and partners who and expand, we also recognized the need to builds the field of actors in order to ensure have allowed us to fulfill our research and bridge and translate between our work and new field-building mission. communities and sectors. Expect more details that knowledge guides debate about the This report represents a short moment of regarding our commitment to engagement reflection on the incredible momentum we have work in the year to come. implications of data-centric and automated generated together. Our increasing reputation for established This report represents a short moment technologies as these intersect with people, expertise gave us the opportunity to advance the public conversation about the many potential of reflection on the incredible momentum organizations, cultural norms, and society. solutions and potential harms springing from complex sociotechnical developments. Just a few we have generated together. notable developments from this year include: This report presents an overview of institutional highlights from the fiscal year The Board, advisors, and staff of Data & Society spanning from May 2016 to May 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence and Gender Equality And
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and GENDER EQUALITY Key findings of UNESCO’s Global Dialogue ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and GENDER EQUALITY Key findings of UNESCO’s Global Dialogue Prepared in August 2020 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France © UNESCO 2020 This report is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). The present license applies exclusively to the text content of this report and to images whose copyright belongs to UNESCO. By using the content of this report, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. This Report was prepared by the Division for Gender Equality, UNESCO Graphic design: Anna Mortreux Printed by UNESCO The printer is certified Imprim’Vert®, the French printing industry’s environmental initiative CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 FRAMING THE LANDSCAPE OF GENDER EQUALITY AND AI ................................... 6 AI and Social Good 6 The Imperatives of Gender Equality 7 GENDER EQUALITY AND AI PRINCIPLES .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Drone: How Social Movements Democratize Surveillance, Austin Choi- Fitzpatrick, 2020
    ACTING WITH TECHNOLOGY Bonnie Nardi, Victor Kaptelinin, and Kirsten Foot, editors Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design, Clay Spinuzzi, 2003 Activity-Centered Design: An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems, Geri Gay and Helene Hembrooke, 2004 The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, 2005 Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge, Gerry Stahl, 2006 Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi, 2006 Web Campaigning, Kirsten A. Foot and Steven M. Schneider, 2006 Scientific Collaboration on the Internet, Gary M. Olson, Ann Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos, editors, 2008 Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi, 2009 Digitally Enabled Social Change: Online and Offline Activism in the Age of the Internet, Jennifer Earl and Katrina Kimport, 2011 Invisible Users: Youth in the Internet Cafés of Urban Ghana, Jenna Burrell, 2012 Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries, Gina Neff, 2012 Car Crashes without Cars: Lessons about Simulation Technology and Organizational Change from Automotive Design, Paul M. Leonardi, 2012 Coding Places: Software Practice in a South American City, Yuri Takhteyev, 2012 Technology Choices: Why Occupations Differ in Their Embrace of New Technology, Diane E. Bailey and Paul M. Leonardi, 2015 Shifting Practices: A Reflective Inquiry into Technology, Practice, and Innovation, Giovan Francesco Lanzara, 2016 Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism, Hamid R. Ekbia and Bonnie Nardi, 2017 The Good Drone: How Social Movements Democratize Surveillance, Austin Choi- Fitzpatrick, 2020 THE GOOD DRONE How Social Movements Democratize Surveillance AUSTIN CHOI-FITZPATRICK The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2020 Austin David Fitzpatrick This work is subject to a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND license.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur Lehman Professor of Sociology, Columbia University and Professor of Social Science, University of Warwick
    CURRICULUM VITAE FEBRUARY 2020 DAVID STARK Arthur Lehman Professor of Sociology, Columbia University and Professor of Social Science, University of Warwick Department of Sociology Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies Knox Hall, 606 W. 122nd Street Social Science Bldg, Coventry CV4 7AL New York, NY 10027 United Kingdom [email protected] personal website: davidcstark.com [email protected] EDUCATION 1982 Ph.D. Harvard University, Department of Sociology 1972 B.A. Princeton University (summa cum laude) ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 2015- Columbia University, Arthur Lehman Professor of Sociology 2013- University of Warwick, Professor of Social Science, Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, 2000- Columbia University, Director, Center on Organizational Innovation 2013-2016 London School of Economics, Centennial Professor 2008-2011 Columbia University, Chair, Department of Sociology 1999-2007 Santa Fe Institute, External Faculty Member 1998-2001 Columbia University, Chair, Department of Sociology 1997-2015 Columbia University, Arthur Lehman Professor of Sociology and International Affairs, joint appointment in Sociology and the School of International & Public Affairs 1990-97 Cornell University, Associate Professor to Professor, Department of Sociology and Graduate School of Management 1986-90 University of Wisconsin-Madison, Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with tenure, Department of Sociology 1982-86 Duke University, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology 1981-82 Harvard University, Instructor, Department of Sociology
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Activities
    Report on Activities 2015–2016 Report on Activities 2015–2016 CONTENTS 4 // YEAR 2 OVERVIEW // 8 // ACTIVITIES // 8 // RESEARCH // 18 // EXPLORING // 18 // Network Infrastructures and the Environment // 19 // Understanding and Evaluating Health Technologies for Patients with Chronic Multiple Conditions // 19 // The Digital Passage // 20 // DEEP DIVES // 21 // Algorithms and Publics // 22 // Data & Civil Rights: A New Era of Policing and Justice // 24 // Enabling Connected Learning // 24 // Understanding Privacy as a Means of Economic Redistribution // 25 // Intelligence & Autonomy // 26 // IN THE FIELD // 27 // Supporting Ethics in Data Research // 28 // Uber and Its Drivers // 28 // Reframing Privacy // 29 // Measuring Cyberstalking and Digital Domestic Abuse Across the Lifespan // 29 // Survey Research into the Privacy and Security Experiences of Low-SES Populations // 31 // TEACHING // 31 // Digital Privacy & Data Literacy // 32 // Empowering the Next Generation of Civic Leaders // 33 // Networks Land // 34 // Could Your Data Discriminate? // 34 // CONVENING // 35 // Council for Big Data, Ethics, and Society // 35 // Data & Society Workshop // 36 // Small Group Sessions // 36 // Platformation // 37 // bot week // 38 // Other Events // 40 // CONNECTIONS // 42 // Databites // 44 // Whiskey Wednesdays // 45 // Practice and Challenge // 48 // FELLOWS PROGRAM // 54 // SELECTED OUTPUT // 65 // PEOPLE // 74 // SUPPORTERS // 4 // OVERVIEW // // OVERVIEW // 5 DATA & SOCIETY IS A RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN NEW YORK CITY THAT IS FOCUSED ON THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ISSUES ARISING FROM DATA-CENTRIC TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. The issues that Data & Society seeks to address Data & Society’s programs bring together different are complex. The same innovative technologies perspectives, research methods, and practices. We and sociotechnical practices that are reconfigur- weave together researchers, entrepreneurs, activists, ing society – enabling novel modes of interaction, policy creators, journalists, geeks, and public intellec- new opportunities for knowledge, and disruptive tuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Janna Anderson, Director, Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center
    NUMBERS, FACTS AND TRENDS SHAPING THE WORLD FOR RELEASE DECEMBER 18, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT: Lee Rainie, Director, Internet, Science, and Technology Research, Pew Research Janna Anderson, Director, Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center 202.419.4372 www.pewresearch.org RECOMMENDED CITATION: Pew Research Center, December 2014, “The Future of Privacy” Available at: http://www.pewInternet.org/2014/12/18/future-of-privacy/ 2 PEW RESEARCH CENTER About This Report This report is the latest in a sustained effort throughout 2014 by the Pew Research Center’s Internet Project to mark the 25th anniversary of the creation of the World Wide Web by Sir Tim Berners-Lee (The Web at 25). It includes the responses of hundreds of experts to a question about the future of privacy in the coming decade. It is part of a series of reports tied to the Web’s birthday; some of the studies look at how far Internet use has penetrated people’s lives and some examine experts’ assessments of the technology environment by 2025. The findings we describe in this report emerge in the context of these earlier reports: . A February 2014 report from the Pew Research Center’s Internet Project tied to the Web’s anniversary looking at the strikingly fast adoption of the Internet and the generally positive attitudes users have about its role in their social environment. A March 2014 Digital Life in 2025 report issued by the Pew Research Center in association with Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center focusing on the Internet’s future more broadly.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 ALA Self-Study Report
    2017 Self-Study of the School of Information Master of Science in Information to the American Library Association Committee on Accreditation A School organized and maintained for the purpose of graduate education in information: ■ School of Information Principal Administrator, School of Information: ■ Thomas A. Finholt, Dean Parent Institution: ■ University of Michigan Chief Executive Officer, University of Michigan: ■ Mark Schlissel, President Chief Academic Officer, University of Michigan: ■ Paul Courant, Interim Provost Degree Program Brought Forward for Re-Accreditation: ■ Master of Science in Information University of Michigan is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), an independent corporation that holds membership in the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). iii Preface COA ACCREDITATION TASK FORCE Chair and Lead Editor: Elizabeth Yakel (Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) Task Force Membership: Thomas A. Finholt (Dean); Judy Lawson (Assistant Dean of Academic and Student Affairs); Karen Markey (Professor); Scott Staelgraeve (Chief Administrative Officer) Staff Assistants: Glenda Bullock (Communications Specialist); Amanda Ciacelli (Senior Administrative Assistant); Alexandra Holler (Writer/Editorial Assistant); David Young (Multimedia Designer) Subcommittees for Each Standard: Standard I: SYSTEMATIC PLANNING Thomas A. Finholt (Dean, Chair); Elizabeth Yakel (Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) Standard II: CURRICULUM Karen Markey (Chair and Professor); Soo Young Rieh (Chair of the
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge and Education S
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology 2014 Participations: Dialogues on the Participatory Promise of Contemporary Culture and Politics Part 4: Knowledge and Education S. Elizabeth Bird University of South Florida, [email protected] Nick Couldry London School of Economics and Political Science Andreas Hepp University of Bremen Sonia Livingstone London School of Economics and Political Science Elizabeth Losh University of California San Diego See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/ant_facpub Scholar Commons Citation Bird, S. Elizabeth; Couldry, Nick; Hepp, Andreas; Livingstone, Sonia; Losh, Elizabeth; Mittell, Jason; Neff, Gina; Slater, Don; and Watkins, S. Craig, "Participations: Dialogues on the Participatory Promise of Contemporary Culture and Politics Part 4: Knowledge and Education" (2014). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 21. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/ant_facpub/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors S. Elizabeth Bird, Nick Couldry, Andreas Hepp, Sonia Livingstone, Elizabeth Losh, Jason Mittell, Gina Neff, Don Slater, and S. Craig Watkins This article is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/ant_facpub/21 International Journal of Communication
    [Show full text]