IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v6y2018i4p111-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why We Should Keep Studying Good (and Everyday) Participation: An Analogy to Political Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Neta Kligler-Vilenchik

    (Department of Communication and Journalism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)

Abstract

Research on participation is currently characterized by a trend towards studying its “darker” sides. In this commentary, I make an argument for why we should keep studying good participation. In addition, I claim that the flipside of studying exceptional case studies of participation shouldn’t be only focusing on dark participation, but on everyday, mundane forms of participation, that may happen in surprising contexts (such as non-proprietary platforms) and may take different shapes. To make these claims, I introduce a case study of “good participation” in news production processes, and explain why it may merit this distinction. I then use a three-pronged analogy to the cognate field of political participation to show what it can tell us about good—and everyday—participation in the news.

Suggested Citation

  • Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018. "Why We Should Keep Studying Good (and Everyday) Participation: An Analogy to Political Participation," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 111-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v6:y:2018:i:4:p:111-114
    DOI: 10.17645/mac.v6i4.1744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/1744
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1744?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v6:y:2018:i:4:p:111-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.