Proud to have been a part of this amazing event!
I recently interviewed Marko Milosavljevic on Media Capture.
Do we know who owns the media we consume and use? What are the algorithms guiding our consumption? Who can curb hate speech? The phenomenon of “media capture” takes place when both governments and commercial interests align against public interest media and transparency in governance of media organizations and platforms.
View original post 561 more words
For the past Fall, and still until March, I’ve been a part of a team researching Living Lab practices and options for an innovation-education incubator organization GESCI. We have created a blog to keep notes and share insights called The Sound of the City.
We have just launched a series of Expert Insights for the blog. The first Expert I interviewed is a dear friend, Sari Virta (PhD Candidate in Media Management at University of Tampere, Finland; Team Leader). At present, she is researching how innovation can be managed in creative organizations. Before, and in parallel to, her academic career, Sari has had a long career in innovative media organizations, as well as a team leader in multi-stakeholder contexts. I highly appreciate the way she condensed some hot topics related to managing creativity and innovation, so cross-posting her views here:
Sari’s Top 5 Recommendations for Effective, Empowering Innovation Leadership
- Understanding of the true nature of innovation, as work. Creativity and the resulting innovations are complex mix of different aspects, hence, conflict-driven work. Leaders of innovative organization need to realize that and carry the related responsibility.
- Innovation and creativity in organizations need to be understood in different levels: Not only as organizational but also as individual, groups within the organizations, and even in terms of the broader networks around the organization. The dynamics of these levels might be very different and have to be skillfully managed.
- Understanding of how the work/organizational environment can lead to, and support, creativity and innovation. Mere individual creativity, let alone, is not enough.
- Innovation is often prohibited or hindered by the existing ways of being and doing. Leaders need to examine and question plenty of old routines.
- Understanding of different stages of projects and processes. Managing the brainstorming stage will most likely needs to be very different than the final steps of the execution.
Thoughts? Comments? Please post them below!
This post is inspired by the brand new venture, Bridges Global, by my friend Elizabeth Soltis. Her organization provides workshops and other kinds of training regarding empowerment, leadership, and collaboration, including:
- Partnership Negotiation: Practicing Nonviolent Communication
- Service Excellence: Exceeding Client Expectations
- Trust and Innovation: Developing Accountability and Creativity
- Complaints: Transforming Breakdowns into Inspired Action
In terms of media and development, social-media induced collaboration and participation have become crucial aspects, in many regards, as the below graph shows: [Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarberg/ under Creative Commons license.]
Doing Good Together Online
In this field, we need much more research and education to harness the potential of participation fully. While collaboration is more possible than ever, it also causes challenges. Clay Shirky, in Cognitive Surplus, outlines three important aspects of online participation for common good:
- Motive (think of, e.g., passionate fans — how to create that kind of motivation?);
- Opportunity (This does not only mean access to technologies that allow participation. Shirky writes: “While treating one another well…we can create environments where the group can do more than the individuals could do on their own”); and
- Culture (for Shirky, this means the trend dominating online communities: The opening up of knowledge, bypassing old definitions of who is an expert, the collaborative spirit).
But not so fast. As Shirky also notes, there are different values of participation: Some forms of participation are motivated by mere joy and fun, some participate to engage with friends, some participate to make the world a better place. One question is, what kind of participation value due we want to and need to create? This may be very different for a brand of sneakers and a non-profit fundraising for micro-loans. Also, we should perhaps not expect the creation of ‘Cognitive Surplus’ from everyone, in every situation. There are questions of access, skills, even (self)censorship as to how we can and do participate. For instance, Henry Jenkins et al. (a team of famous scholars of fan and online participation) argue in their new book titled Spreadable Media (pg. 194) that:
[T]he nature of participation in the digital age is a complicated matter. For even those groups who have greater access to digital technologies and have mastered the skills to deploy them effectively…our capacity to participate can be complicated by issues of who owns the platforms through which communication occurs and how their agendas shape how those tools can be deployed. And, even if we get our messages through, there is often the question of whether anyone is listening.
Scholar-Activist Collaborations The other aspect is: How do we collaborate to support (democratic) media development in today’s comlex media environment? The past decade has seen a notable increase in public interest–oriented civil society activism and advocacy around media-related change. These activities represent a distinctive, developing social movement. These efforts have become a developing point of intersection between scholars and activists. And there are numerous examples, some of them known world-wide: Robert McChesney is the co-founder of Free Press. Lawrence Lessig is the co-founder of Creative Commons. Until lately, the practices of engaged research by academic researchers in collaboration with movement actors has been sparse, and such collaborations have been subjected to relatively little attention. Communications Research in Action: Scholar-Activist Collaborations for a Democratic Public Sphere (a volume is a collection edited by Phil Napoli and myself) highlights the multitude of ways in which scholars can participate as members of the MR movement/s. This (latter) kind of collaboration is needed to promote (the former) opportunities for collaboration and participation to everyone.
[More about participation, collaboration, media development, and governance to follow!]
My background in media development stems from the gender perspective — so I was delighted to find this report Women in Media Development (by Internews). It was sent to my inbox by the great Who Speaks – Global Media Mapping Project (GMMP), a massive comparative longitudinal study effort conducted in collaboration of practitioners and scholars, to monitor gender in the news. (And then I found out that a dear friend and media development expert Susan Abbott has worked on it…)
Having participated in GMMP a few times, as well as been a part of the Screening Gender project of Northern European broadcasters (ages ago…) I was delighted to see these 10 principles, or steps, of good gender practices that the Women in Media Development report has teased out:
These might be very applicable to any organizations wanting to focus their overall theme on gender…
In addition, the report includes a wonderful list of resources.
For example, it notes that the Global Media Policy Mapping Project includes the keyword gender. Gender and media policy-making is not a mainstream topic (although wonderful scholars such as Leslie Regan Shade have written about it so well). But it’s good to remember that gender in policies is also a part of media development: