Problems with participatory culture

The shift to a more participatory culture has led to profound changes in professional communication practice. Communicators today have found their roles redrawn to the extent that they are not simply imparting information to audiences and publics: they are managing online communities and establishing and maintaining dialogic relationships with audiences-as-participants.

To enable and support participation, communicators need to consider the accessibility of their content and to be attuned to the needs and practices of diverse publics.

Universal design is a term for the creation of products (including the products of communication) that are accessible to all abilities, with accessibility built into the product at the design phase rather than achieved through retrofitting. Applying to digital as well as built environments, universal design maximises participation by allowing as many people as possible to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public spaces.

Christa Teston and Yanar Hashlamon take this one step further with their proposal of “participatory design” as an alternative to universal design. Rather than assuming everyone’s needs are universal, these authors argue, you can involve diverse groups in the design of your content to ensure you are serving diverse needs.

Practices that support inclusivity and diversity are therefore fundamental to professional communication practice today, but what is so interesting about participatory culture is that this professional domain now extends far further than it once did. Because we are all communicators with access to the means of production and distribution on a public (and potentially global) scale, we now share the responsibilities of communicators in traditionally “professional” roles. This relates to what Jenkins et al term the “ethics challenge” of participatory culture. In the previous chapter we explored the effects of communication. In a participatory culture, we are all responsible for such effects, but we don’t necessarily receive the training required to prepare us for our “increasingly public roles as media makers and community participants” (2009: 3).

It’s clear that there are many benefits to participatory culture. There is more space for marginalised voices and an abundance of new forms of civic engagement. For example, in Australia children under the age of 18 do not have access to civic participation in the form of voting – however, these children are also growing up in a media ecosystem that equips them with a variety of tools, platforms, and practices through which they can learn about, comment on, get involved in, form or join groups relating to, and lead conversations about important issues. Meanwhile, greater involvement of marginalised groups in media production leads to greater diversity in media content and more opportunities for dominant ideologies to be challenged in impactful, vastly public ways.

But a participatory culture is not a digital or communicational utopia. What do you think are some of the problems and challenges associated with this excess of opportunities for participation? Here are some that I think are especially worth acknowledging.

Extra work for communicators

If you are a professional communicator, and you’ve been working in the industry for more than a decade, you may have found that your professional role and responsibilities have dramatically expanded. You’re now expected to be across multiple platforms and skilled at countless digital communication modes. You’re expected to engage with audiences on social media and to curate and manage your own online identity.

At times, it feels almost impossible to keep up with the pace of technological change. Upskilling isn’t always an option – you may have limited financial resources with which to fund your continual reeducation. The boundaries between your professional and personal lives may have disappeared, and for communicators in particular it’s harder than ever to switch off because you carry the tools of your job everywhere.

The fruits of participatory culture also include the so-called gig economy: the rise of a freelanced, casualised workforce where digital platforms are used to source jobs. This may mean you have less security than you’d like.

It’s harder to be heard

For professional and amateur communicators alike, greater participation makes it harder to be heard, because there are so many competing voices and messages. And in such a crowded and complex space, communication can be challenging because it involves confronting a diversity of opinions and understandings. Harmful ideas can be amplified and are difficult to dislodge.

Filter bubbles and echo chambers

How exposed to diverse viewpoints are we really? The algorithms that personalise our online experiences tend to deliver us information that aligns with our previous media consumption patterns – this means we are less likely to encounter opinions that diverge from our own. The result can be a form of intellectual isolation.

If we’re less likely to be confronted with views that differ from our own, does that make us less able to participate in civic discourse in meaningful ways?

Misinformation

Misinformation is false or misleading information that can be spread strategically or accidentally. The Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) defines misinformation as “false, misleading or deceptive information that can cause harm”. As communication and culture become more participatory, it is easier for misinformation to spread. Practices like fact-checking also become harder, because sources of information are more difficult to pin down.

As Mike Caulfield points out in his book on fact-checking, it’s difficult for the accuracy of information to be determined when content goes viral. Not everyone who shares online content is guided by the same ethical frameworks as professional communicators.

So misinformation can be malicious, but it can also be the result of poor digital practices and/or a lack of training.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

The digital divide

Not everyone has access to the tools, technologies, knowledge and competencies that allow them to participate in this complex digital world. Returning to Jenkins et al’s report, this is referred to as “The participation gap” (2009: 3). Digital exclusion is a phenomenon whereby individuals might face (often insurmountable) barriers to participation due to factors such as lack of knowledge or education, the cost of internet connectivity, or geography (for example, lack of stable internet connections in remote and regional areas, or in developing countries).

According to the Australian Digital Inclusion Index’s 2023 report, 9.4% of the population are currently “highly excluded”, and there is a considerable digital gap between First Nations and non-First Nations people in Australia. The authors of this report remind us that:

In other words, if we find ourselves on the wrong side of the digital divide, because of where we live, our background, or our lack of education or income, we can suffer disadvantage in a culture that values and assumes participation.