Spurgeon Summary

Jessica Cordes, Darrin Gailey, Matthew Anderson

Spurgeon, “Co-creative media…”

                  Summary:

The article attempts to define and put digital storytelling into its current context, advocating for its use by all ages of people. The article also defines participatory medium in relationship to digital storytelling. The article describes three experiments or studies that support the authors’ view of digital storytelling. The participants of the studies vary in age and there are also differences in the purpose for being a part of the study (personal, educational, commercial reasons).

Main Points:

-        Digital storytelling is a social activity accessible to everyone.

-        Digital storytelling is effective as activist art, especially when articulating voices of marginalized, disadvantaged groups, or overlooked stories.

-        Co-creative media is the tool for the facilitation of participatory media such as digital storytelling.

-        Participation in social critique is limited by social structures and divides. Marginalized groups or people in low infrastructure areas do not have as many opportunities to participate.

-        Digital storytelling is particularly useful for commercial agendas (economic and social).

Example:

The first experiment, titled “Engaging Young People,” is the best example of the points the authors are trying to illustrate about digital storytelling, because they deal specifically with “at risk” youth and the issues and critiques that are the most relevant to them. The other two experiments or studies do more to raise questions critiquing their views than support them.

Response:

In the second “experiment,” some participants felt that the structure of the workshop centered too much on computer production. They did not have the time or means, and especially motivation, to learn the computer programs and applications, and felt that their stories were better told through oral interviews and artifacts such as photographs. Assistants then translated these interviews and artifacts into a digital story. This leaves me wondering; to what extent is digital storytelling necessary to the story? Are some stories better told by other means? Does computer technology really help to advance participation for marginalized groups if these people are uninterested in learning the technology or do not have access to education about the technology? These are all questions I felt were not developed by the article.