Ressources pour des cours sur l’espace public et communication

Quelques liens utiles pour enrichir les cours de communication.

🎬  une courte vidĂ©o sur l’espace public bourgeois et Habermas

🔗Glossaire de Dominique Wolton (communication; modernitĂ© et modernisation; individu; espace public, commun et politique)


Journalisme citoyen et vĂ©rification de l’information

📋 DĂ©codex : les conseils du journal Le monde pour vĂ©rifier les informations qui circulent en ligne URL

Qualitative Data Analysis – video series

Nick Hopwood


This post links to a videos that form a series for people grappling with the many challenges of analysing qualitative data. To me analysis is by far the hardest but also most rewarding part of research. One thing I have learned over the many years is that there are no short cuts! Good analysis has to take time. Lots of time. Time with your data. So you won’t find tips and strategies for a quick outcome or cutting corners. I focus on ideas that are relatively simple to grasp but profound in their implications, while avoiding areas that are covered extensively in textbooks and methods literature. The videos are relatively short, and I will embed pictures of any slides that appear in the videos here.

You can use these links to skip directly to the videos:

Video 1: The messy

View original post 509 more words

ACM Web Science 2015 take-away

Here are some ideas and things I remember from the The 2015 ACM Web Science conference WebSci’15 held at the Oxford e-Research Centre and Keble College :

Membrane metphore

Markus Strohmaier used an intriguing metaphor for talking about the Web. He said it was a membrane. So the Web is  like thin pliable sheet that cover and connect us. This metaphor bring some biological, living connotation to the Web and how we see it.  This echo in my own research on everyday life and the Internet. Seigworth and Gardiner (2004) remind us that we must reintroduce “life” in everyday life studies. The authors argue that cultural studies have stiffened by only using part of the organic metaphor :the skeleton, and leaving aside the soft tissues. Seigworth and Gardiner (2004) propose to take into account the “soft tissue”: the imperceptible, flexible and  mobile circulation  in the body. Fully reintroduce the “life” in everyday life would then consider its moments, its movements, and its multiplicities different materials, not just the big rigid structure.

Best quote used in a presentation :

“Big data is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it.” – Dan Ariely

Prospography vs ANT theory

It is interesting to see how other discipline study the Web, for instance people in the humanities :

Archetypal Narratives in Social Machines: Approaching Sociality through Prosopography Segolene Tarte, Pip Willcox, Hugh Glaser and David De Roure

In this paper, they used prosopography. According to wikipedia it is an investigation of the common characteristics of a historical group, whose individual biographies may be largely untraceable, by means of a collective study of their lives, in multiple career-line analysis.[1] Prosopographical research has the goal of learning about patterns of relationships and activities through the study of collective biography; it collects and analyses statistically relevant quantities of biographical data about a well-defined group of individuals. This makes it a valuable technique for studying many pre-modern societies.

Instead of opening the black box and analyze what all the actors are doing, those researcher build the archetypal narrative using a Jungian approach. So they do a biography of the infrastructure.

A need to understand the contexts

The big take away from the conference, is that the issue of context. A lot of data is over-analyzed and under-contextualized.


Seigworth, G., & Gardiner, M. (2004). Rethinking everyday life: And then nothing turns itself inside out. Cultural Studies, 18(2-3), 139-159. doi: 10.1080/0950238042000201455

SolidaritĂ© estudiantine comme outil de recrutement

Je vais prĂ©senter au colloque Regards sur la participation et sur la recherche Ă©tudiante en communication, qui se tiendra les vendredi 20 fĂ©vrier et samedi 21 fĂ©vrier 2015 Ă  l’UniversitĂ© du QuĂ©bec Ă  MontrĂ©al.

(Salle Pierre-Bourgault, 1er Ă©tage/1st floor)

Par une discussion sur les implications mĂ©thodologiques rencontrĂ©es durant ma recherche, je voudrais ouvrir le dialogue sur l’impact de la participation d’étudiants dans les recherches d’autres Ă©tudiants. Dans mon cas, la rĂ©alitĂ© du recrutement a Ă©tĂ© difficile : je n’ai pu recueillir suffisamment d’intĂ©ressĂ©s pour participer Ă  recherche sur le partage de vidĂ©os en ligne. Par consĂ©quent, mon Ă©chantillon a Ă©tĂ© majoritairement constituĂ© d’étudiants, de collĂšgues, comprenant la difficultĂ© Ă  laquelle j’étais confrontĂ©e. À ce jour, je reste perplexe quant au manque d’enthousiasme suscitĂ© par les projets Ă©tudiants. J’entends en discuter avec vous.


Je prĂ©sente Ă  la troisiĂšme vidĂ©oconfĂ©rence publique dans le cadre de la sĂ©rie “Nouvelles perspectives sur les usages”

L’usager ordinaire des dispositifs de communication ne se dĂ©finit pas par ses caractĂ©ristiques sociodĂ©mographiques (Ăąge, genre, Ă©ducation, emploi
) mais par ses usages et ses pratiques. Les outils de communication Ă©tant devenus indissociables des activitĂ©s quotidiennes, comprendre l’usager ordinaire revient Ă  comprendre son quotidien. En s’inspirant des travaux d’Henri Lefebvre et de Michel de Certeau, le quotidien, concept clĂ© qui recouvre les processus Ă  travers lesquels les individus font sens de leur vie, permet d’envisager la figure de l’usager ordinaire dans toute sa profondeur thĂ©orique. Mais l’étude du quotidien soulĂšve aussi des dĂ©fis et contraintes mĂ©thodologiques, car il est mobile, fluide et multiple.

Vendredi 23 janvier de 10h00 Ă  12h00 Ă  l’UQAM

La conférence-débat se tiendra dans la salle R-1910,au pavillon des sciences de la gestion. Et non au  J-2615

Québec : Salle 1444, Pavillon La Laurentienne, Université Laval

Wrap-up #SMSOCIETY14

Here are some things I found interesting at  Social Media & Society in Toronto

Being human is messy, things that look good on paper are not possible in real life. Internet is an extension of space, not a separate one.

Privacy, Copyright, and Conventions of Use and Reuse of Twitter Content in Contemporary Online Practices” .The panel was a conversation around journalistic practices, how to explain privacy terms to users, the importance of context.

Twitter Copyright Embeds Privacy by Siobhan O’Flynn

Social Ties and online discourse by Abigail Oakley

  • Sharing the same interest as other fellow researcher : Poster by L.Y.C. Wong. Information Diffusion on Social Media: Why People Share and ‘Re-share’ Online.
  • Some cool statistic on Canadian social media usage by Alexandre Sevigny and David Scholz. Social Media Reality Check 3.0


I will be at the poster session for the Social Media & Society International Conference (September 27-28, Toronto)

Title: Sharing online videos for deeper interaction among friends


Background: The phenomenon of sharing content on social network sites has been widely explored in communication and Internet studies. Many authors recognize the importance of social connections between individuals, but they do not explain why and how users share content (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009; Jenkins, Ford, Green, & Green, 2012). Moreover, since these social connections are made visible by social media platforms, specific topics have been studied by such as: impression management and self-presentation (boyd & Ellison, 2007), issues of disclosing personal information, building and maintaining network (Caers et al., 2013).

Objective: However, maintaining one’s network, especially friendship, can be done in a less visible manner on social network sites. This paper analyses how sharing online videos is used to build and maintain friendship bonds between young adults.

Videos are an unavoidable Internet phenomenon (Purcell, 2010). Videos move from one site to another, from computer to phone, they are spread through word of mouth, and broadcast on television. Distributing a link to a video clip is often called sharing, users are enthusiastic about sharing audiovisual content (Cesar et al., 2008) ,and the numbers of shares ─ of online adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites ─ has nearly doubled since 2006 (Madden, 2009). Since sharing is at the heart of social media sites, there is a strong link between watching online videos and interpersonal communication (Oumard, Mirza, Kroy, & Chorianopoulos, 2008).

Methods: The data used in this paper are from semi-structured and open interviews. I proceed by conducting three interviews per participant, allowing the construction of a dialogue. During the first interview, I asked participants to simply describe their everyday experiences related to online videos. A second interview allowed me to elaborate on some details. The last meeting was directly inspired by the notion of reflective practices (Finlay, 2002), as researcher and participant discussed the initial interpretations and the research process.

Results: Far from being simply a vehicle for self-presentation, participants only share publically videos that will be of interest to everybody. Most of the time, they share online video to specific friends according to specific events or contexts. This paper illustrates how users express emotion, how sharing a video is a form of paying attention to others, how information, feelings or personal experiences can be shared through a YouTube link. It goes on to argue that video serves as a complementary channel of communication ─ sometimes the only one, sometimes as a reinforcement for a conversation ─ blurring even more the already fading boundary between online and offline interaction.

Conclusions: The paper concludes by suggesting that current research needs to go beyond examining what is visible on social network sites in order to understand how sharing communicates something about relationships between people.


Bondad-Brown, B., Rice, R., & Pearce, K. E. (2011). A Uses and Gratifications and Social Media Approach to Understanding Online Video Use and Content Recommendations. Paper presented at the ICA, Boston.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Caers, R., Feyter, T. D., Couck, M. D., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Bois, C. D. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media & Society, 15(6), 982-1002.

Cesar, P., Bulterman, D. C. A., Geerts, D., Jansen, J., Knoche, H., & Seager, W. (2008). Enhancing social sharing of videos: fragment, annotate, enrich, and share Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 11–20). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 317-335.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., Green, J., & Green, J. B. (2012). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture: NYU Press.

Madden, M., Project, P. I., & American, L. (2009). The audience for online video-sharing sites shoots up. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Oumard, M., Mirza, D., Kroy, J., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2008). A cultural probes study on video sharing and social communication on the internet Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts (pp. 142–148 ). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video: Pew Internet & American Life Project.