Monthly Archives: April 2013

Comunicación audiovisual e Internet

On the 19th of April I did my first online conference.

In our round table about television and Internet, we were 3 participants and a moderator, Ana María Pérez Guerrero.

It was a very interesting experience since I was the only one who did not speak Spanish. Everybody was kind enough to translate and ask me questions. And I got compliments about my subject and methodology. 

I also try Twitting live, so that was fun too. I got 2 new followers :

@Loreneando Estudiante de Comunicación Audiovisual. Con mil proyectos en la cabeza y sin dejar de soñar. Luna de Valencia ·

@OmarJuanIetum  Mercenario audiovisual…

Here is my abstract : 

The phenomenon of the social web (Web 2.0) and the proliferation of devices that are always connected to the Internet, such as smartphones, are transforming Internet studies. Nowadays, studying online and offline activities separately is unthinkable, since the Internet plays such a great part of everyday life (boyd & Ellison, 2007).  The same is true about computer and telephone. For example, user can start an email on their smart phone and finish it on their computer. Reflecting on abundance of online audio-visual content, several questions may be raised: How certain video become viral? Why do people want to share certain type of video?

For this paper, I will use my current work for my PhD thesis that explores the role of online videos in interpersonal communications and groups of users. 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. This paper examines how people decide to post a video on their Facebook wall or friend’s wall. It shows that it can be done to share information, a feeling or an experience.

Each individual has a unique practice and motivation for sharing online video, whether through a social networking site, by email, showing it directly to a friend and family member. This paper aims to better understand why ordinary people share online videos via social networking sites. The data used in this paper is 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 allows me to elaborate on some details. The last meeting is directly inspired by the notion of reflective practices (Finlay, 2002) and I make a first analysis of previous meetings. Thus, researcher and participant discuss the initial interpretations and the research process.

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

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230.

Hine, C. (2011). Towards ethnography of television on the internet: A mobile strategy for exploring mundane interpretive activities. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), 567-582.

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


“Can you recommend a good book on writing?”

Explorations of Style

I am often asked to recommend a ‘good book on writing’. A simple enough question, but one that is surprisingly hard to answer. In my attempts to do so, I feel a bit like a sommelier, responding to the question with a few of my own: Are you having the fish or the lamb? Do you tend to like full-bodied reds? That is, it’s hard to recommend a book without knowing what sort of writing project you are doing and what sort of support you are likely to perceive as valuable. This list includes some of the books that I find helpful, allowing you to see what might be beneficial to you. (This list expands on the list of five key sources that I use for writing.) I have tried to include a range of books that are relatively general—that is, ones that I think might meet the criterion of…

View original post 1,671 more words

Les enjeux des conversations sur les réseaux sociaux numériques : un jeu d’échange

Voici un extrait sur une note de lecture du livre où j’ai un chapitre.

“Petites conversations”, “tournois narratifs” et “messing around

Plus profondément encore, Carré et Panico pointent la dimension ludique qui siège, fondamentalement, au cœur de la plupart de ces pratiques. On retrouve l’analyse de cette dimension ludique dans le texte d’Elodie Crespel  consacré à la “conversation” sur les RSN. S’inspirant des travaux de Cardon sur les “petites” et “grandes conversations”, Elodie Crespel commence par rappeler le double rôle de “colle” et de “lubrifiant” social joué par la conversation. Surtout, elle rend compte de l’aspect concret de ces échanges quotidiens et du besoin de partage spécifique qu’ils représentent. Shannon a modélisé les raisons pour lesquelles une histoire ou un événement va entrer dans la conversation  , et Deborah Tannen explicite le fonctionnement des “story rounds” (“tournois narratifs”), où les mêmes histoires sont répétées dans différents formats. Un phénomène que la culture geek nommera quelques années plus tardun meme, et qui s’inscrit fort bien dans le cadre prédictif du modèle shannonien. Surtout, Elodie Crespel donne toute sa place à la déambulation sans but (“fortuitous serching“) que constitue bien souvent le “surf” sur internet, la rapprochant des catégories du “messing around“, “hanging out” et “playing around” de Horst, Herr-Stephenson et Robinson. Des concepts que Crespel interprète dans le cadre des travaux de Roger Caillois consacrés au jeu et à la tension que ce dernier dessine entre ludus (orienté vers un apprentissage et une maitrise technique) et paidia, “puissance primaire d’improvisation et d’allégresse”, jeu absolument libre de toute orientation.