Beyond promotion and protection: Creators, audiences and common ground in user-generated media

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 41-47

  Cook, Eric C ^a   Teasley, Stephanie D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience; Common ground; Creativity; Photography; User generated media

Indexed keywords

AUDIENCE; AUDIENCE DESIGN; COMMON GROUND; COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST; COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE; CREATIVITY; CREATIVITY SUPPORT; DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY; MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; MEDIA SYSTEMS; PRIVACY CONTROL; QUALITATIVE STUDY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; USER-GENERATED MEDIA;

PHOTOGRAPHY;

EID: 79952578266     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1940761.1940767     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. (trans. R. Howard). New York: Hill and Wang.
2. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. boyd, danah. "Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites" First Monday [Online], Volume 11 Number 12 (4 December 2006).
4. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
5. Burgess, Jean, (2007). Vernacular creativity and new media. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
6. Clark, H. H. (1996). Common ground. In Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (p. 127-149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.
9. Fussell, S. R. & Krauss, R. M. (1989) Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 19, 509-525.
10. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
11. Harper, D. Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 1 (2002) 13-26.
12. Livingstone, S. (ed.) (2005) Audiences and Publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere. Intellect Books. Portland, OR.
13. Marwick, A. E. & boyd, d. (2010) I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313.
14. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
15. Newman-Norlund, S. E., et al (2009) Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 46-54.
16. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: imputing one's own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737-759.
17. Rader, E. 2010. The effect of audience design on labeling, organizing, and finding shared files. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April 10 - 15, 2010). CHI'10. ACM, New York, NY, 777-786.
18. van Dijck, J. (2007). Mediated memories in the digital age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.