Menu
header photo

The Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics

ISSN: 2472-7318

Accessibility

To download a free dyslexia-friendly font, please visit OpenDyslexia (not associated with JOMR).

To download a free ADD/ADHD-friendly font, please visit BeeLine Reader (not associated with JOMR).

Concluding remarks

Definition of participatory curation

Many scholars have critiqued the ways in which participatory research is co-opted within neoliberal discourses. These include include tokenism, emphasis on consensus, and the failure to address uneven power relations (Cahill, 2007; Cooke & Kothari, 2001). In this web-text, we actively resist a monolithic authorial voice, while recognizing that the many perspectives woven into this paper are mediated by us. We do not claim to “give voice to” the young people who participated in the digital storytelling project. Indeed, we argue that decisions within PAR should be part of a collective process rather than those of individual university-affiliated researchers; as such all researchers involved experience a sense of ambiguity—a contrast to traditional notions of rigor in research. We do so with the hope of provoking a shift in participatory praxis—both research and representation—from linear, outcome-oriented narratives to a critically reflexive engagement with the messiness, tensions, contradictions, discomfort, and affective evocations.

And, yet, here we are, making the unilateral decision to showcase the youth storytellers’ work in The Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics, an open-access but nonetheless academic-oriented outlet. In this audio-recorded exchange, we reflect on some of the politics and ethics that influenced our publication of this web-text [Click here for transcript and recommended readings].

 

SELF-REFLEXIVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE AUTHORS:CURATING THIS PIECE

As our piece highlights, participatory curation demands active restraint on the part of participants with more power and active affirmation of those with less so that the storytellers get to decide when, if, and how to disseminate or make public their collaborative creative-rhetorical works. In fact, as activist scholars, our focus is not merely on digital stories as product or outcome but crucially on the ways in which digital stories can open up interesting venues and approaches for marginalized constituencies to be seen and heard in ways that allow them to reclaim their stories rather than being mediated by others (Gubrium & Harper, 2013). Indeed, future research needs to focus on forms of participatory praxis that are steadfast and rhetorically effective in prompting participants to truly decide the platforms and means of public showcasing of the co-created knowledge(s) produced in community-university collaborations.

 

YOUTH DIGITAL STORYTELLING PROJECT   / VIGNETTE 1 / REFLECTION ON VIGNETTE 1/ VIGNETTE 2 / REFLECTION ON VIGNETTE 2 / CONCLUDING REMARKS / REFERENCES