CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 124Wikis in Education and CollaborationMedia and Digital CommunicationKnowledge Management and Sharing

Seven dimensions of contemporary participation disentangled

Open access
Kelty, Christopher, Panofsky, Aaron, Currie, Morgan, Crooks, Roderic, Erickson, Seth, Garcia, Patricia, Wartenbe, Michael, Wood, Stacy·2015·Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
DOI 10.1002/asi.23202
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Participation is today central to many kinds of research and design practice in information studies and beyond. From user‐generated content to crowdsourcing to peer production to fan fiction to citizen science, the concept remains both unexamined and heterogeneous in its definition. Intuitions about participation are confirmed by some examples, but scandalized by others, and it is difficult to pinpoint why participation seems to be robust in some cases and partial in others. In this paper we offer an empirically based, comparative analysis of participation that demonstrates its multidimensionality and provides a framework that allows clear distinctions and better analyses of the role of participation. We derive 7 dimensions of participations from the literature on participation and exemplify those dimensions using a set of 102 cases of contemporary participation that include uses of the Internet and new media.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.23202

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The principles 1-3 are met within each partnership and workshop to also influence the exhibition, even if in different ways and to different degrees.

    “Returning to the seven prescriptive criteria listed previously (Kelty et al., 2015, p. 475), it has become clear from the analyses of the triple initiative that the principles 1-3 are met within each partnership and workshop to also influence the exhibition even if in different ways and to different degrees.”

    From Participatory design as concept and practice in the experimental museum: the case of the Workers Museum (2021) · cites this paper as Kelty et al., 2015

  • The issue of 'voice' is one of the most central capacities for participation in deliberative democracy.

    “the issue of 'voice' is one of the most central capacities for participation in deliberative democracy (Kelty et al., 2015, p. 482).”

    From Participatory design as concept and practice in the experimental museum: the case of the Workers Museum (2021) · cites this paper as Kelty et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 120

  1. Andersson, J. (2012). Learning from the file-sharers: Civic modes of jus- tification versus industrial ones. Arts Marketing: An International Journal, 2(2), 104-117.
  2. Arazy, O., Yeo, L., & Nov, O. (2013). Stay on the Wikipedia task: When task-related disagreements slip into personal and procedural conflicts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technol- ogy, 64(8), 1634-1648.
  3. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Asaro, P. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(4), 257-290.
  5. Attewell, P. (1987). The deskilling controversy. Work and Occupations, 14(3), 323-346.
  6. Bachrach, P., & Aryeh Botwinick. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Philadelphia: Temple Univer- sity Press.
  7. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1970). Power and poverty theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and "The Nature of the Firm." The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369-446.
  9. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production trans- forms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  10. Berry, D. (2008). Copy, rip, burn: The politics of copyleft and open source. London: Pluto Press.
  11. Bishop, C. (2006). Participation. London, Cambridge, MA: Whitechapel, MIT Press.
  12. Boellstorff, T. (2008) Coming of age in Second Life: an anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Boyle, J. (1996). Shamans, software, and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  15. Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  16. Brabham, D.C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds. Information, Com- munication & Society, 15(3), 394-410.
  17. Braverman, H. (1975). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  18. Broca, S. (2012). L'utopie du logiciel libre: La construction de projets de transformation sociale en lien avec le mouvement du free software. Ph.D Dissertation, Université I, Paris: Sorbonne.
  19. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  20. Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46.
  21. Carpentier, N. (2011b). New configurations of the audience? The chal- lenges of user-generated content for audience theory and media partici- pation. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (ch. 9). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  22. Chan, A.S. (2007). Retiring the network spokesman: The poly-vocality of free software networks in Peru. Science Studies, 20(2), 78-99.
  23. Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. (2007). Free software and the political philosophy of the cyborg world. SIGCAS Computing Society, 37(2), 41-52.
  24. Christen, K. (2012). Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness. International Journal of Communication 6, 2870-2893.
  25. Coch, L., & French, J.R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512-534.
  26. Cohen, J.M., & Uphoff, N.T. (1980). Participation's place in rural devel- opment: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8(3), 213-235.
  27. Coleman, E.G. (2012). Coding freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  28. Coleman, G. (2009). Code is speech: Legal tinkering, expertise, and protest among free and open source software developers. Cultural Anthropology, 24(3), 420-454.
  29. Cook, T.E., & Morgan, P.M. (1971). Participatory democracy. San Fran- cisco: Canfield Press.
  30. Currie, M., Kelty, C., & Murillo, L.F.R. (2013). Free software trajectories: From organized publics to formal social enterprises? Journal of Peer Production, 1(3), online.
  31. Dachler, H.P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundar- ies of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1-39.
  32. Delwiche, A. (2013). The participatory cultures handbook. A. Delwiche & J. Henderson, Eds. New York: Routledge.
  33. Derber, M. (1970). The American idea of industrial democracy, 1865-1965. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  34. Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statis- tical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  35. Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering prin- cipal components of a digital culture. The Information Society, 22(2), 63-75.
  36. Ding, Y., Jacob, E.K., Zhang, Z., Foo, S., Yan, E., George, N.L., . . . (2009). Perspectives on social tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2388-2401.
  37. Dreyfus, H. (2001). On the internet. London, New York: Routledge.
  38. Du Gay, P. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy? Weber, organization, ethics. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  39. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
  40. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. J. Earl & K. Kimport (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  41. Epstein, S. (2008). The rise of "recruitmentology": Clinical research, racial knowledge, and the politics of inclusion and difference. Social Studies of Science, 38(5), 801-832.
  42. Etzioni, A. (1995). New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institu- tions, and communities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
  43. Fang, Y. (2009). Understanding sustained participation in open source software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 9-50.
  44. Fish, A. (2013). Participatory television: Convergence, crowdsourcing, and neoliberalism. Communication, Culture, and Critique, 6(3), 372- 395.
  45. Fish, A., Murillo, L., Nguyen, L., Panofsky, A., & Kelty, C. (2011). Birds of the internet: Towards a field guide to participation and governance. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2), 157-187.
  46. Fish, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2011). Digital labor is the new killer app. New Media & Society, 14(1), 137-152.
  47. Fisher, E. (2012). How less alienation creates more exploitation? Audience labour on social network sites. tripleC-Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, 10(2), 171-183.
  48. Fiske, J. (2011). Television culture (2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
  49. Fuchs, C. (2010). Web 2.0, prosumption, and surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 8(3), 288-309.
  50. Geiger, D., Seedorf, S., Schulze, T., Nickerson, R. C., & Schader, M. (2011). Managing the crowd: Towards a taxonomy of crowdsourcing processes. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, All Submissions (2011).
  51. Gibson, R.K., Römmele, A., & Ward, S. (2004). Electronic democracy: Mobilisation, organisation and participation via new ICTs. R.K. Gibson, A. Römmele, & S.J. Ward (Eds.). London, New York: Routledge.
  52. Goldberg, G. (2010). Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation. New Media & Society, 13(5), 739-754.
  53. Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, Distributed by University of Chicago Press.
  54. Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. Edinburgh, UK, Oakland, CA: AK Press.
  55. Graeber, D. (2013). The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement (1st ed.). New York: Spiegel & Grau.
  56. Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. Inter- national Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 62-74.
  57. Griffen-Foley, B. (2004). From tit-bits to big brother: A century of audience participation in the media. Media, Culture & Society, 26(4), 533-548.
  58. Habermas, J. (1992). The structural transformation of the public sphere: Inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (New Ed.). London: Polity Press.
  59. Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance (1st ed., p. 277). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  60. Hayden, T. (1962). The Port Huron Statement. In A. Breines & W. Bloom (Eds.), Takin' it to the streets (3rd ed). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (pp. 50-61).
  61. Hippel, E. von. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  62. Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  63. Hoofnagle, C.J. (2009). Beyond Google and evil: How policy makers, journalists and consumers should talk differently about Google and privacy. First Monday, 14(4-6), 2009.
  64. Igo, S. (2007). The averaged American: Surveys, citizens, and the making of a mass public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  65. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Jacoby, S.M. (1983). Union-management cooperation in the United States: Lessons from the 1920s. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37.
  67. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York: Routledge.
  68. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
  69. Kaufman, A.S. (1960). Human nature and participatory democracy. In C. Friedrich (Ed.), Responsibility. New York: Atherton.
  70. Ke, W. (2009). Motivations in open source software communities: The mediating role of effort intensity and goal commitment. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 39-66.
  71. Kelty, C.M. (2013). From participation to power. In A. Delwiche & J. Henderson (Eds.), Participatory cultures handbook (pp. 22-32). London, New York: Routledge.
  72. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and con- cerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3), 167-185.
  73. Kreiss, D., Finn, M., & Turner, F. (2010). The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the Network Society. New Media & Society, 13(2), 243-259.
  74. Krishnamurthy, S. (2006). On the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of free/libre/open source (FLOSS) developers. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18(4), 17-39.
  75. Lakhani, K. (2003). How open source software works: "Free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32(6), 923-943.
  76. Latour, B. (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cam- bridge, MA, Karlsruhe, Germany: MIT Press, ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.
  77. Lee, D.J. (1981). Skill, craft and class: A theoretical critique and a critical case. Sociology, 15(1), 56-78.
  78. Lessig, L. (2005). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity (p. 368). New York: Penguin.
  79. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin.
  80. Lezaun, J. (2011). Offshore democracy: Launch and landfall of a socio- technical experiment. Economy and Society, 40(4), 553-581.
  81. Lichtenstein, N. (1993). Industrial democracy in America: The ambiguous promise. Washington, DC, Cambridge, UK, New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Cambridge University Press.
  82. Lovink, G. (2011). Networks without a cause: A critique of social media. Cambridge, UK, Malden MA: Polity.
  83. Macpherson, C.B. (1980). Pluralism, individualism, and participation. Eco- nomic and Industrial Democracy, 1(1), 21-30.
  84. Marcolin, M., D'Andrea, V., & Hakken, D. (2012). Participatory maintenance-in-use. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference on Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases (Vol. 2) PDC '12 (p. 57). New York: ACM Press.
  85. Marres, N. (2009). Testing powers of engagement: Green living experi- ments, the ontological turn and the undoability of involvement. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 117-133.
  86. Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Houndmills Basingstoke, Hampshire UK, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  87. Miller, J. (1987). Democracy is in the streets: From Port Huron to the siege of Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  88. Montgomery, D. (1979). Workers' control in America: Studies in the history of work, technology, and labor struggles. Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  89. Mutz, D.C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Journal of Communication (Vol. 57). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  90. OHern, M. & Rindfleisch, A. (2010). Customer co-creation: A typology and research agenda, in Naresh K. Malhotra (ed.) Review of marketing research (Review of marketing research, volume 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.84-106.
  91. Oudshoorn, N. (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  92. Parfitt, T. (2004). The ambiguity of participation: A qualified defence of participatory development. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 537-555.
  93. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
  94. Pateman, C. (1976). Participation and democratic theory (p. 122). Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  95. Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(01), 7-19.
  96. Postigo, H. (2011). Questioning the Web 2.0 discourse: Social roles, pro- duction, values, and the case of the human rights portal. The Information Society, 27(3), 181-193.
  97. Prainsack, B. (2011). Voting with their mice: Personal genome testing and the "participatory turn" in disease research. Accountability in Research, 18(3), 132-147.
  98. Rahnema, M. (1990). Participatory action research: The "last temptation of saint" development. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 15(2), 199- 226. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  99. Roethlisberger, F., & Mayo, E. (1949). Management and morale. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  100. Rosenbaum, H., & Shachaf, P. (2010). A structuration approach to online communities of practice: The case of Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1933- 1944.
  101. Rowe, G. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
  102. Schäfer, M. (2011). Bastard culture!: How user participation transforms cultural production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  103. Scholz, T. (2013). Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory. New York: Routledge.
  104. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  105. Smith, J. (2005). The frenzy of the audible: Pleasure, authenticity, and recorded laughter. Television & New Media, 6(1), 23-47.
  106. Söderberg, J. (2008). Hacking capitalism: The free and open source soft- ware movement. New York: Routledge.
  107. Srinivasan, R. (2013). Bridges between cultural and digital worlds in revo- lutionary Egypt. The Information Society, 29(1), 49-60.
  108. Strauss, G. (2006). Worker participation: Some under-considered issues. Industrial Relations, 45(4), 778-803.
  109. Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  110. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London, Ann Arbor MI: Pluto Press.
  111. Tocqueville, A. (2000). Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  112. Wampler, B. (2012). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61-81.
  113. Wampler, B., & Avritzer, L. (2008). Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil. Comparative Politics, 36(3), 291- 312.
  114. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive soci- ology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  115. Wellman, B., Haase, A.Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital: Social net- works, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.
  116. Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Con- ference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
  117. Woodworth, W. (1985). Industrial democracy: Strategies for community revitalization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  118. Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Perform- ing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, 1(1), 99-110.
  119. Xu, C., Ma, B., Chen, X., & Ma, F. (2013). Social tagging in the scholarly world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2045-2057.
  120. Yi, K. (2012). Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2488-2502.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelty, C., Panofsky, A., Currie, M., Crooks, R., Erickson, S., Garcia, P., Wartenbe, M., & Wood, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-28
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
474-488
ISSN
  • 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-1643
DOI
10.1002/asi.23202
OpenAlex
W1555289858
Cited by
124
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
16.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1025569)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
participation, user-generated content, crowdsourcing, peer production, fan fiction, citizen science, new media, internet use, participatory approach

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review