Does the “big tent” include non-academics? Social media content creators conducting critical scholarship

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Nicole Sankofa
{"title":"Does the “big tent” include non-academics? Social media content creators conducting critical scholarship","authors":"Nicole Sankofa","doi":"10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose LeftTube – a loosely connected community of left-leaning content creators on YouTube – includes a subsection of video essayists that conduct scholarly work seemingly adjacent to critical research. Exploring this digital community of critical scholars may precipate opportunities for collaboration and reciprocal learning to better academic qualitative research approaches. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study is to (1) examine if and how this digital community engages in critical scholarship, and (2) initiate a call for academic qualitative scholars to watch this digital space as a potential source of collaboration, an opportunity for co-learning and consideration for inclusion in the qualitative “big tent”.Design/methodology/approach Using an algorithm-based sampling procedure, 143 videos were sampled across 23 Black women content creators. Videos were analyzed for characteristics of critical research using multimodal-ethnographic semiotic analysis.Findings Findings suggest that 11 strategies of critical scholarship were used with themes of knowledge production and ethical framework. Such results indicate that this subsection of LeftTube video essayists are conducting critical scholarship.Originality/value The most significant implication is the expansion of the qualitative “big tent” to include international social media content creators who conduct social science research. This would have many benefits to academic qualitative researchers, including learning how the studied community (1) makes critical scholarship impactful and influential in civil discourse, (2) mobilizes critical language, and (3) resists neoliberal and capitalist systems attempting to marginalize critical research.","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose LeftTube – a loosely connected community of left-leaning content creators on YouTube – includes a subsection of video essayists that conduct scholarly work seemingly adjacent to critical research. Exploring this digital community of critical scholars may precipate opportunities for collaboration and reciprocal learning to better academic qualitative research approaches. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study is to (1) examine if and how this digital community engages in critical scholarship, and (2) initiate a call for academic qualitative scholars to watch this digital space as a potential source of collaboration, an opportunity for co-learning and consideration for inclusion in the qualitative “big tent”.Design/methodology/approach Using an algorithm-based sampling procedure, 143 videos were sampled across 23 Black women content creators. Videos were analyzed for characteristics of critical research using multimodal-ethnographic semiotic analysis.Findings Findings suggest that 11 strategies of critical scholarship were used with themes of knowledge production and ethical framework. Such results indicate that this subsection of LeftTube video essayists are conducting critical scholarship.Originality/value The most significant implication is the expansion of the qualitative “big tent” to include international social media content creators who conduct social science research. This would have many benefits to academic qualitative researchers, including learning how the studied community (1) makes critical scholarship impactful and influential in civil discourse, (2) mobilizes critical language, and (3) resists neoliberal and capitalist systems attempting to marginalize critical research.
“大帐篷”包括非学者吗?进行批判性奖学金的社交媒体内容创作者
Purpose LeftTube是YouTube上一个由左倾内容创作者组成的松散社区,其中包括一部分视频散文家,他们从事的学术工作似乎与批判性研究相邻。探索这个由批判性学者组成的数字社区可能会为更好的学术定性研究方法提供合作和相互学习的机会。因此,这项探索性研究的目的是(1)研究这个数字社区是否以及如何参与批判性学术,以及(2)呼吁学术界的定性学者将这个数字空间视为潜在的合作来源,设计/方法/方法使用基于算法的采样程序,对23名黑人女性内容创作者的143个视频进行了采样。使用多模态民族志符号学分析对视频进行批判性研究的特征分析。研究结果表明,11种批判性学术策略被用于知识生产和伦理框架的主题。这些结果表明,这一部分LeftTube视频散文家正在进行批判性学术研究。原创性/价值最重要的含义是扩大定性的“大帐篷”,将进行社会科学研究的国际社交媒体内容创作者包括在内。这将对学术定性研究人员有很多好处,包括了解被研究群体如何(1)使批判性学术在公民话语中具有影响力,(2)动员批判性语言,(3)抵制试图边缘化批判性研究的新自由主义和资本主义制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Qualitative Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信