Navegação – Mapa do site

InícioNúmeros37Artigos temáticosGuided participation in youth med...

Artigos temáticos

Guided participation in youth media practices

Participação guiada nas práticas mediáticas dos jovens
Julián de la Fuente Prieto, Rut Martínez-Borda e Pilar Lacasa Díaz
p. 21-38
Participação guiada nas práticas mediáticas dos jovens [pt]


Os jovens têm de lidar com algumas práticas digitais e desenvolver discursos mediáticos por conta própria. O objetivo do nosso estudo é aprofundar estes conceitos do ponto de vista da participação guiada, compreendida, neste caso, como um processo colaborativo de literacia mediática baseado em atividades culturalmente significativas. Os nossos dados provêm de uma série de workshops realizados na Telefonica Flagship Store (Madrid, Espanha) com adolescentes entre os oito e os 14 anos de idade. As observações foram recolhidas através de técnicas de pesquisa qualitativa, como a observação, conversação e análise descritiva. Os resultados fornecem-nos algumas ideias preliminares para discussão: 1) as práticas nas redes sociais permitem que os jovens liguem as suas atividades online e offline aos seus interesses; 2) a geração de cenários de aprendizagem colaborativa baseados na interação entre jovens torna-se um elemento fundamental da literacia mediática; e 3) o conteúdo gerado pelo utilizador surge como uma identidade e representação de hábitos nos media, especialmente entre os jovens.

Topo da página

Notas da redacção

DOI: 10.17231/comsoc.37(2020).2383
Submitted: 17/12/2019 - Accepted: 10/04/2020

Texto integral


1Young people live in a media convergent ecology and they frequently use digital devices at schools and in their leisure time at home. However, many social media demand specific abilities to generate media content and join the user community. Therefore, youth has to deal with some digital practices and develop media discourses on their own. Our study aims to deepen these concepts from the point of view of the guided participation, understood in this case as a collaborative process of media literacy based on culturally significant activities.

2Our data comes from a series of workshops that took place at the Telefonica Flagship Store (Madrid, Spain) with teens between eight and 14 years old. In these workshops, young people used iPads to generate visual content and share their creations on social networks such as Instagram. Youth interacted with researchers by using digital apps, generating messages and joining a community of practice.

3The main aim of the research was to take advantage of these context to approach the media literacy of young people in social networks from a guided participation perspective. According to this, our goals are:

  • to identify the media habits of participants in the workshops;

  • to evaluate youth learning practices within media in the workshops;

  • to explore the discourses used by youth in the workshops.

4First of all, we will analyse the theoretical framework on collaborative learning processes in media contexts, and then address the nature of the discourses present in the new media.

Learning with media practices

5No one doubts that the media contribute to the structuring of contemporary society and culture. Citizens, especially younger people, access and participate in these media without any specific training (De la Fuente, Lacasa & Martínez-Borda, 2019). However, even today, education around these media is reserved for the professional and academic fields. For this reason, we understand media literacy (Scolari, 2018) as a learning model that extend use and participation in the media beyond the classroom.

6This lead us to look for a methodology for media education, which is not limited to functional literacy but also capable of promoting practices and discourses specific to the socio-cultural context of young people (Cortesi & Gasser 2015; Itō, 2010; Jenkins, Itō & boyd, 2015), which brings us back to cultural psychology and the tradition of cognitive learning models such as Lev Vygotsky’s.

7In this line, authors such as Lave and Wenger (1991) have proposed a model that starts from peripheral participation to end up developing full participation in the sociocultural context, that is, situated learning. For Claudio Magalhães (2018) Vygotsky’s model to explain the mechanism through which social interaction facilitates cognitive development resembles a learning situation, in which a novice works very close to an expert in the joint resolution of a problem in the zone of proximal development.

8This is how the concept of guided participation arises; as “processes and systems of participation among people who communicate and coordinate efforts during their participation in culturally valued activities” (Rogoff, 2008, p. 142). In this way, guided participation fosters collective scaffoldings (Bruner, 1996) in which both novices and experts share the same goals, resources and strategies within the same context. Learning is achieved thanks to the fact that apprentices are able to make a link between previous knowledge and experience in solving real problems.

9A more current approach based on this same tradition of Vygotsky would be connected learning (Itō et al., 2013), which supposes the sum of personal interests, collaboration between equals and school performance. This is a learning context that combines real and virtual environments by creating a community of practice in which anyone can participate:

connected learning is realized when a young person is able to pursue a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults and is in turn able to link this learning and interest with other areas of their life. This model is based on evidence that the most resilient, adaptive, and effective learning involves individual interest as well as social support to overcome adversity and provide recognition. This concept seeks to build communities and collective capacities for learning and opportunity. (Itō et al., 2013, p. 3)

10Underlying all these models is the desire to establish open, collaborative and meaningful learning, whose axis of action is participatory culture and collective intelligence (Carpentier, 2011; Jenkins, Itō & boyd, 2015; Lévy, 1997). It is a model born in the field of psychology as well as education and which is currently being studied more ingrained in communication, especially in practices and discourses associated with new media (Burn, 2009; Gauntlett, 2013; Lowgren & Reimer, 2013).

The discourse of new media

11The preponderance of digital discourses has been parallel to the rise of the generation repertoires by the users of the media. Until recently, the only discourses that could be analysed were the canonical ones elaborated by traditional media. Generally, these studies analysed power relations with a critical perspective (Fairclough, 1992; Foucault, 1971). However, nowadays new media are shifting the focus of interest of these studies. As suggested by the book Discourse and digital practices, “digital media in some ways force us to rethink our very definitions of terms such as text, context, interaction, and power” (Jones, Chik & Hafner, 2015, p. 5), which is equivalent to redefining the characteristics of the discourse elaborated through these media.

12Some studies on the use of language in new media (Barton & Lee, 2013; Georgakopoulou & Spilioti, 2015; Hocks & Kendrick, 2003; Page, 2014) refer us to two of its main characteristics, multimodality and intertextuality. The first characteristic affects the nature of the texts produced through new media. We understand this multimodality (Kress, 2010; Machin, 2013; Rowsell, 2013) as the ability we have to combine various expressive codes to obtain a single text to which we give meaning through the same semiosis.

13Intertextuality (Gauntlett, 2013; Jenkins, Ford & Green, 2013; Madianou & Miller, 2013) refers to the ability to generate meanings through references to other texts. This second feature is vital to understand why the contents of new media make sense as discourses rather than as products locked in on themselves. Returning to the book edited by Rodney Jones et al. (2015), we must highlight appropriation and recontextualization of texts as one of the main characteristics of discourse in new media:

just as intertextuality and multimodality are defining features of digitally mediated discourse, so is recontextualisation. Much of the way we craft our texts and utterances depends on how we take into account the contexts in which they will be interpreted. (Jones et al., 2015, p. 5)

14At this point, it is worth recognising that discourse studies in new media (van Dijk, 2011; Pilkington, 2016; Thurlow & Mroczek, 2011) provide us with a new approach not only to know the use of language, but also to understand how these new forms of communication transcend digital environments (De la Fuente, García-Pernía, Cortés-Gómez, Martinez-Borda & Lacasa, 2017). It is increasingly difficult to separate the activities we do inside or outside the media and to differentiate their discourse from our own cognitive activity.

15In short, our discourse is mediated, same as our participation in the media contributes to the generation of new discourses. Recurring to the notion of discursive genre (Bakhtin, 2010), its validity is credited precisely in the new media thanks to its dialogical character, what is equivalent to saying that the discourse is configured in the practice itself. That is why the generation of meanings is related to participation. If the media is the context, discourse is the tool to participate in social and cultural processes.


16As reviewed in the theoretical framework, our research is marked by practices in new media and the discourses associated with its context, but we also want to focus the study on a population especially sensitive to these changes, that is, youth. In this sense, the concept of practice (Bourdieu, 1977) is key as a unit of analysis, since it allows us both to observe the process and to understand the results within the context.

17Numerous social scientists define these practices as models of behaviour linked to activities, objects and cultural uses (Bellotti, 2015; De Meulenaere & De Grove, 2016; Dorsten & Hotchkiss, 2014; Jensen & Laurie, 2016) Therefore, an empirical investigation based on these practices should include, according to De Meulenaere and Grove (2016, p. 214): the study of the procedures by which it is carried out, the understanding of the meaning it has for the participants and the identity that is established with the material results. Only if we take these factors into account can we interpret the true meaning of the practices in new media.

18Thus, our object of study would be the practices that youth develop within the guided participation of researchers. According to Susan Gair and Ariella Van Luyn (2017), this context can be achieved through the development of creative activities through new media and, at the same time, in physical contexts, both shared by researchers. In our case, we decided to generate these guided participation through the achievement of digital art workshops with youth in non-formal settings. The objective was to take advantage of these contexts from an all-encompassing perspective. This is in addition to promoting creativity, committing researchers to facilitate media literacy and promote social participation through new media.


19The origin of this research comes from the collaboration between the University of Alcalá and Fundación Telefónica through the Interactive Generations Forum. The proposal is based on the realisation of a series of workshops aimed at youth for them to learn how to handle different mobile applications. While the participants explore photographic language and social networks, the researchers examine how they use these devices and what practices they develop in this context.

20In this case, the workshops took place at Telefónica Flagship Store in Madrid and were open to youth aged eight to 14, previously registered through the website1. Adults who accompanied the participants could stay in this space and participate in the workshop’s activities. Depending on the number of participants (ranging from 12 to 25), they accessed an iPad tablet individually or in pairs. Each of these tablets had an internet connection with its own account, which allowed connecting as different users to the same social networks. In addition, each iPad had different applications installed for taking and editing photographs.

21Being an ethnographic research, it is very important to know each participant well and to personalise the collected data to the maximum. For this reason, we have a complete attendance record and, above all, a personalised follow-up through the iPad. At the beginning of each workshop, each participant was asked to take a selfie so that all the photographs he/she took would be properly ID-ed. At the end of each workshop they were also asked to write a small text with their name, age and the name of the accompanying researcher. All this information is perserved under the rules of the General Data Protection Regulation and only has requested authorization to tutors to use the data collected entirely anonymously.

Table 1: Data analysed (GIPI Research Group,


























244 (DSNG)

18 (Smartphone)

52 (Smartphone)

317 (DSNG)

520 (DSNG)

22 (Ipad)

211 (DSNG)

343 (DSNG)

4 (Smarphone)
27 (Smartphone)


2:12:35 H. (Cam 1)

1:55:55 H (Cam 2)

1:45:30 (Cam GG1)

0:26:58 (Cam GG2)

2:17:20 (Cam GP)

2:08:43 (Cam GM)

2:17:51 (Cam GG)

2:03:42 (Cam GP)

0:36:46 (Cam GM)

22The data collection was completed with the audiovisual record of the session. Two video cameras ensured full coverage of large group situations, folding camera shots between the main researcher and the other participants. One more camera was added when the participants were divided into three groups at certain times, carrying out a complete follow-up. In addition, every researcher carried an audio recorder that they used to conduct personal interviews and also facilitate security recordings. Finally, two photographers did a report of each session supporting the external visual record of the activities carried out during the workshop.


23The analysis is perhaps the most critical part of any qualitative research. In our case, the difficulty in relating these data to the rest lied in the priority use of a visual and participatory approach (Mannay, 2016). This implied having to combine different data sources such as researchers’ journals, recordings of activities and the participants’ content. All this offered different points of views from which to apply the analysis.

Figure 1: Organisation and combination of data in the analysis

Figure 1: Organisation and combination of data in the analysis

24After reviewing several examples of these interpretive approaches (Delgado, 2015; Moss, 2016; Tinkler, 2013), we conclude that, instead of opting for separate perspectives, it would be wise to opt for a hermeneutical analysis, that is, interpreting the different instances and points of views in the data produced as a whole through which, according to Margrit Shreier (2012), the meaning is constructed.

25This lead us to propose a content analysis (Bazeley, 2013; Krippendorff, 2013; Schreier, 2012) as a preferred method to interpret the processes of creating meanings where they arise and taking into account all the actors present. For Klaus Krippendorff (2013), this involves analysing the relationships among the participants, the context of the media, the technological tools and the symbols established through the culture.

26Our conceptual analysis has been based, therefore, on the codification of these three sources of information: textual, visual and auditory. The written documents have been the research diaries, as well as the summaries of the research group meetings. The visual information has been based on the photographs taken throughout the workshops. Meanwhile, the audiovisual documents start with the recordings of the dialogues established with the participants. In this way we have been able to triangulate the extracted data and obtain the analysis categories. For this particular project, we decided to use NVivo software that allows us to work with text, photographs and video at the same time.

27Using coding as a primary strategy to process the different materials under study allowed us to consolidate and validate the analysis process through the different contexts and successive sessions in which we applied this method (Bazeley, 2013; Krippendorff, 2013; Schreier, 2012). Thanks to this, despite being different participants, the continuity in the activity of the workshop and its analysis has been contrasted at all times.

28In addition to building a data matrix with multiple sources of information and a range sample of participants, we have tried to relate the evidence beyond the categories present in discourse analysis (van Dijk, 2011; Gee & Handford, 2012; Thurlow & Mroczek, 2011). According to the qualitative perspectives on this (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013; Saldaña, 2016; Silverman, 2011), analysis models are overcoming exclusivity in the use of textual codes to begin to establish categories based on visual or narrative meanings. Therefore, even if we organise the data through analytical categories, the interpretation we want to give to this evidence goes much further than the relationships of meaning they have separately.


29The analysis of the workshop development is fundamental to understand the practices carried out in this media literacy project. Therefore, if we analyse the role of the participants both inside and outside the workshop, we will be able to situate their practices and interpret the discourses later. First of all, we will collect the evidence about the participants’ previous habits, and then observe what the activities carried out in the workshop are and finally analyse the discourses produced in this context.

Starting points

30Knowing the participants is a priority task in the research. That’s why before starting, basic data such as name and age are collected; but we also asked the participants to provide us with their social media handles in order to be able to follow up after the workshop.

31All these data allowed us to contextualise in a general way the sample of ethnographic research. In addition to this, during the workshop we did not hesitate to deepen their previous experience and we asked them directly about their activity in social media to find out about their usual practices and how to structure the project:

Researcher (R): What do you use to take photos?
Participant (P): My mobile.
R: And what kind of photos do you take?
P: Of family. And of birds and animals.
R: And then you edit them?
P: No.
R: And do you upload them to the internet?
P: No, I keep them to myself. (Transcription 1/ camera 2 / workshop 3, Dec. 13
th, 2014)

32In this transcript, the researcher asks a nine-year-old girl about her photographic habits. The girl’s response shows that her use of the photos is completely domestic, both in terms of the devices she uses and the themes. But above all, it shows us that there is no awareness of the use of photography as a means of communication. Here is another example in which the participants have previous experience in media such as Instagram. However, throughout the dialogue it becomes apparent that the content uploaded to this social network remains eminently private or focused on relations linked to the surrounding environment.

R: What do you upload to Instagram?
P: Photos of “McDonalls”, of...
R: What you do with your friends?
P: Yes.
R: You too? Or what do you upload?
P ‘: Sometimes I take pictures of landscapes.
R: And what about you?
P ‘’: Photos of singers.
R: And you?
P ‘’ ‘: Pictures of myself.
R: Of yourself? Things you do with your friends? (Transcription 2/ camera 2 / workshop 1, Oct. 4
th, 2014)

33As a result of these interactions throughout the workshop, each researcher manages to get to know more about the participants with whom he/she has worked. For example, this researcher is able to identify the main skills of each participant and if their competence is the result of a formal or informal literacy process. But above all, she manages to detect values and opinions when contextualising the practices developed by these youth in the workshop.

In my group I had S., M. and I, all with very different profiles. S. was very skilled with social networks as well as editing, but he preferred Vine to Instagram. He said that Instagram does not contribute anything; that people only upload selfies and photos of people and that he does not like much. On the other hand there was M., he knew a lot about photography because he had done a course before and he mastered many skills, but his father did not allow him to use Instagram. I. is 12 years old but she is not self-involved, she is interested in other types of photos, she likes old buildings and she wants to improve her photography skills. (Summary 1 / researcher K. / workshop 2 / Nov. 11th, 2014)

34This knowledge of their habits and beliefs about photography and social networks is shared by all the researchers through the summaries. Through its categorisation we were able to determine if any of these evidences occurs in a generalised way. Thanks to these results we have been able to determine how the participants are not aware of those online practices that do not correspond to activities located in their daily lives. Therefore, social media practices enable youth to connect their online and offline activities with their interests.


35The result of any social practice is not only measured by the production of cultural objects, but also by the establishment of shared rites and beliefs. In this sense, the most important part of the workshop was not the photographs that the participants took, but the goals and the content they created. We have already seen how all those elements are taken into account to situate the workshop activities in a broader context; that of social networks and of the participant’s experiences in those networks. This way, the activities carried out in the workshop were connected to the socio-cultural context of the media.

36In addition to interacting with the participants through dialogue, we also do so through observation. In this case, the evidence we collected is associated with the workshop’s own dynamics. When proposing certain activities to the participants, we find out about their processes and about how the practice is organised.

I focus mainly on the more mechanical actions, how they frame and discard photos and how they apply small editing tools on the fly. The majority offer advice, express aloud the tasks they are carrying out and, above all, imitate the actions that have been carried out by more advantaged colleagues. (Summary 2 / researcher J. / workshop 1 / Oct. 4h, 2014)

37Through this summary, the researcher describes how participants begin to take photographs using tablets. Among other evidences, it is emphasised that this process is not carried out individually, despite the fact that each participant has their own iPad. In fact, a series of group actions are generated in which pooling and cooperation are key factors. Therefore, any photograph taken by a participant is a direct consequence of this group activity.

38But this group is not only made up of boys and girls, but also by researchers who participate in these activities through participant observation. The following transcription shows us how the participants have established a series of common practices throughout the session, through the sharing of work.. In this way, observation and dialogue come together to guide the literacy process:

Researcher (R): Please L., tell us how you have worked and the goals you have set.
Participant (P): First we asked what topics we were going to deal with. Finally we have begun to treat the building that is built on an ancient base that can be seen below and is covered by this white and below is the building of the 20th century.
R: Ok. Another question is whether the videos we have put at the beginning makes sense. If they have given you ideas.
P: Yes, but there is a lot of difference between what the little ones like and what we like. (Transcription 3/ camera 1 / workshop 1, Oct. 4
th, 2014)

39The evidence we extract is that, in addition to contextualising the practice, it is essential to share the goals when carrying out an activity. No photograph acquires meaning unless it is taken with an objective on the part of the participant, and this goal only has value if it is recognised by the community of practice.

40Therefore, the researchers’ mission is to establish a guided participation (Rogoff, 2008) that allows the apprentices to carry out the activities according to their own interests and experiences. We seek a participation that also generates roles that allows for scaffolding processes between expert and novice participants as exemplified in a transcription of the second session:

R: Girls, you who are experts; explain how to use “Pixart”.
P: Get into “Pixart”. Click here to edit. Choose a photo.
R: Look, all of this right here is the effect. Explain how to use them.
P: You are hitting here and you can put it in black and white, and in sepia and in many effects. If you go here you can put a text.
R: And what is the purpose of editing. Why do you edit?
P: Well, to make the photo better. (Transcription 4 / camera 4 / workshop 2, Nov. 11
th, 2014)

41In this case, the researcher describes a clear example of collaboration in the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1987) in which some girls help another to carry out a common purpose such as editing a photograph. The creation of a community is the result of these activities. However, we are aware of the difficulty of achieving this goal in such a short time and with such heterogeneous participants. The role of the adult is key in this task and in facilitating the work of the research group that generates those dynamics among all the participants.


42Once the objectives have been understood and taking into account how the process has been carried out, we can analyse the creations made by the youth in the workshop. These contents are the result of their own interests and previous experience, they are characterised by the devices with which they are done and reflect the shared goals with the researchers. But above all, they serve to evaluate the participants’ discourses, since they become the living voice of their practices. For this we will analyse both the use of language and the contents that represent the participants in the images uploaded to Instagram. We will therefore use a visual analysis that will take into account both the denotative and the connotative, paying special attention to the relationship between the images and their context.

Figure 2: Selfies of the participants (various Ipads and sessions)

Figure 2: Selfies of the participants (various Ipads and sessions)

Credits: GIPI Research Group,

43If there is one category that stands out above the rest in the workshop, that is the selfie. The reason is that the first activity proposed to the participants is to take a selfie at the beginning to match their faces with the images they take throughout the workshop. In any case, the participants continued using this model throughout the workshop with slight variations. In Figure 2 we can see some of these selfies: in the upper left side we find its most common version, looking directly at the camera. On the upper right side, they pretend to be performing some action (in this case, talking on the phone). In the lower left side, the participant appears next to another object with which he wishes to associate his image. Finally, on the lower right side there are two participants striking some kind of pose. In all cases, the representation the self is the fundamental content of the image, but if we take the “staging” into account, the message will be more or less complex.

Figure 3: Images in the mirror (various iPads and sessions)

Figure 3: Images in the mirror (various iPads and sessions)

Credits: GIPI Research Group,

44There are two other forms of self-representation that stand out among the content generated with the tablets. On the one hand, we find how the participants tend to take pictures in front of mirrors (Figure 3). Bearing in mind that the iPad itself includes a front camera that makes the screen work as a mirror, it would not make sense to look for this reflection to be portrayed. Even so, the evidence shows that participants need to take pictures of everything that reflects them, be it mirrors, polished surfaces or even other tablets. Another constant representation in the photos are their feet and that of the people around them. Some of the images might have been taken by mistake, but this “theme” comes up again and again as we can see in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Feet and shoes (various iPad and sessions)

Figure 4: Feet and shoes (various iPad and sessions)

Credits: GIPI Research Group,

45Be it a selfie, a reflection or feet, the representations that the participants make of themselves is one of the most widespread contents both inside and outside the workshop; a kind of mimetic discourse in which participants tell us about their mood, experiences and situation in space. Almost without realising, they are building a story in which they become the protagonists. An example of this is the collage that the participants made with the photos they took throughout the workshop. In Figure 5 we see one made by an eight-year-old girl summarising her experience, including the objects and the people who participated in it.

Figure 5: Collage in iPad 13 (22/11/2014)

Figure 5: Collage in iPad 13 (22/11/2014)

Credits: GIPI Research Group,

46These results give us some ideas for discussion: the discourses used by youth in the workshop are based in their shared experience. From models shared through guided participation, young people are able to explore the workshop space through these representations. This user-generated content emerges as a depiction of young people identity and habits through media.


47Our experience through these workshops shows us that young people are developing their own practices and discourses. Their young age is not a hindrance for them to develop meaningful practices through social networks, even though issues such as privacy and child protection clearly limit the scope of this activity. However, in the workshops they show that they have enough skills to exercise full participation:

  • firstly, we find that young people are well able to use technology freely and creatively. However, for this to happen the media need to become socio-cultural contexts in which to carry out meaningful and situated activities;

  • secondly, sharing devices such as tablets and working in small groups has proven useful in fostering creativity. The generation of collaborative learning scenarios based on the interaction between young people becomes yet another fundamental element of media literacy;

  • thirdly, the scaffoldings between experts and novices has also proved especially fruitful, particularly when it comes to connecting the most technical issues with the socio-cultural context of this media literacy without forgetting the mediating role of the research team;

  • fourthly, the achievement of common goals is crucial to activate meaningful learning. Without these goals, it is impossible to generate a sense of media participation and the value of a shared culture. These goals are what generate the meaning of practices in the media.

48Based on these results, we can point out some practices that have been especially useful for media literacy. Building a community around certain media practices can be helpful, as well as sharing these practices both inside and outside the media:

  • young people should equate the activities they carry out in new media with the relationships they maintain in their physical environment. Only this awareness will allow us to participate meaningfully and will therefore make sense for them.

  • young people could build their identity through the media, although they do not always manage to identify with the content they generate. For this reason, it is recommended that young people establish prior goals that allow them to become aware of the messages they want to send;

  • another crucial element is the lack of connection between the content they generate and the social interaction they establish through the media. The need for media literacy is an essential element when connecting discourse and practices.

49In short, there is a media literacy that involves more than understanding the structure, production and reception of new media and is not limited to being a critical paradigm of their texts. Rather, it understands the media as a tool with which to participate effectively, both in society and in the culture of our time.

This article is the result of the research agreement “Digital Kids: Workshops for learning to use technology” referring 135/2014 funded by Telefónica foundation.

Topo da página


Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Barton, D. & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: investigating digital texts and practices. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. London: SAGE.

Bazeley, P. & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Los Angeles, California: SAGE.

Bellotti, E. (2015). Qualitative networks: mixing methods in social research. Social research today. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Burn, A. (2009). Making new media: creative production and digital literacies. New York: Peter Lang.

Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation: a site of ideological-democratic struggle. Bristol: Intellect.

Cortesi, S. & Gasser, U. (2015). Digitally connected: global perspectives on youth and digital media. Cambridge: Berkman Centre.

De la Fuente, J., García-Pernía, M. R., Cortés-Gómez, S., Martinez-Borda, R. & Lacasa, P. (2017). La Familia Telerín: connected learning through transmedia. International Journal of Transmedia Literacy (IJTL), 3, 29-44.

De la Fuente, J., Lacasa, P. & Martinez-Borda, R. M. (2019). Adolescentes, redes sociales y universos transmedia: la alfabetización mediática en contextos participativos. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (73), 172-196.

De Meulenaere, J. & De Grove, F. (2016). A practices approach to mediated social relation maintenance behavior. Communication presented in 6th European Communication Conference, Prague.

Delgado, M. (2015). Urban youth and photovoice: visual ethnography in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dorsten, L.E. & Hotchkiss, L. (2014). Research methods and society: foundations of social inquiry. Boston: Pearson.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity press.

Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.

Gair, S. & Van Luyn, A. (2017). Sharing qualitative research: showing lived experience and community narratives. Routledge advances in research methods. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Gauntlett, D. (2013). Making is connecting. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gee, J. P. & Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Georgakopoulou, A. & Spilioti, T. (2015). The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Hocks, M. E. & Kendrick, M. R. (2003). Eloquent images: word and image in the age of new media. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT.

Itō, M. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Itō, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J. & Watkins, C. (2013), Connected learning: an agenda for research and design. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture: NYU Press.

Jenkins, H., Itō, M. & boyd, d. (2015). Participatory culture in a networked era: a conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Jensen, E. A. & Laurie, A. C. (2016). Doing real research: a practical guide to social research. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Jones, R. H., Chik, A. & Hafner, C. A. (Eds.) (2015). Discourse and digital practices: doing discourse analysis in the digital age. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G.R. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles; London: SAGE.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge University Press.

Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Plenum/Harper Collins.

Lowgren, J. & Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative media: production, consumption, and design interventions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 347-355.

Madianou, M. & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169-187.

Magalhães, C. M. (2018). From the room to the square: motivation, mediation and Vigotsky to understand the behavior. Comunicação e Sociedade, 33, 369-389.

Mannay, D. (2016). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: application, reflection and ethics. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Moss, J. (2016). Visual research methods in educational research. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Page, R. E. (2014). Researching language and social media: a student guide. London; New York: Routledge.

Pilkington, R. M. (2016). Discourse, dialogue and technology enhanced learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy & J. Soler (Ed.), Pedagogy and practice: culture and identities (pp. 58-74). London: SAGE.

Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: rethinking literacy in a digital age. London: Routledge.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles; London: SAGE.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Scolari, C. A. (2018). Teens, media and collaborative cultures: exploiting teens’ transmedia skills in the classroom. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: a guide to the principles of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.

Thurlow, C. & Mroczek, K. R. (2011). Digital discourse: language in the new media. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Tinkler, P. (2013). Using photographs in social and historical research. London: SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. In M. Cole; V. John-Steiner; S. Scribner & E, Souberman (Eds,), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (pp. 52-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Topo da página

Índice das ilustrações

Título Figure 1: Organisation and combination of data in the analysis
Ficheiro image/png, 21k
Título Figure 2: Selfies of the participants (various Ipads and sessions)
Créditos Credits: GIPI Research Group,
Ficheiro image/png, 114k
Título Figure 3: Images in the mirror (various iPads and sessions)
Créditos Credits: GIPI Research Group,
Ficheiro image/png, 122k
Título Figure 4: Feet and shoes (various iPad and sessions)
Créditos Credits: GIPI Research Group,
Ficheiro image/png, 94k
Título Figure 5: Collage in iPad 13 (22/11/2014)
Créditos Credits: GIPI Research Group,
Ficheiro image/png, 116k
Topo da página

Para citar este artigo

Referência do documento impresso

Julián de la Fuente Prieto, Rut Martínez-Borda e Pilar Lacasa Díaz, «Guided participation in youth media practices»Comunicação e sociedade, 37 | 2020, 21-38.

Referência eletrónica

Julián de la Fuente Prieto, Rut Martínez-Borda e Pilar Lacasa Díaz, «Guided participation in youth media practices»Comunicação e sociedade [Online], 37 | 2020, posto online no dia 29 junho 2020, consultado o 18 julho 2024. URL:

Topo da página


Julián de la Fuente Prieto

Julián de la Fuente Prieto is Assistant Professor in Media Studies at the University of Alcalá (Spain). His research is multidisciplinary, sharing perspectives and approaches from psychology, anthropology, history and sociology. Often collaborating with architects, engineers and artists, he uses qualitative and ethnographic methodologies and the analysis of multimodal discourse. He has authored and co-authored numerous publications examining social media, technology and young people’s digital engagement. He has also conducted several outreach projects for film heritage. He has been visiting scholar at the University of Athens (Greece).
Email: julian.fuente[at]
Address: University of Alcalá (UAH), Department of Philology, Communication and Documentation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, C/ Trinidad nº 5. 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Rut Martínez-Borda

Rut Martínez-Borda is Associate Professor in Media Studies at the University of Alcalá (Spain). Her research focuses especially on the field of communication and literacy; analyzing the role of communication devices in the lives of children and young people. She studies subjects as diverse as education through art, programs for safe mobility, video games as cultural and educational objects or respect for creation from a field as complex as intellectual property. She has been visiting scholar at the Institute of Education (University of London), School of Communication (University of Westminster-London), University of Delaware – Philadelphia.
Email: rut.martinez[at]
Address: University of Alcalá (UAH), Department of Philology, Communication and Documentation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, C/ Trinidad nº 5. 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Pilar Lacasa Díaz

Pilar Lacasa Díaz is Full Professor of Media Studies at the University of Alcalá (Spain). His studies analyze how young people use digital media, for example, video games or social networks. Explore the conditions that allow active and responsible participation in society, mediated by the resources provided by the internet. She approaches everyday life and citizenship education from an interdisciplinary perspective. She has been a visiting researcher, among other foreign universities, in the Comparative Media Studies (CMS) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and in the Digital Ethnography Research Center (DERC) - RMIT University (Melbourne, Australia).
Email: p.lacasa[at]
Address: University of Alcalá (UAH), Department of Philology, Communication and Documentation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, C/ Trinidad nº 5. 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Topo da página

Direitos de autor


Apenas o texto pode ser utilizado sob licença CC BY-NC 4.0. Outros elementos (ilustrações, anexos importados) são "Todos os direitos reservados", à exceção de indicação em contrário.

Topo da página
Pesquisar OpenEdition Search

Você sera redirecionado para OpenEdition Search