Abstract
Click here to start your journey, React! Add your comment, Upload a photo, add your story, explore the 360-degree simulation, what will you do? While we think of film and television documentary audiences as engaged in the act of watching and interpreting documentary texts, emerging forms of documentary created for computers, tablets, phones and iTV seem to engage the audience in profoundly different ways. No longer merely spectators, audiences are invited (compelled?) to engage in a range of practices, from choosing content, navigating an environment or posting a comment, to becoming part of a community engaged in collaborative forms of production. These diverse actions are collectively described as forms of interaction, a concept that is becoming increasingly significant for documentary scholarship. Interactivity is often identified as the characteristic that distinguishes emerging forms of documentary from film and television, changing not only modes of engagement, but the form of the text itself. But what is interactivity and what are the implications of interacting with documentary as opposed to other media forms?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aarseth, E. (1997) Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature (Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Andrejevic, K. (2009) ‘Critical Media Studies 2.0: An Interactive Upgrade’, Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture, 1(1), 36–51.
Beattie, D. (2008) The Wrong Crowd: Theory and Practice in Producing Documentary Online (Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller).
Bogost, I., Ferrari, S. and Schweizer, B. (2010) Newsgames: Journalism at Play (Cambridge MA and London, England: The MIT Press).
Bucy, E. (2006) ‘Interactivity in Society: Locating an Elusive Concept’, The Information Society, 20(5), 373–383.
Dovey J. (2008) ‘Simulating the Public Sphere’, in W. de Jong and T. Austin (eds.) Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices (Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education), pp. 246–257.
Ellis, J. (2012) Documentary: Witness and Self-revelation (Abingdon and New York, Routledge).
Gaines, J. (1999) ‘Political Mimesis’, in J.M. Gaines and M. Renov (eds.) Collecting Visible Evidence (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press), pp. 84–102.
Gaudenzie, S. (2013) ‘The Living Documentary: From Representing Reality to co-Creating Reality in Digital Interactive Documentary’, PhD thesis, University of London.
Gifreu, A. (2011) ‘The Interactive Multimedia Documentary as a Discourse on Interactive Non-Fiction: For a Proposal of the Definition and Categorisation of the Emerging Genre’, Hypertext.net, Issue 9, accessed 18 October 2013 at: http://www.upf.edu/hipertextnet/en/numero-9/interactive-multimedia.html
Jensen, J. (1998) ‘Interactivity: Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communications Studies’, Nordicom Review 19, 185–202.
Kiousis, S. (2002). ‘Interactivity: A Concept Explication’, New Media and Society, 4(3), 355–383.
Livingstone, S. (2004) ‘The Challenge of Changing Audiences: Or, What is the Audience Researcher to Do in the Age of the Internet?’ European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 75–86.
McMillan, S. (2002) ‘Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents and Systems’, in L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds.) Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping of ICTs (London, Thousand Oaks, Delhi, SAGE Publications), pp. 163–182.
Nash, K. (2012a) ‘Modes of Interactivity: Analysing the Webdoc’, Media, Culture and Society, 34(2), 195–210.
Nash, K. (2012b) ‘Goa Hippy Tribe: Theorising Documentary Content on a Social Network Site’, Media International Australia, 142, 30–40.
Nichols, B. (1983) ‘The Voice of Documentary’, Film Quarterly 36(3), 17–30.
Nichols, B. (1991) Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press).
Odorico, S. (2011) ‘Documentary on the Web between Realism and Interaction: A Case Study From Zero, People Rebuilding life after the Emergency (2009)’, Studies in Documentary Film, 5(2/3), 235–246.
Plantinga, C. 1997 Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Quiring, O. (2009) ‘What Do Users Associate with Interactivity?: A Qualitative Study on User Schemata’, New Media and Society 11(6), 899–920.
Rafaeli, S. (1988) ‘Interactivity: From New Media to Communication’, in R.P Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds.) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Process (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE), pp. 110–134.
Raessens, J. (2009) ‘The gaming dispositive: an analysis of serious games from a humanities perspective’, in U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody and P. Vorderer (eds.) Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects (New York and London, Routledge), pp. 486–512.
Skartviet, H.-L. (2007) ‘Representing the Real through Play and Interaction: Changing Forms of Nonfiction’, PhD Thesis, University of Bergen.
Sobchack, V (2004) Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press).
van Dijck, J. (2009) ‘Users Like You? Theorising Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture and Society, 20(5), 41–58.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Kate Nash
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nash, K. (2014). Clicking on the World: Documentary Representation and Interactivity. In: Nash, K., Hight, C., Summerhayes, C. (eds) New Documentary Ecologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137310491_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137310491_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45666-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31049-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)