Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Creative DIY on YouTube: Communicating creativity through online video
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Creative DIY on YouTube: Communicating creativity through online video

148
views

Published on

Presentation at Transforming Audiences 3, 2011, London.

Presentation at Transforming Audiences 3, 2011, London.


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
148
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Cédric Courtois and Peter Mechant IBBT-MICT-Ghent University Creative DIY on YouTube: Communicating creativity through online video
  • 2. Web platforms: little-c creativity is all around … Creativity is all about connecting things (Gauntlett, 2011)
    • What? ‘ … the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context’
      • (Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004)
  • 3.
    • Creativity as combining elements: materials and ideas
      • Creative building blocks on the level of contents (self-made or adopted) and form (editing)… yet, what patterns of building blocks are present? (RQ 1)
    • Social connection through creativity
      • With YouTube’s networked public… but what subtypes are expected? (RQ 2)
        • Identified-Offline (family, friends), Identified-Online (online in-group) and Unidentified-Online (remainder of YouTube community)
        • (Courtois et al., 2011 and in press)
    • Means to communicate creativity
      • Is our creativity recognized in terms of personality traits? (RQ 3)
        • Openness as major subtrate; also extraversion and conscientiousness
  • 4.
    • Method study one
    • 219 uploaders, recruited via ‘latest videos’ RSS feed
    • Online questionnaire about …
      • Latest video: self-made images and/or sound, self-edited, uploader in it?
      • Video’s expected public: three subtypes, measure from earlier research
    • Video downloaded and content-analyzed for creative building blocks
      • Examples: c reative activity, extracts popular culture, third-party performances
      • Two coders, initial agreement: Kramer’s V .85-.92
  • 5.
    • Personal Creativity (46%):
      • Mostly self-edited, self-made sounds and images
      • Highest chances of demonstrating creativity
    • Remix Creativity (32%):
      • A lot of self-made video (not sound), incorporates extracts from pop culture (more sound than video)
    • Borrowed Creativity (22%):
      • Very high chances to contain sound and images of third-party creativity (e.g. artistic performance)
    Structures of creative combinations : latent class modeling of disclosed video characteristics and variables from content analysis
  • 6.
    • Mixed model ANOVA:
    • Networked Public types (within-subjects) : F (2,432) = 5.23, p < .05
    • Networked Public types * Creativity Structures (between-subjects) : F (4,432) = 4.44, p < .05
  • 7.
    • Method study two
    • Random sample of ( N =) 70 videos from study one
    • Big Five measures of uploaders ideal and actual O, C, E in survey study one
    • Team of 24 external raters rated uploaders’ O, C, E by their latest video
    • Videos randomly assigned to raters, ratings on dedicated web page
    • Five independent assessments per video
  • 8. Criteria for external assessment of personality traits: (* p < .05, *** p < .001) C O E Consistency
      •  Self-report uploaders’ actual self
    .78 .79 .83
      •  Self-report uploaders’ ideal self
    .83 .82 .82
      •  External assessment uploaders’ actual self
    .90 .87 .79 Agreement
      • Intra-class correlation (2,1)
    .43*** .39*** .12*** Accuracy  Ideal Self .13 .11 .06  Actual Self .02 .30* .01
  • 9.
    • Conclusions
    • Discourse on Web 2.0: mostly positive nature, despite critical sounds …
    • (e.g. Keen’s Cult of the Amateur , 2007)
    • Flood of poorly made videos, available for the mass! However …
      • ‘ Uninteresting content’: aimed at small, yet closely connected audience
      • Content for the broader public: contains extracts of pop culture
    • Too easy to make and distribute content… everyone’s doing it. We can’t see the wood for the trees! However…
      • Independent raters are able to infer uploaders’ actual openness, a personality trait known as the substrate of creative behaviour
  • 10.
    • Conclusions
    • Discourse on Web 2.0: mostly positive nature, despite critical sounds …
    • (e.g. Keen’s Cult of the Amateur , 2007)
    • Flood of poorly made videos, available for the mass! However …
      • ‘ Uninteresting content’: aimed at small, yet closely connected audience
      • Content for the broader public: contains extracts of pop culture
    • Too easy to make and distribute content… everyone’s doing it. We can’t see the wood for the trees! However…
      • Independent raters are able to infer uploaders’ actual openness, a personality trait known as the substrate of creative behaviour
    Thank you for listening… Any questions? cedric.courtois@ugent.be http://www.mict.be