Digital Storytelling: A cross-boundary method for

intergenerational groups in rural communities

Sarah Copeland

Innovation North, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, Leeds, UK

Abstract: Rural communities face tensions motivated, in part, by (mis)perceptions between

homophilous groups. When tensions lead to conflict, crossing boundaries to give all parties an
equal voice can be a challenge. This qualitative research project seeks to investigate how
Digital Storytelling has the potential to act as an effective bridge across boundaries that occur
within rurally-located intergenerational groups. Digital Storytelling, along with a selection of
Web 2.0 tools, will be used as a method of communication in two rural Case Studies. The aim
is to improve channels of communication and facilitate a greater awareness of others’
perspectives, with an end goal of social action or activism leading to conflicts being
addressed. Introducing a technology-led intervention to a community allows a tangible
artefact to be created that will remain after the research itself is completed. This, coupled with
the group learning experience, may prove to offer the emancipation that Community
Informatics research projects aim for, as participants become “active makers rather than
passive consumers of technology” (LaFontaine, 2006). The Digital Storytelling workshops
will draw on elements from a Participatory Action Research framework and this qualitative
research project will formulate an Information Systems Design Theory as well as incorporate
approaches such as Schuler’s (2008) Liberating Voices pattern language. Changes in the
participants’ perception will be analysed as will any moves by the participants to use the
stories and/or the experience to increase prominence of their perspective.

Keywords: Communication, Social Action, Social Activism, e-Democracy,

Technology

A study in rural England

The experience of living in a rural community in the UK, like any setting, can depend
largely on social status through factors such as age, wealth and origin. Whilst the geo-
physical boundary of a countryside village or small town may offer a desirable lifestyle
choice to some, others will be faced with the harsh reality of fewer facilities and service
options. As such, varying degrees of residents’ social needs are met within the community
itself. As in-migration from urban areas to the countryside continues (Commission for Rural
Communities Report, 2008, p14), house prices remain out of reach for many local residents
who wish to remain in their home villages, as shown for example by Grant (2006) or Sheard
(2003). In addition to such issues, communication between age groups does not automatically
happen first hand, particularly as family generations become separated through work and
housing shortfalls.
The research project focuses on rural and semi-rural small and medium sized communities
in the Yorkshire Dales, a designated national park in the north of England. It seeks to use
available tools and technologies to build a system of information sharing that facilitates
greater communication amongst groups of residents. Further, the project aspires to motivate
social activism at some level, to help less prominent voices be heard more widely.

The issues
Boundaries in an organised setting can be thought of as a discontinuity of some form of
practice (Walker and Creanor, 2005). When applying this concept to community groups
however, definitions of both boundary and community are less clear, as influences from links
with outsiders are not easily accounted for (Hague and Loader, 1999, p 12). There are
mechanisms for studying occurrences at boundaries, such as boundary encounters and objects
and analysing personal networks to identify boundary-crossing (Walker and Creanor, 2005).
The similarity, or homophily, of members within each group is a factor that will be
observed. Homophilous groups “tend to support denser networks of communication”.
Therefore, homophily can be a measure of “greater cohesion” (Weare et al, 2005). Weare et
al have used the work of Heckathorn (1993) to illustrate heterogeneity as being a factor in
generating collective action, during the early stages of group formation. This willingness to
participate in collective action should be capitalised upon in the early stages of the
intervention, before “cliques of homophilous members form”, thereby disrupting the potential
for the outcomes of the project (ibid.).
In my proposed case studies, I will be working with issues that affect all age groups in the
community, where discourse will typically exist. This is of course a broad statement as none
of the generational groups could automatically be described as homophilous. But generally
speaking, it is these areas of disagreement that perpetuate issues of discontent where enough
members of each age group hold opposing views.
Boundaries will always exist within communities, regardless of how tight-knit they are. It
is helpful to examine what a community consists of and how boundaries from within may
change over time. When communities were socially engineered to be exiled by the drive for
modernity in post-War Britain, they were accused of “parochiality, narrowness of horizons
and nurturing of superstitions” (Bauman, 2001, p 9). But the “understanding” of the
community in an unspoken, tacit form cannot be recreated by research or analysis, either by
its own members or outsiders (ibid., p 10-11).
In a report commissioned by DEFRA, Buller et al (2003) describe the characterisation of
rural England as a “peculiar demographic balancing act”. Too many incomers to a village
effect the sense of community, and too few reduce service provision, leading eventually to
abandonment. As a result of this in-migration, changes in both perceptions and dynamics of
the rural population are governed by “cultural and social factors, attitudes and preferences”
(ibid.). This report also details just how wide-spread this movement is across the UK. The
Countryside Commission (1997) is quoted in the report as describing in-migration as “the
dominant migratory trend of the last 30 years”. The report continues with statistics of this
principal demographic trend, “Between 1991 and 2001, some 839, 400 people moved into
rural areas” (Buller et al, 2003).
It is therefore clear that many rural communities across the UK are going to be negotiating
changing boundaries following in-migration, with renewed expectation driven by wider
changes in contemporary society. As an example of the issues being faced in one case study,
a youth group comprising 13 to 18 year olds find themselves unable to spend time
legitimately in the common areas of the village as a small proportion of adults do not tolerate
their presence and ask the police to intervene by moving them on. In this case, a small
number of the youths have attempted to challenge the validity of their presence by requesting
a shelter, and this has been met with opposition at many levels.
This discourse in perception of use of common space makes an ideal case to review the
effectiveness of Digital Storytelling as a cross-boundary method.

The role of Community Informatics

The academic/practitioner discipline of Community Informatics (CI) studies uses of
Information Communication Technology (ICT) to “enable and empower community
processes” (Gurstein, 2007, p 11). Gurstein also highlights the role of supporting social
justice and political empowerment within CI projects. Day (2005) promotes the human-
centred concept of ‘social cohesion’ by focussing on social dialogue as “a central dynamic of
active community life” (p 6-7). Day further argues that the three components of human-
centred CI are indivisible; community, communication and technology. It is particularly the
remit of supporting both social justice and facilitating empowerment within rural
communities through technology-led interventions that drew me to define my research as
Community Informatics.
Following in the steps of CI, it is my intention to work with case studies by designing,
developing and implementing projects in each neighbourhood. Accordingly, the aim is to
review a subset of this perceived disquiet by examining how residents from three general age
groups in defined geographical boundaries may be challenged to alter their perceptions of
each other through a technology-led intergenerational project. The age groups are roughly
divided as 14-20, 20-60 and 60+, to try to differentiate generic life stages of youth in
education, working adults, and those in retirement.
Previous case studies rooted in Community Informatics have shown that not only are
community goals accomplished more efficiently, but a new culture of technology usage can
evolve (Rosson and Carroll, 2005). Introducing a new skill to the community participants will
allow them to continue such practice, and as Rosson and Carroll have shown, possibly create
a new culture surrounding the technology.
Retaining a useful purpose to the intervention is paramount. Simply training participants to
use a range of technologies or types of software may not help to cross any boundaries, other
than personal learning goals. When considering ‘Effective Use’ of information technologies,
Gurstein (2003) identifies there should be the “Capacity and opportunity to successfully
integrate ICTs into the accomplishment of self or collaboratively identified goals.”
To bring a collaborative nature to an inter-generational group that centres around
technology, I have identified Digital Storytelling as the method I wish to use for this
intervention. Whilst Digital Storytelling alone will not result in a tangible electronic system
on-line, it offers a purpose to bring community residents together to use technology to help to
build communication and understanding and offers a chance for social injustice to be
discussed.

Technology and Storytelling

Digital Storytelling, hereafter known as DST, takes the principles of storytelling in a group
and uses different technologies and software to allow the participant to create their own
digital version of their story (Lambert, 2006) (Hartley and McWilliam, 2009). DST is a
suitable method in these case studies, as it asks participants to reflect on their situation and to
question both their own positions and those of others in the group in a gentle and supportive
space. It also integrates technology and offers potential for the group project to continue
beyond the initial meetings.
In a review of storytelling influences as reflection, McDruary and Alterio (2002) cite
Reason and Hawkins (1988) as identifying explanation and expression as two separate ways
that we view and process an experience. Where explanation allows us to build theories of our
own experiences, it is expression that enables “meaning of experience to become apparent” as
this mode requires active involvement with the experience (p 21-22). They further suggest
that reflection is difficult to understand without referring to the context when it derives from
an interactive, social process. They further cite Haigh’s (2000) view that productivity in
reflection increases where others are involved, as questioning is key (p 23).
Freidus and Hlubinka (2002), from the Centre of Reflective Community Practice at MIT,
published findings of a study which looked at DST as a method of reflective practice in
differing types of community setting. They conclude that DST for reflective practice “is a
valuable, transformative tool for personal, professional, organizational, and community
development.” They describe one outcome of sharing stories is that the sense of community
itself is strengthened. After the story development cycle has been completed, they “serve as
objects which mediate relationships”. After all, they are documented instances of the beliefs
and expressions of members of a community. Further more, once the artefacts of such a
community project have been created, the stories become decentralised; geographic
boundaries hold less importance as the stories carry an impact that does not necessarily
require actual community members to be present for the stories to be told.
Walker and Deardon (2008) relate to successful cases of narrative techniques used to
enhance effective social action in technology-related community projects, and further that use
of narrative can improve design practice by encouraging participation. They argue that in the
case of social action settings, the participation itself is beneficial, more so than as “an
instrumental means to improve the acceptability of design” (p 109).
Returning to the first case study, where the youth group feel aggrieved that they have no
allocated space to spend time on their own terms, I hope that as a result of the DST
workshops, participants of different ages from the village will each gain a deeper insight into
such issues by hearing the voices through story. Further, I hope to evaluate the theory that
Digital Storytelling is an effective method for motivating social action.
I have designed this DST research intervention around the model developed by the Center
for Digital Storytelling (CDS) as set out in Lambert (2006) Capturing Lives, Creating
Community. Briefly, CDS begin their process with a story circle where each participant
shares their story as an equal in a controlled space. Questioning helps the participant shape
their story which then forms their script. The personal voice is recorded reading the script and
this forms the backbone of the digital story. Workshops in image editing and movie-making
software follow and in a collaborative learning environment participants work on their own
stories with support from all using photographs to form the visual element of the story. The
process always ends with a sharing of the completed stories. Due to the time pressures facing
the group, this final stage of sharing is often accompanied by an overwhelming sense of
achievement and transformation. Many examples of successful applications of the CDS
Model in community situations are described in Hartley and McWilliam (2009), it offers a
good match to the principles of CI and always puts the human first and technology after; it
demonstrates the ‘effective use’ of technology that Gurstein (2003) advocates. In addition to
the CDS model, I have added the steps of face-to-face semi-structured interview before the
workshops as well as afterwards, so that I can record changes in perception, ambition and
skill sets attributable to the process.
Beyond the workshop format of the CDS model, there is scope for the community group
themselves to be involved with an on-line presence so that their stories can be heard more
widely. The stories can also be used to support arguments raised through the local governing
channels to address issues of conflict or imbalance in the neighbourhood, as a form of e-
Democracy. I also plan to help facilitate such actions, both on-line or otherwise, where
required, but this stage of the project requires co-collaboration with the participants.
This Information System will take the form of a combination of internet-based information
and communication tools, which is increasingly the method used by collaborative
communities to support their communication needs (de Moor, 2007). The system will
potentially offer a place to store the finished digital stories, a chat facility and a review site of
data collected in the interviews and workshops, where the participants are happy to share.
The issue of system management will have to be discussed at the design stage.

Research Methodology
To help frame this research project, I have considered different methods to enable this
qualitative study to remain robust. I was drawn to Action Research in the early stages of
investigation, primarily because it has been used successfully in community participation
projects in the past. Action Research (AR) can be considered a “systematic approach to
investigation” that is concerned with the localised solution from a specific situation (Stringer,
2007, p 1). It is used in many settings; healthcare, education and business to name a few. It
usually begins with a mandate from an organisation where some form of change is intended.
In a pure research setting, members of an organisation or community would be treated as
passive subjects, whereas in Participatory Action Research (PAR) some of those people
actively participate with the professional researcher/manager throughout the change process
from the initial design through to the final results and discussion of their action implications
(Whyte et al, 1991, p 20).
Stringer suggests that participation is most effective when it “enables significant levels of
active involvement … [and] encourages plans and activities that people are able to
accomplish themselves” (Stringer, 2007, p 38). If an intervention in the community is being
considered, using PAR where appropriate or otherwise AR as a framework gives the project
the potential for a sustainable, inclusive solution for social change. In one example, PAR was
selected as an approach to emphasise collaboration between a funded community project and
University researchers in Sussex (Day, 2005). It was found that PAR was useful in
facilitating the required conditions of “mutual trust, respect and reciprocity” between the
groups. Day relates this example to the high importance of sustainability; gathering and
sharing knowledge that makes sense to all parties, and allowing the knowledge to remain in
the community after the project has ended so momentum may continue amongst the
community-based participants. A DST intervention will facilitate such gathering and sharing
of knowledge which can remain as an information resource afterwards.
Whilst AR has a vast theoretical literature associated with it, I will be looking to a design
theory to link in, to provide a robust basis for the development of the information system.
Information Systems Design Theory can be considered “a prescriptive theory based on
theoretical underpinnings which says how a design process can be carried out in a way which
is both effective and feasible” (Bourgeois and Horan, 2007, p 1). To help design the
technology element, an Information Systems Design Theory will be formulated, with relevant
kernel theories identified so that an effective system may be built. As participatory design is
planned, the exact nature of the system prototype is not yet clear. However, as with
Bourgeois and Horan, Social Capital will be considered as a kernel theory. It is also proposed
that Digital Storytelling will form a kernel theory, as this will guide how the participants’
work is presented and made further accessible. Some form of Social Network kernel theory
may be considered, but the necessity will be driven by explicit user requirements. With the
theory in place for the design of the intervention, it will be possible to clearly evaluate the
success of the project by matching user requirements with the end results.
As part of the qualitative research method, I will be coding data gathered in the semi-
structured interviews for analysis. This will help identify changes in perception on the part of
the participants.
Pattern languages for CI offer much interest in terms of intervention design. As a PhD
project, the limited scope does not allow me to investigate this technique further, but I have
been able to draw on one pattern in particular from Schuler’s (2008) Liberating Voices
collection of patterns for communication. “Meaningful Maps” (p 249) has been a useful tool
for reviewing territory covered within the village boundary for the different age groups, and I
hope once collated, will offer provocative imagery to help strengthen social activism cases.
The maps generated from interview data can be used to highlight social imbalances on the
on-line information system.
By drawing together Information Systems Design Theory with Participatory/Action
Research, I have a research method to help guide progress, providing a framework for
evaluation post-intervention.

Preliminary Results, Conclusions and Ongoing Questions

This PhD research project is still in the fieldwork phase, and as such, no firm conclusions
have yet been drawn about the success of the project either within the community group or at
a methodological level. However, I can report on participant response so far from case study
1. Of the participants who committed to making digital stories, each person has identified
learning progression with technology at some level, although the younger participants
seemingly learned less in the software workshops as they were able to apply prior experience
of similar interfaces. From a sociological perspective, the majority have expressed emotional
responses to other stories and some are already keen to take action to address central issues.
Case study 1 has highlighted certain issues which will be addressed before case study 2
commences. For example, to remain as accommodating as possible to all age groups,
workshop sessions were scheduled in two to three hour evening slots over two weeks,
allowing selective attendance. This was not a time-efficient plan as each participant
progressed at a very different rate. The CDS Model completes the workshops in two to three
consecutive days. Case study 2 is planned to be held over two days in a school holiday, with
as much preparation carried out with individuals beforehand. This may, however, limit
numbers of willing participants. These observations form part of the Action Research cycle
which I am using to guide progress through this PhD research project, so that case study 2
and future studies may be executed with a more refined and efficient schedule.
At this stage in this PhD project, the research question remains central to the focus;
investigating how Digital Storytelling is effective as a method for community-based cross-
boundary social action.
 References
Bauman, Z. (2001) Community: Seeking Safety In An Insecure World, Polity Press,
Cambridge, UK
Bourgeois, D. and Horan, T. (2007) A Design Theory Approach to Community Informatics:
Community-centered Development and Action Research Testing of Online Social
Networking Prototype, Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 3, No 1,Special Issue:
Community Informatics and System Design
Buller, H., Morris, C. and Wright, E. (2003) The Demography of Rural Areas: A Literature
Review Countryside and Community Research Unit, University of Gloucestershire,
A Research Report to DEFRA
Commission for Rural Communities Report (2008) [Accessed 17.06.09]
http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/projects/stateofthecountryside2008/overview
Day, P. (2005) Sustainable Community Technology: The symbiosis between community
technology and community research, Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 1, No 2
de Moor, A. (2007) The Pragmatic Evaluation of Tool System Interoperability. In
Proceedings of the 2nd ICCS Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
(CS-TIW 2007), Sheffield, UK, July 22, 2007, 1-19
Freidus, N. and Hlubinka, M. (2002) Digital Storytelling for Reflective Practice in
communities of Learners, SIGGROUP Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 2
Grant, K. (2006) Fielding a Solution, Inside Housing, 19 May 2006
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ [Accessed 17.06.09]
Gurstein, M. (1999) Flexible Networking, Information and Communications Technology and
Local Economic Development First Monday, Vol 4, No. 2
Gurstein, M. (2003) Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the Digital
Divide First Monday Vol. 8 No. 12
Gurstein, M. (2007) What is Community Informatics (and Why Does It Matter?),
Polimetrica, Milan
Hague, B. N. and Loader, B. D. (1999) Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making
in the Digital Age, Routledge
Hartley, J. and McWilliam, K. eds. (2009) Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the
World, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
LaFontaine, Jennifer (2006) From The StoryCircle to Cyberspace: How Technology
Transforms the Stories We Tell and How Women Transform the Stories We Hear,
Women and Environments, Fall/Winter 2006 www.weimag.com [Accessed 10.12.07]
Lambert, Joe (2006) Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community, 2nd ed.
Digital Diner Press, Berkeley, CA
McDruary, J. and Alterio, M. (2002) Learning Through Storytelling, The Dunmore Press Ltd,
Palmerston North, NZ
Rosson, Mary Beth and Carroll, John M. (2005) Minimalist Design for Informal Learning in
Community Computing, Proceedings of the Second Communities and Technologies
Conference, Milano 2005, Eds. Peter Van Den Besselaar, Giorgio De Michelis,
Jenny Preece and Carla Simone
Schuler, D. (2008) Liberating Voices: A pattern language for communication revolution, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Sheard, J. (2003) Wanted: New solutions to the housing crisis killing the countryside, A
Week in the Country www.daelnet.co.uk [Accessed 17.06.09]
Stringer, Ernest T. (2007) Action Research, 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Walker, S. & Creanor, L. (2005) Crossing complex boundaries: transnational online
education in European trade unions, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 343-
354
Walker, S. & Dearden, A. (2008) Technology and Social Action in Innes, T. (Ed) Design for
the 21st century, Ashgate, London
Weare, Christopher, Loges, William E. and Oztas, Nail, Does the Internet Enhance the
Capacity of Community Associations? (2005), Proceedings of the second
Communities and Technologies Conference Milano, Italy, June 13-16, 2005, Eds
Van den Besselaar, Peter, De Michelis, Giorgio, Preece, Jenny and Simone, Carla
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1991) in W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory
Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA