Interview with Divina Frau-Meigs, Irma Velez, and Julieta Flores Michel, editors of Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe.
Can you please present the book?
Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe explores the current tensions in European countries as they tackle the transition to the digital era, linking research to policy and practice. It provides an extensive appraisal of media, information, computer and digital literacies as they disrupt the public debate over 21st century skills. It originates in the coming together of many renowned European researchers, working with the French ANR TRANSLIT project and the European COST research network “Transforming Audiences/Transforming Societies”. In a very generous move, more than 60 researchers from 28 countries joined this collective adventure and contributed to the eight chapters so as to provide a comprehensive, comparative and cross-cultural analysis of the state of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in Europe.
What is the original contribution of this project and book?
There are several original contributions in the book, two of which are the most outstanding. In terms of methodology, it is the first time that MIL has approached using a quali-quanti method, with a double set of data collection instruments: a template for expert reports and a scoreboard for indicators. This made it possible to avoid an exclusively quantitative approach in public policy research, especially when dealing with education. This approach emphasises policy-making as a complex cartography, offering probable future scenarios, bridging expert and lay knowledge, using visualisations and incorporating the emergence of new networks of actors in a very shifting field.
In terms of content, it is the first large-scale appreciation of governance in MIL. MIL increasingly happens in governance configurations that are not conforming to old formats. Its evolution points to multi-level rungs of governance, that push the various stakeholders to navigate all the dimensions of policy-making, from policy frameworks to capacity-building, to funding and evaluation. The authors provide a 3D model for MIL governance in the EU: a Disengaging stance (limited framework, non-public actors left to their own initiatives); a Delegating stance (partly developed policy framework that fosters action by other actors); and a Developing stance (full policy framework with the state as driver of the implementation of actions and coordination of non-public actors). These stances indicate a low, medium or high level of performance of governance in any given state and can be a diagnostic tool.
Besides this key contribution, the results also emphasize the core contents of such governance efforts. They aim at harnessing mediatisation, around a discourse on citizenship and competences. Digitization turns out to be highly media-driven and MIL provides an understanding of the pervasive societal forces of mediatisation, which implies keeping a critical perspective on the discourses that shape the field. The book concludes on “the double bind” of MIL as it is both a political project and a contested pedagogy with many currents and “sensible” practices, within a neo-liberal paradigm that tries to recombine welfare state politics and post-communist reconstruction. This double bind places the democratic and critical potential of MIL in a unique position for transformative change, in the field of media and communication as much as in the field of education.
Why do you feel this is a timely publication?
MIL has become a field of contention, where conflicting discourses and processes on citizenship, mediatization and governance are taking centre-stage. This increased while we were working on the project because of two factors: the terrorist attacks on Europe since 2015, in particular after the “Je suis Charlie” mobilisation; and the fake news controversies around Brexit and other national elections where there were suspicions of fraud or malevolent misinformation. MIL appears as the means to educate people about propaganda and as a tool to prevent radicalisation, as can be seen with the Paris Declaration “on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education”of 17 March 2015.This has impacted governance with the need for increased cooperation between states and led the Council of the European Union to further recognise and consider digital competences and critical uses of ICTs as a crucial component of media literacy. In its conclusions, adopted in May 2016, the EU states the need for “developing media literacy and critical thinking through education and training”. It recognizes the role of MIL and considers digital competence, “which encompasses the confident, creative and critical use of ICTs”, as “a crucial component of media literacy”.
Finally, the timeliness was reflected in the policy role that the network of researchers involved in the process was able to have in two policy areas: the revision of the Directive on Audiovisual Media Services that recognizes the importance of MIL and adds the social media platforms within its remit; and the creation of the European Chapter of the Global Alliance for Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL) with UNESCO, that led to two European fora already (in Paris, 2014, and Riga, 2016).
How do you think it can be important for other areas of research on media and communications?
The first aim was to help in the construction and structuration of the field of MIL per se. In media studies it is often perceived as a secondary area, as an applied field benefiting from fundamental research conducted elsewhere. This research has confirmed that MIL has its own core notions, an expanding perimeter, a complex epistemology, some robust methodologies and many other facets, policy-making foremost among them. This research has also consolidated the existing network of researchers in the field and given them visibility and agency in their own country and across Europe.
For other areas of research, some notions are interesting to consider. Most importantly the contributions to the field of governance are significant, in these days of Internet governance and global digital policy-making. Issues of mediatisation and social change are foremost in other areas of our field, be it in psychology, sociology of media, etc. Interestingly also, outcomes in comparative research can be noted: the tools developed for methodology are being considered for duplication by other regions such as North America and South America. The European Audiovisual Observatory also used our network and our tools for its latest mapping of MIL good practices in Europe.
How was the process of the ECREA book series and how important was it for your publication?
The role of ECREA was crucial for enabling this initiative to be shared by many researchers in the field. It provided an incentive to keep on working together as the ANR TRANSLIT and COST projects progressively came to an end. The professional support was excellent, especially as the data required a lot of digital edition. Besides, due to the multi-lingual composition of our teams, the editorial exchanges were very important and provided a unified voice, meeting international standards for all of Europe. We hope that this project provides an appreciation of the need for all of us at ECREA to strive for alternative and collective frames of research that can deal with constantly changing conditions and help make sense of increasingly complex media situations.
Ana Jorge
Click here to order the book from the publisher.
Click here for more on ECREA Book Series.
