Hyperrhiz 28

A State of People, Places, Animals, and Things: esse quam videri + “make America again”

Kelsey Dufresne
NC State University

Margaret Baker
NC State University

Citation: Dufresne, Kelsey and Margaret Baker. “A State of People, Places, Animals, and Things: esse quam videri + “make America again”.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures, no. 28, 2025. doi:10.20415/hyp/028.e01

Abstract: This essay explores the theoretical grounding and production of esse quam videri + “make America again” – an experimental digital humanities project which utilizes documentary filmmaking and poetry as tools to amplify and celebrate the community diversity of the state of North Carolina, and by extension the United States. Positioned as a reclamation of the diversity and beauty of a state deeply divided by race, class, gender, politics, and ideologies, we invite a myriad of voices to recount their unique stories through individual installments of interviews and poetry. In the primary visual piece, residents of North Carolina recite lines from Langston Hughes’ poem, “Let America Be America Again,” magnifying the diversity of the state’s population and offering a unified, cohesive visual narrative of the North Carolina experience. This experiential project invites collaboration across the state, during a time in which North Carolina and the country face great division, while simultaneously striving to fulfill the call to action that Langston Hughes work provides. By entering into individuals’ daily rhythms through the medium of video production, this project seeks to explore what it means to be a North Carolinian, an American, and what common threads draw us, as a people, together.

Keywords: critical making, public humanities, digital humanities, poetry, video production.

Media project: esse-quam-videri-make-america-again.pubpub.org

Introduction

Traveling on either direction on any highway in North Carolina, you are just as likely to see “TRUMP 2024” signs as you are advertisements for micro-craft breweries and CBD shops. From the center of the state, you are a few hours from the Appalachian Mountains and a few hours from the Atlantic Ocean. In between, you’ll find corn, tobacco, and strawberry fields, any number of the many higher education institutions, and so many churches.

With one hundred unique counties, North Carolina is a state of great geographical, political, religious, educational, and racial diversity. And yet, we live in a time in which “diversity” as a term is increasingly addressed as a point of contention and controversy – as seen with, but not limited to, Critical Race Theory curricula and the increasing number and practice of banned books. Simultaneously, we live in a world, and a state, where there are more and more representations of diversity. Because of tension, we wondered: to what degree do North Carolinians see and grasp the diversity of our state? How might we help facilitate an opportunity for folks to sit with, engage in, and learn from this diversity?

As such, we developed an experimental digital humanities project which utilizes documentary filmmaking and poetry as tools to contribute one multimodal account that amplifies and celebrates the diversity of the state of North Carolina, and by extension the United States (US). This project is positioned as a reclamation of the diversity and beauty of a US state deeply divided by race, class, gender, politics, and ideologies, and as such we strove to invite a myriad of voices to recount their unique stories through individual installments of interviews and poetry. Moreover, in the primary piece, residents of North Carolina recite lines from Langston Hughes’ poem, “Let America Be America Again,” magnifying the diversity of the state’s population and offering a unified, cohesive visual narrative that makes visual and visible a snapshot of the North Carolina experience. Entering into individuals’ daily rhythms, this project seeks to explore what it means to be a North Carolinian, an American, and what common threads draw us, as a people, together.

Through esse quam videri + “make America again”, we aimed to 1) foster collaboration across communities in a state (and country) that is very divided, 2) reach 20 different counties across the state (with an ultimate goal of reaching all 100), and 3) produce a sustaining mural documentary for the North Carolina public. In doing so, we do not think that this project will “solve” or “fix” the systemic problems that need grave and immediate attention, but rather illuminate a collective call to action to do, and to be, better. The name of the project, esse quam videri + “make America again”, comes from the state motto of North Carolina, a Latin phrase coined by Cicero meaning “To be, rather than to seem,” and as a play on Hughes’ poem name.

We assert that this project, and similar efforts such as Whitman, Alabama and StoryCorps, serve as a valuable opportunity for multidisciplinary exploration that necessarily crosses the boundaries of location and occupation to transcend and challenge political binaries (like the rigid conservative/liberal divide, or the rural/urban split that often defines state politics) – all in the hopes and aims of fostering and facilitating conversations that move beyond surface-level discourse to address and acknowledge the real work of building a more inclusive community.

Project Overview

The esse quam videri + “make America again” project exists as an openly-available and readily discoverable website: https://esse-quam-videri-make-america-again.pubpub.org. Within the website, folks can learn about the work, conversations, and insights that led to the project’s development and dissemination. There are also educational implementation guides and suggestions for teachers and learners. Throughout the website, folks can engage in a variety of media, from videos to narratives to pictures.

Framework for Production

First and foremost, esse quam videri drew upon Garnet Hertz’s (2016) framing of critical making as a practice distinct from traditional design and making - one that serves as a methodology that enables participants and makers to “break out of this cycle [consumer-oriented culture], step back, and mindfully reconsider a broader spectrum of human experience” (para. 5). Hertz also emphasizes that critical making “strives to highlight people, perspectives and practices that are forgotten in conventional product development workflows: and consider the diverse complexities of what it means to be human” (2016). As such, we utilized a critical making framework to explore and showcase a more diverse, more inclusive portrait of our state.

In doing so, the video-based mural and accompanying materials (more on this below) that we have constructed relies heavily upon four key tenets we identified for critical making and film production: 1) collaboration, 2) co-design, 3) community-led and centered, and 4) creation. We prioritized adopting a multidisciplinary methodology (outlined and explored more below) that drew upon design justice (Design Justice Network, 2018) and inclusive design (The Inclusive Design Guide) – both of which prioritize collaboration, co-design, and community-led and centered development. Through each of these frameworks of production, we strove to create a public-facing project that would be shareable, discoverable, and accessible for a broad audience. Much of our work strove to align with the Design Justice Network Principles (2018), namely Principle 4, which states, “We view change as emergent from an accountable, accessible, and collaborative process, rather than as a point at the end of a process,” Principle 5, “We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert,” and Principle 6, “We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process.” In doing so, we aimed to develop this project through a lens of equity, first and foremost. For us, this meant ensuring that traditionally marginalized voices and perspectives were centered, that participation was accessible regardless of socioeconomic status or location, and that participants had agency in how their stories were told. The “change” we sought was not just in final representations, but in the process itself - moving away from a top-down documentary approach where filmmakers extract stories from “subjects”, to a collaborative process where participants helped shape both what was filmed and how it was presented.

In regards to collaboration: Not only did the two project developers, from two different disciplines (digital humanities and documentary film), collaborate to develop this work, but we also strove to collaborate with the various participants. To perform outreach and connect with the various participants in this project, we relied upon cold-calling and our personal networks to invite people to take part. While this project was conducted as a documentary and creative work rather than formal research, IRB approval was not required since our goal was artistic and journalistic documentation rather than generalizable research findings. Nevertheless, we maintained ethical practices throughout our participant engagement. We provided all participants with clear information about the project's purpose and scope, obtained written permission for video/audio recording and public sharing, and gave participants opportunities to review and approve their contributions before publication. Each participant retained the right to withdraw or modify their participation at any time. The project aligned with standard documentary filmmaking practices where the focus is on storytelling and creative expression rather than research data collection. In doing so, we strove to emphasize to potential participants that this project is one rooted in collaborative participation: we wanted the final project to reflect what the participants envisioned and how they wanted to be portrayed. Therefore, we sought out participant feedback throughout the video editing process and routinely stated: “If there is anything you don’t like, please let us know. We can remove or change it!”

Through co-design: We prioritized designing alongside our community members rather than imposing our ideas upon the folks we worked with and aimed to reach through this project. As such, our interviews (more on this below) followed a conversational style that prioritized focusing on what our community participants wanted to/felt empowered to discuss and address. As a result, each interview evolved into its own distinct visual narrative, reflecting the participant's voice and environment. For example, one video includes footage following otters and sharks, while another video is set in a brewery.

With community-led and centered design: Following models developed by Crystal Lee and the Literacy and Community Initiative (Lee, 2021), we met participants where they were – both physically in the state, but also in relation to how they already understood concepts such as “diversity” and “America.” In doing so, we were able to learn about participants’ lived experiences and what these counties and towns mean to them.

In prioritizing creation: Ultimately, through each of these interviews we explored the capacities of critical making (Hertz, 2016) to construct a product that was visible, discoverable, and shareable to enable participant viewing – as well as broader learning by North Carolinians. Moreover, through this act of creation, we were able to learn about the many other acts of creation (in many different forms) that are actively occurring in different communities: from drag shows to family farming.

Additionally, through this work we hoped to facilitate opportunities for learning, discussion, and celebration. To do so, we strove to align this project and process with the Learning for Justice Social Justice Anchor Standards. These anchor standards, rooted in identity, diversity, justice, and action, supplement K-12 learning standards to prioritize and actionize an equity and justice-oriented approach to education. As such, we drew upon these focus areas, identity, diversity, justice, and action, through the questions we asked all participants – as well as how we designed educational resources for further discussion, learning, and implementation.

Lastly, leaning into Mitchell and de Lange’s (2020) understanding of participatory video production, we understand community-based participatory video to refer to “the engagement with a particular community and the relationships that are built up over time and as such contribute, we believe, to social change.” (p. 255) Our project worked to build relationships with individuals across communities in order to facilitate conversation about social change. Additionally, the goals of the project include “consciousness-raising,” or as White (2003) explains, “[people] are better able to think about and articulate social action that they believe would improve their well-being.” (p.38) This aligns with our understanding of creation as a model for the facilitation of conversation via the lens of critical making as explored previously. As Prather (2014) explores, participatory-video holds the potential to reveal “aesthetic preferences and modes of self-representation,” (p.66) in the project through the choices of the participants. (p.66) Many participants in this project did reveal these aesthetic preferences as they offered guidance on framing, places to shoot b-roll, important landmarks in the area, and edits to the final product of their videos. Using this lens as a model for creation of this project affords both the participants and us, as creators, the opportunity for collaboration and for reflection of issues of social change, and for time of self-reflection.

Researcher Positionalities

We recognize that this work exists in a broader system in which harmful data extraction serves as a real threat to those who are most vulnerable. In doing so, we align ourselves with the work of D'Ignazio and Klein (2020), where they emphasize data is powerful – and data is oppressive for marginalized groups and communities because, as they write, “data are never neutral; they are always the biased output of unequal social, historical and economic conditions” (39). As such, we recognize that our own positionalities as white women connected to a large land-grant university comes with privileges and affordances that not only enabled us to perform this work (both logistically and fiscally), but also resulted in a project that inevitably would relay our biases. Because of this, we strove to continually collaborate with, and not for, our participants.

Methods

Our methodology was grounded in a collaborative process from the outset of the project. After discussing the initial scope, we created a series of goals for the work which included gathering up a variety of voices and participants across the state of North Carolina, and implementing as public and collaborative a project as possible. We wanted to work with North Carolinians to showcase the beautiful diversity of our state – especially in a time when the state is deeply divided. In the initial stages of planning, we created documentation incorporating each of the 100 counties in North Carolina and began to brainstorm about potential contacts for the project.

The initial timeline was to schedule interviews and create recordings over the course of four months. With this timeline, we aimed to edit the videos as we recorded them, while simultaneously compiling them in the PubPub housing for public distribution and access alongside discussion questions and activities for educational use. We planned for the first phase of this project (reflecting 20 counties in NC) to be completed at the end of a school semester.

Additionally in this planning period, we crafted a series of interview questions which reflected the questions we were asking ourselves about the state of North Carolina. These questions are found below:

Another significant area of planning for this project for us was COVID-19, which, at the time of the outset of the project, was an ongoing factor and concern globally and in the planning stages. In preparing to travel to participants, we were asked if we were willing to abide by the COVID-19 rules and regulations of the establishments we visited, but did find that these protocols changed our methods for some of the interviews. For example, we visited the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, which at the time, required masks as a part of their health regulations. Although the aquarium allowed the participant to remove their mask for the on-camera portion of the visit, we found that we had to shout questions at the participant in order for them to hear through our masks and above the general noise of the facility. Additionally, the aquarium was unable to highlight our visit on social media due to masking and social distancing regulations by the state present at the time. However, we found these policies functioned as only mild hindrances in our work to create a collaborative and co-designed project.

An additional hindrance to the project was our own schedules and the logistics of our work. As we are both full-time PhD students who are also teaching for the university at which we study, we undertook this project with the intention of completing 20 interviews and producing 20 subsequent video vignettes over the course of one academic semester. Yet, with our academic commitments (and the limitations of our self-funding), we were unable to reach this original goal – and instead were only able to successfully complete 10 interviews from 10 different counties.

Additionally, the original methodology for the project included the idea for some organic interviews, or as they are colloquially referred to, some “on-the-street interviews” or “vox pop” interviews (Beckers, 2019). These interviews served with our original intention of representing the general public of North Carolina in the project, rather than pre-selecting participants. In the initial test run of the project, however, we tried to execute on this style of work and found that it failed to overall align with the end goals of the project. In approaching people “on-the-street,” participants were taken off-guard by the intensity of some of the subject matter we were questioning, and we found it difficult to ask participants to read the poem. For example, we visited the North Carolina State Farmers Market and interviewed a local couple about their business. The initial interview questions went well, but as we pivoted to the project-specific questions focused on diversity and America, the body language and demeanor of the participants changed drastically to one of defensiveness and resistance. We mutually agreed to not ask the participants to read the poem to cause further discomfort. In response to this attempt, we chose to exclusively schedule participants and to provide them up front with the questions and the poem so that they could consider and prepare their answers. This project structure lent itself to supporting an output that was both community-centered and collaborative with the participants of the project.

Process

In the first phase of the project, over the course of three months, we engaged with ten different counties: 1) Orange, 2) Wilson, 3) New Hanover, 4) Pender, 5) Pitt, 6) Beaufort, 7) Craven, 8) Onslow, 9) Harnett, and 10) Chatham. In order to facilitate this initial round of interviews, we leaned into our personal networks of people. As both creators have strong connections in eastern North Carolina, most of the initial interviews took place in those counties. However, we worked to gather, to the largest extent possible, a diverse group of interviewees (as we understand diversity) to participate. Interviewees were contacted via email, phone, and text, and in this contact material we explained the goals of the project, described what their role would be (should they choose to participate) and extended an invitation for participation.

After we traveled to each participant in the location of their choosing or in a location chosen convenient to them in co-design, each interview began with greeting the participant and explaining the overall purpose of the project again, and sought verbal consent for their collaboration in the work.

During interview meetings, we split tasks in the spirit of collaboration, with Kelsey focused on taking pictures, gathering notes, and facilitating the actual interview portion of the meeting, while Margaret worked to set up cameras and provide technical direction for the process. While Margaret completed the technical set-up, Kelsey often interacted with participants, asking them casual questions, catching up with friends we already knew or getting to know new friends.

Once Margaret gave the green-light that the technical set-up was prepared, we offered each participant a set of baseline instructions to provide a smooth experience. Firstly, we explained that the interview would be cut together, so that participants had the freedom to pause, think, or ask questions at any time. Additionally, we explained it would be helpful in the editing process if they would speak in complete sentences. For example, we would say, “If I asked you your favorite color, you would say, ‘My favorite color is green,’ rather than only ‘green.’” As such, we found ourselves inadvertently engaging in a form of scripted, censored speak to aid in the documentary format and the necessary shooting and editing methodology.

At this time we offered our participants a lapel microphone and provided them with directions on how to attach it. Some participants requested help in securing it to themselves. Once this process was complete, interviewees were provided direction with where to stand or sit for the interview to begin. After a few last minute technical checks, the interviews were ready to begin. We often pressed the record button without announcing it so that the transition to the interview process could feel smooth to all.

Every interview began with the same process initiated by Kelsey: firstly, we asked participants to state their full name, and secondly we asked again for verbal consent for the usage of their photos, videos, and audio in this project. We additionally reminded participants that consent could be revoked at any time, or if any question made them uncomfortable or they would not like to answer, they were welcome to skip over it.

After this “formalized” part of the interview, Kelsey began asking preliminary questions that had been provided to participants. Each interview held its own nuances; no participants were only asked the predetermined questions. We worked diligently to make the interviews feel conversational with participants to put them at ease, but also to provide a space for reflection and critical care about very difficult questions. Most interviews lasted between 10-15 minutes, although some went as long as 30 minutes as participants teased out the implications of questions surrounding home, diversity, and American life and culture.

Once the formal interview was completed, we asked participants to read a portion of the Hughes poem. Some participants chose to read the whole poem, while others read a few selected stanzas. We did select which sections of the poem participants would read with consent, as we wanted to make sure the entire poem was read by the 10 counties we interviewed in this first phase of the project.

After the completion of participant interviews, we often gathered a few more photos and b-roll, or secondary cutaway footage, of the participant’s space. These shots, designed to provide context and visual interest to the interview footage, also serve to help cover up cuts in the interview. B-roll footage also provides viewers of the project a sense of what the space was like where the interview took place outside of the main narrative interview. This process displayed unique characteristics in every situation. For example, in Chatham County, we interviewed a guitar maker and sound designer who worked on one of his guitars for our b-roll. In Craven County, however, we chatted with a drag king who was participating in a local Mardi Gras festival, so we captured B-roll of the festival. This led to a significant variety of footage, and a mixture of experiences among the interviews.

After completing interviews, we (Kelsey and Margaret) engaged in a reflexive practice where we casually reflected and discussed our experiences during the interviews, sharing what we learned, what we noticed, and how we noticed alignment to other conversations. In doing so, we began to draw out thematic elements from the different interviews and piece together connections between the different participants' answers to the questions. We often tried to engage in this practice when the interview was fresh in our minds so that we were able to capture via Kelsey’s note-taking our most immediate reflections and reactions to the interview. These notes also helped to shape the PubPub website stories where the project now resides.

Once the interviews were collected, the editing process began. We first created a trailer for the project, initially using free b-roll from Pexels, an online repository of video footage. As we began to shoot interviews, we swapped the free footage for project footage. 

Each individual interview was also cut. Each interview was edited down to between 5-8 minutes to provide consistency among the pieces. Music was used from YouTube’s Audio Library, a free online audio resource. After an initial rough cut of the individual interviews were created, they were provided to participants for review and feedback. Some interviewees approved the rough cuts, while others provided minor changes to their videos. Once the changes were made, videos were sent again to their respective interviewees and then subsequently approved.

Once the interviews and trailer were completed, we placed all of the information into a PubPub Legacy community space, or website (https://esse-quam-videri-make-america-again.pubpub.org/). At the time of this project’s development, PubPub’s open-access publishing model prioritized community-based publishing and we were able to compile and produce a publicly accessible resource that would be available to and for the participants, the various communities represented, and the broader state of North Carolina. Importantly, we did not want the videos to be gatekept behind institutional or technological boundaries and barriers, as this would counteract the entire goals and mission of the work. Moreover, due to the robustness of PubPub’s media support and capacities, we were able to include a variety of supplemental materials, including the interview video, as well as pictures, text, and other content. As such, PubPub’s accessible and readily discoverable housing made sharing videos, images, and content quite easy. We were able to create individual pages (or Pubs) for each county that we visited and learned from that showcased the participant and their interview – while also compiling all the participants’ voices together in a compiled poetry reading.

In addition to the participants’ videos and corresponding content focusing on their towns, communities, and counties, we also created educational resources for any viewer to incorporate into their own learning/educational spaces. More specifically, we currently have shared six different educational resources through our PubPub housing (under Teaching and Learning), while emphasizing that anyone can submit additional ideas, lessons, and activities that we will post accordingly. The materials currently compiled include activities like analyzing Hughes’s poem and its use in the world today, how to conduct interviews, a guided analysis of the North Carolina state motto, and more. We believe that these materials would be useful for a variety of communities and audiences – such as students, community historians, academics, and teachers. Through the inclusion of these activities, we hoped to further scaffold and elicit opportunities for discussion and learning about diversity, the United States of America, and how we all belong. 

Anticipatory Outcomes

Through this work and our corresponding methodologies and frameworks, we aimed to create opportunities for reflexivity, celebration, and learning. Below, we define and situate these terms within the scope of this project.

Reflexivity: Drawing upon Donna Haraway’s work in situated knowledges (1988), we make use of her framing of reflexivity as a feminist practice that prioritizes critical reflection and introspection. As Annamma Joy, John E Sherry, GabrieIe Troilo and Jonathan Deschenes define it: “Reflexivity is the act of turning backward, the act of mirroring the self” (2006). As seen in our interview questions, we scaffolded the questions in a manner to begin looking at oneself in relation to a place, that place in relation to others, and then broader (yet more complicated and critical) questions regarding the concepts of diversity and America. Our questions concluded with asking about opportunities for healing - emphasizing the need for such, but also how there is power in the public to be agents of healing. Through this approach, we aimed to meet participants where they were (both physically in their hometowns/chosen locations and critically with their comfort level in having tough conversations).

Celebration: Here we define celebration, quite broadly, as the actionization and centering of joy. Through this work, we strove to elicit opportunities for celebration by asking participants to reflect and share on moments of happiness within their hometowns and places of residence and/or work. Additionally, we hope that communities will celebrate the representation of their county within this project, while also learning from and with other communities.

Learning:  While recognizing the breadth of this term, we framed learning as the demonstration of growth in recognition and understanding - as well as the open-ended opportunities for further growth. As emphasized by our utilization of the Learning for Justice Social Justice Anchor Standards and by providing videos, with participants’ permission and approval, through a public-facing platform, the broad public is able to engage with the conversational interviews to learn more about the various counties that compose our state, but also about an individual person and perspective from that place. Moreover, we developed publicly-accessible discussion question guides, lesson plans, activities, and extension opportunities to help support learning beyond this project to provide learning opportunities for those that were not directly involved in this project - as well as to provide resources for easy-implementation in classrooms (K-12 and higher education) and other spaces that support learning.

Conclusion

In an aquarium, in a bar, in a coffee shop, in a hospital parking lot – no matter the place, we found ourselves engaging in similar conversations. What is this for again? Wow, how many counties do you want to talk to? Can you share the video with me? Time and time again, participants and strangers alike demonstrated surprise, interest, and even joy at the idea of esse quam videri + “make America again.”Our  work elicited opportunities for reflexivity, celebration, and learning for those who participated in the work – as well as those who might engage with the generated content.

Throughout this project, we ourselves learned about the endless skills, personalities, family, occupations, and journeys that compose the broader network of North Carolina. As we anticipated showcasing and documenting the diversity of the state, we were continually shocked and delighted by the stories that individuals shared with us – as well as the degree of openness and vulnerability that people met and embraced us with. Unexpectedly, folks were willing, ready, and excited to share their stories, experiences, and memories with us. In doing so, they painted a picture of themselves, their communities, and their counties – rooted in their own personal lived experience. While every individual North Carolinian could and would offer a unique story and experience, we identify that this work demonstrates the broad capacities of rehumanization. We experienced, first-hand, that conversations like the ones found in the project demonstrate opportunities for shared human space, where listening and learning lead to kinship, celebration and care for one another.

Through this work, we were able to document a project that entirely reflected the 10 different counties in North Carolina, but, more accurately, the 10 different individuals who participated and their own unique, individual experiences. And in doing so, we perhaps found a more genuine depiction of the state: not through documented counties, but through the connections we made with people. Because of this experience, and the outcomes we strove for, we hope that future research will also prioritize public-centered and facing critical making projects that draw upon, and emphasize, collaboration, co-design, community-led and centered, and creation. In doing so, we can strive to fulfill the mission of Hughes’s poem: we must “make America again!” for those it has never been, for those who can learn more from each other, and for us all – for an America that we desperately need.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend gratitude to the various participants involved in this work – for their time, effort, kindness, and generosity. The authors would also like to thank Jason Miller for his continued support and enthusiasm for all things teaching, learning, and North Carolina.

References

Beckers, K. (2019). What vox pops say and how that matters: Effects of vox pops in television news on perceived public opinion and personal opinion. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(4), 980-1003. doi:10.1177/1077699019843852

Design Justice Network. (2016). Design justice network. designjustice.org/

D'Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.

Hertz, G. (2016). What is critical making? Current. current.ecuad.ca/what-is-critical-making

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. doi:10.2307/3178066

Learning for Justice (n.d.). A Framework for Anti-Bias Education. learningforjustice.org/frameworks/social-justice-standards

Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., & Troilo, G. (2006). Writing it up, writing it down: Being reflexive in accounts of consumer behavior. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 345-360). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lee, C. C., Dufresne, K. V., & Relyea, J. (2021). “They are doers”: Writing to advocate with immigrant youth in community-based organizations. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 64(5), 497-509. doi:10.1002/jaal.1131

Lupi, G. (2017). Data humanism: The revolutionary future of data visualization. Print Magazine. printmag.com/article/data-humanism-future-of-data-visualization/

Mitchell, C., & de Lange, N. (2020). Community-based participatory video and social action. In L. Pauwels & D. Mannay (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (2nd ed., pp. 254-266). SAGE Publications.

Prather, P. (2014). I am see-through: Participatory video making as a method for social change in the Mississippi Delta[Master's thesis, University of Mississippi]. EGrove.

The Inclusive Design Research Centre. (n.d.). The inclusive design guide. OCAD University. Retrieved May 10, 2022, from guide.inclusivedesign.ca/

White, S. A. (2003). Involving people in a participatory process. In S. A. White (Ed.), Participatory video: Images that transform and empower (pp. 33-62). SAGE Publications.

Notes

1. As of present (October 2024): PubPub is currently undergoing infrastructural changes that will affect future (and past) communities. We are unsure of how these changes will impact our work, but we remain committed to sharing this work openly and as accessible as we can.