Online Video Repositories
I began writing about online video repositories, OVRs, several years ago and published
Online Video Repositories are comprised of aggregated videos which can be streamed to users on demand. They are created by diverse entities--individuals, instructors, colleges, non-profits, corporations, governments--for diverse purposes: self-expression, commercial, ideological, etc. Those meant to inform or educate are of particular interest to us. Their physical presence on the Internet range from large, extensive websites, such as The Sociological Cinema to only a channel on a user-sharing site, such as YouTube or TikTok, or appearance in a blog. Access ranges from open (free) to pay-walled or otherwise restricted (such as Kanopy to which many university libraries subscribe).
Online Video Repositories (OVRs) are created by diverse entities (individuals, corporations, non-profits, governments) for varied purposes (art, entertainment, commerce, politics). Those that are educational in nature are of specific interest to us, and our attention is largely directed to them. By far, most OVRs of this type are video channels on user-sharing platforms, and virtually all of these are on YouTube. OVRs that also engage in video curation, on the other hand, tend to be located on either full websites or blogs, both of which better accommodate textual features such as tag collections and hypertext links to other resources.
OVRs accompanied by explicit learning instructions can have exceptional utility for adopting instructors. The Sociological Cinema and Popular Sociology, the two major sociology sites based on collaborative curation (i.e., user-submitted video) have their own websites which feature teaching applications accompanying linked videos. Nevertheless, OVR creators generally do not include directions on how their videos might be used.
A significant dimension of OVR curation relates to the type of sourced content. OVRs are primarily comprised of original video and/or found video. The former is new video produced by or for OVR developers, often in the form of lecture, speech, and interview captures, video lectures and tutorials, and concept explainers. Found video is appropriated from elsewhere online. It may include any of the types of film just mentioned that are created by others in addition to news stories and movies, TV programs, and documentaries or clips derived from them. Found video as gathered in OVRs can be understood to be curational to the extent that developers say something meaningful about them. Hybrid or remix video is a third less common type which combines found-video clips in new video form made by the OVR creator, and is often used for purposes of videographic criticism or social protest (see the discussion on detournement at Andrist et al (2014)).
In general, OVRs are open access in the sense of being available at no cost to users, and that is particularly the case for educational OVRs where audiences range from just students of instructors all the way up to large bodies of diverse collectivities--students, other instructors, and those outside academia. However, access to video from many for-profit OVRs is often limited by paywalls, although nonsubscribers can sometimes freely view much of that content through parallel YouTube channels. Instructors and students can likewise tap into huge collections of documentary film, such as those at Alexander Street, Kanopy, and Films On Demand, through subscriptions purchased by their college libraries. While increasing numbers of students are no doubt being asked to take out semester-long subscriptions to popular streaming sites, such as Netflix, instructors should become aware of no-cost alternative shorts and full-length collections as identified on our OVR Documentaries RSS page.
Additional ways OVRs can be differentiated for curation purposes include quantitative distinctions (video number, video length, recency of upload), as well as qualitative ones--discipline and subfield relevance, video format (filmed, photo presentation, animation, etc.), and types of information conveyed in video relevant to specific learning goals (see Andrist et al 2014). Finally, curator assessment of YouTube collections, as well as single videos from them, can be augmented by audience-response indicators, such as "likes," viewer and subscriber numbers, and viewer comments.
What will be involved in curating an OVR?
Curating an OVR can range from providing basic description of website or video channel up to including indepth analysis of video content available through the site.
For this assignment I am asking you to collect a variety of simple information that you should be able to glean from the site, and additionally, to generate understandings about some of the video content at the site that will require greater attention and thought from you.
OVR Name
OVR URL
Creator Name
Creator Background
Quantitative Measures
1. Start Date
2. video #
3. video length range (list 2 longest and 2 shortest)
4. recency of upload (list most recent 2 videos)
5. subscriber #
6. video "likes" (top 2 with upload dates))
Qualitative Measures
1. identify the major kinds of sociological ideas and concepts in these videos.
2. videos are in what kind format: animation, ppt with voiceover, filmed by video camera, camera stills...
3. types of information: lecture, interview, speech, filmed action...
4. target audience: students, sociologists, nonsociologists, nontargeted audience...
Video Assessment
1. review 30 minutes worth...
Video Curation Dimensions
In performing this review, we first identified relevant
websites, and then distilled general features. Sites were located through
search and discovery engines, video aggregators, Twitter, and posts in Dan
Colman’s excellent educational multimedia website Open Culture (e.g., Marshall,
2014). We searched MERLOT, the largest online collection of peer-reviewed free
higher education teaching resources, and likewise examined articles available
about specific sites (e.g., Caldeira & Ferrante, 2012; Macfarlane, Harrison,
& Turin, 2005). We also employed the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to
examine websites no longer online, although those that are archived do not
exactly mirror their former live versions (Brugger, 2009). Finally, we
contacted many OVR developers by email to resolve questions we had about their
websites.
In describing OVRs, we consider website background, video
characteristics, and website features. Relevant to background, we
provide a hypertext link to the repository and identify the developer(s). We
tried to determine motives for site creation and source of financial support.
We also specify date of site initiation and indicate whether the site continues
to upload new video materials. For all but recently initiated sites, the last
full year (2018) was the benchmark in terms of persistence of activity. The
last year in which content was added is specified for developers who did not
augment content during 2018. We should also note that all hypertext links
appearing in the article were live as of January 15, 2019.2
Video characteristics relate to the quantity of videos at the site (N), type of video content provided, and a link to a sample video from the repository. Identifying the source of the content is also important, given the distinction between original videos (those created by developers themselves to present a didactic message), edited videos (those edited by developers from DVDs or existing online videos, typically copied from popular television series or movies), and found videos (those produced by others that are already available on the Internet, either linked directly to source origin or embedded within the OVR). These preparation forms stand in contrast to referral, the dominant way copyrighted film content was treated on the Web before the rise of streaming technology and OVRs.
We should note that types of content source are treated
differently under copyright law. Although website developers who make their
videos are not restricted, those working with found or edited content should be
mindful of legal constraints if such content is used without permission of
owner. Found video can be legitimately distributed by OVRs without permission
if made available to users via hypertext link to source. However, under fair
use, legitimate employment of edited copyrighted content comes with standards
related to purpose, length, and other considerations (see Jaszi &
Aufderheide, 2008).
Pairing clips with instructional applications is important
for using video in the classroom, especially for sites employing found or
edited content. Whereas original-content sites are typically populated with explainer
videos, in which teaching points are explicitly incorporated, such points
generally do not reside within found and edited media. That is, while a scene
from a TV show or movie illustrates a concept in the developer’s mind, it may
not be apparent to others. Commenting on the value of using found and edited
video in sociology, Andrist et al. (2014) write, “Our own experience suggests
that students generally find those not explicitly created for teaching
sociology more compelling. In a similar way that archeologists can better
engage students by using real artifacts discovered in situ, video taken from
the ‘real world’ can be used by sociologists to imaginatively demonstrate
sociological ideas. Yet, without their content being framed … such videos are
likely to remain untapped” (p. 203). Consequently, we address website
characteristics in terms of the extent to which teaching and learning
suggestions are applied to video content either within the clip itself or
through text commentary. Also we determine whether OVRs help users locate
videos within the site, facilitate user sharing with followers, and encourage
user interaction or user participation in site development. Recognition of OVRs
in the broader literature, including awards received, is likewise noted.
1.
Website background
2.
Website features
playlist
3.
Video characteristics