Thinking about digital media and sexual health communication Part Two
Hello new subcribers!
This is clearly going to be a series, because it’s a central obsession as I move into the final year of my Future Fellowship (which I will write about properly in my next post).
I’m very aware that most research is very backwards-facing. Academics (myself included) do lots of reading and talk with/listen to lots of people.
But by the time we publish, the insights are a year (or two years) old.
This makes it very hard to make concrete recommendations that support current practice, or underpin strategic planning. I’m aware this is not helpful for industry partners.
Obviously I don’t have a crystal ball, There’s not much point saying ‘I research digital sexual and reproductive health communication’ if I can’t have useful conversations with health practitioners about things that are actually happening in the here and now.
So, in Part One, I reflected on some of my past published work that drew on journalism and digital media research and industry practice to think about what contemporary digital sexual and reproductive health communication does and doesn’t do well.
In this post I’m sharing some things I’ve been reading, listening to, and thinking about lately.
But I share them with a couple of caveats.
Caveat 1: This is a post based on vibes, it’s not an academic journal article or keynote. I’m not going to provide lots of citations, but feel free to hassle me in the comments.
Caveat 2: I reserve the right to change my mind about anything I say here.
That said:
I spent the first part of my Fellowship intensely focused on learning more about how public health/sexual and reproductive health practitioners understand ‘data’ and ‘the digital’.
Now the first outputs from that stage are getting close to publication, I’m re-focused on how professionals in media, visual and performing arts and other creative industries are thinking about digital communication.
Things that are currently helping me think:
1) I really liked this post from the One Thing newsletter team, because it grapples with the rapid changes we’re seeing now on digital platforms.
It undermines the idea of ‘rules’ (what even are they?) even as it offers us a list to grapple with:
🟧 The new rules of media - One Thing
20 lessons for digital media’s present and future
2) This panel - hosted by the Australian Centre for the Moving Image as part of their annual Future of Arts, Culture and Technology Symposium - was super interesting.
The presenters included senior digital strategists, reflecting on what they learned about engaging with audiences in the chaotic ‘pivot to digital’ during the 2020-2021 COVID lockdowns.
The discussion (beautifully facilitated by ACMI’s Dr. Indigo Holcombe-Jones) was recorded and can be viewed via the link, along with a graphic representation of some of the main points:
Future of Media - FACT 2025 Symposium | ACMI: Your museum of screen culture
ACMI is Australia's national museum of screen culture, located in Fed Square, Melbourne. Navigate the universe of film, TV, videogames and art with us.
First reflections
Like these writers/presenters, the sexual and reproductive health sector is grappling with new forms of communication practice, in rapidly evolving digital ecosystems that are driven by (hostile) market forces.
I was particularly struck by the way the Sydney Opera House’s Stuart Buchanan discussed the changes in the ways the institution has come to think about itself and its constituents because of it’s new digital practices.
There has clearly been a lot of thinking about the meaning and purpose of the digital side of the House’s work.
I could see many elements that could transfer really productively to sexual and reproductive health contexts.
For example, is digital outreach primarily a means of inviting existing audiences or consituents in, ie by creating information-based or BTS (behind the scenes) content?)
Or is it means of connecting with communities and subcultures who may not already feel engaged by reaching out ie by commissioning content from local artists and media creators ?
Or is there space for both? - ie the Opera House deliberately commissioned new work from creators who might not usually work/perform in their theatres.
They then hosted a launch where the digital work was screened for friends and family at a place-based event as well as being streamed online.
This is quite different from using digital content purely for marketing purposes. The decision-making involved reflections on institutional traditions and re-surfacing of institutional memories.
There was space for both continuity (the Opera House once had a cinema), and discontinuity and experimentation.
I’m sure many sexual and reproductive health organisations are already working in this way, but it’s not something I see much of in the academic or industry-focused ‘digital health’ literature.