Optimizing empowerment and equality in media-based practice: A Longwe framework of media communication

Abstract

The WHO's framework of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) is applied in this paper—to conceptualize how empowerment can be optimized in existing media practices towards equity and development. Sara Hlupekile Longwe's concept of stepwise empowerment mobilized by the CSDH proposes basic livelihood; self-sufficiency; critical consciousness; participation and decision-making; and co-control of systems, structures, and institutions as five stages of empowerment. Key considerations for media studies as it relates to global development includes how: 1) media may be mobilized by marginalized individuals to meet financial needs; 2) media can simultaneously contribute to participant-education while demobilizing real-world self-sufficiency; 3) media is well-positioned for conscientization if information provides participants greater leverage to tangibly change inequalities; 4) media can potentially enhance participatory decision-making amidst risks of polarization; and how 5) media may consider outcomes aligning with the CSDH's call for redistribution of social resources to the disadvantaged.

Keywords

ICT4D social justice mental health equity diversity & inclusion participatory action methodology SDG 10: reduced inequalities SDG 17: partnerships for the goals

Introduction

Across various disciplines of engagement with digital media, media is increasingly used in research with the objective of empowerment (Bergsma, 2004) as a tool that is accessible across the lifespan (Green et al., 2021). Scholarly notions of empowerment tend to highlight enhancing individuals’ knowledge, skills, and confidence to participate actively in decision-making, towards eventual self-advocacy (Schmidt et al., 2020). The utility of empowerment is evident in participatory approaches that engage communities in identifying their needs, priorities, and desired solutions, all of which media can contribute to (Roura, 2021). Empowerment-focused approaches may build capacity and foster a sense of ownership and control over community development initiatives, thereby empowering individuals and communities to address the underlying determinants of health (Nagorcka-Smith et al., 2022). To consider the nuances of empowerment through media, the following outlines a conceptual framework as opposed to empirical report—with limitations reviewed in the methodology section of the paper.

Literature review

Media can play a role in contributing to empowerment and is increasingly mobilized in arts-based (Hammond et al., 2018), community-based (Coemans et al., 2015), and participatory research methodologies (Buckingham, 2015). At base level, media may contribute to empowerment through providing access to new perspectives and knowledge. Targeted information-dissemination can empower individuals to engage in informed decision-making and civic participation (McCosker and Johns, 2014). Beyond dissemination, media platforms may serve as spaces for reciprocal dialogue and debate, allowing communities to exchange ideas, challenge dominant narratives, and advocate for change (Podkalicka et al., 2024). With regard to empowerment of marginalized groups, media can contribute to empowerment by amplifying voices and highlighting stories of resistance and resilience. Through new representation in media narratives, marginalized communities can challenge stereotypes (Ory et al., 2003) and make more visible demands for equity (Hanusch, 2007). Media which draw focus to the social determinants of health—such as poverty, discrimination, and access to care—may enhance public support for what constitutes more systemic change (Young, 2020). In combination, media can serve as a tool for advocacy and mobilization, enabling marginalized communities to organize collective action (Greijdanus et al., 2020), raise awareness about social injustices (Hegarty and Tarzia, 2019), and sustain collaborative efforts towards equity (Welch et al., 2016).

Approach

The approach to theory in this conceptual paper is grounded in critical traditions in which media is viewed with its numerous ties to social equity and social justice themes in research. Within this approach on media studies, particular attention is dedicated to account for the ways power and identity are negotiated through communicative infrastructures; consequently, theory is treated as a situated framework responsive to how diverse forms of intersectional social marginalization may help inform media studies. Reflective practice, notably, is often influenced by positionality, and the following may further inform the theoretical conceptualization performed in this paper. As a brief overview of positionality, I am a second-generation immigrant of Central Asian Indigenous descent, with decolonization of surname from the official language of my birth place only emerging through tracing of familial lineage. While childhood asthma was among the key triggers that prompted immigration to a geography with more suitable air quality, I did not identify with having a disability until a spontaneous pneumothorax during my undergraduate revealed a physiological birth disorder affecting the lungs. This has led to over 60 spontaneous lung collapses in my twenties as I worked in international development and community-based media solutions towards health equity. Most importantly, I am informed by my practitioner experience with rural families living with disabilities in the global south, and hope to contribute to equitable access to quality-of-life within the diverse community of people living with disabilities. I also acknowledge the grace and land ownership of the various Indigenous nations in Canada which has allowed our family to be a part of their land as immigrants, and I have received nurturing from various Indigenous individuals in Burnaby, Winnipeg, and Ottawa throughout various stages in life.

Theoretical framework of the commission on social determinants of health

The Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) is a global initiative aimed at addressing the root causes of health inequities; since its inception, the CSDH has played a crucial role in advocating for the integration of a social-determinants approach into policies at both national and international levels (Plamondon et al., 2020). While media has not been directly considered as a determinant, the CSDH offers an integrated framework to conceptualize the current trends in media-based research and practice. With significant scholarship relating media to the concept of power, the centrality of power and empowerment in the CSDH framework presents inherent intersection for analysis. “Social participation and empowerment” is among the CSDH's “three key strategic directions for policy work to tackle the social determinants of health”; among these considerations, the CSDH emphasizes that inequities are not natural nor inevitable—but are the result of social and political structures in power that distribute resources and opportunities unequally (CSDH, 2010). To conceptualize empowerment, the CSDH draws directly from the academic theories of Sara Hlupekile Longwe, Iris Marion Young, and Paulo Freire—whose work on critical consciousness or conscientization has seen considerable application in development research (Fernández-Aballí Altamirano, 2020). The following sections follow Longwe's five-step empowerment (1991) mobilized by CSDH, towards identifying key directions for future media research and practice.

With regard to the sustainable development goals, Longwe's work and emphasis on survival has long been applied in relation to SDG 1: No poverty; SDG 2: Zero hunger; SDG 3: Good health and wellbeing; and SDG 6: Clean water and sanitation. Notably, Longwe considers these essential needs of economic viability, food, health, and water in relation to empowerment of women and girls towards reduction of disparities in outcomes, making SDG 5: Gender equality a central, underlying paradigm. Specific to this paper, survival is considered in relation to media as development tool beyond ICT4D—with emphasis on how media can contribute to empowerment of individuals marginalized by gender in addition to potential statuses of race, indigenous ancestry, socioeconomic status, and disability. SDG 10: Reduced inequalities, therefore, forms the base inquiry of the media-framework considered below.

Results

Media-based empowerment & basic livelihood

The CSDH describes Longwe's concept of empowerment as a “step-wise, progressive” process, in which the elimination of critical earlier steps may hinder empowerment outcomes (2010). The first prerequisite of empowerment considered is welfare, which offers participants a fair opportunity at meeting their basic needs. The CSDH further emphasizes that this first step in empowerment “does not necessarily require structural causes to be addressed and tends to assume that those involved are passive recipients”. In other words, there is limited value in assuming that participants are given an opportunity to be self-sufficient when daily livelihood presents dire risks to wellbeing (Braveman and Gruskin, 2003).

The first implication for media-based empowerment is that the CSDH suggests acknowledging the limits of media in meeting participant needs. Research studies or interventions designed to empower participants as media creators may be successful in amplifying marginalized voices, but often cannot enhance participants’ access to basic livelihood. Notably, oftentimes empowerment initiatives which do not mobilize media also cannot offer basic livelihood as the CSDH's proposed first step in empowerment. Financial or economic concerns intersecting with media, however, emerge with specific implications given current scholarship. While new media platforms have significantly lowered barriers to creating and disseminating media content, there is a potential binary in which empowerment and access to livelihood are positioned antithetically via media creation.

Profitable media creation often relies on an individual's capacity to conform to societal norms and trends—regardless of potential implications on equality. One way in which media platforms encourage conformity is through the algorithmic curation of content, which consistently rewards adherence to select trends, formats, and esthetics (Bucher, 2012). Media platforms’ recommendation systems often prioritizes content that generates high engagement metrics such as likes, shares, and comments, incentivizing creators to emulate successful content styles and subject-matter in order to access visibility and reach (Marwick and Boyd, 2011). Consequently, creators may feel compelled to conform to dominant trends and norms in order to gain recognition and validation from peers and followers (Noble, 2020)—regardless of whether this content is disempowering, or presents direct risks to themselves (Richards et al., 2015).

Algorithmic control is further compounded by the culture of influencer marketing and brand sponsorship (Alipour et al., 2024), which amplifies neoliberal intersections with content-creation (Abidin, 2018). As creators seek to build online presence and attract brand partnerships, individuals may tailor content to align with the preferences and values of potential sponsors—in turn sacrificing authenticity and critical engagement in media creation (Di Domenico et al., 2021). Pressure to produce commercially successful content that appeals to advertisers and consumer audiences can limit the diversity of voices and perspectives represented in newly created media, thus perpetuating mainstream narratives and reinforcing marginalization of alternative viewpoints (Hesmondhalgh, 2018). As examples, content which objectifies bodies and genders (Ward, 2016), or polarizes perspectives based on race and ethnicity (Matamoros-Fernández and Farkas, 2021) are among those which receive high views—but directly intersect with the social determinants of health towards negative outcomes.

New media's emphasis on visual esthetics and performance-oriented content can prioritize style over substance, leading to a focus on surface-level entertainment rather than meaningful dialogue or critical reflection (Postman, 2005). Short-form video format and fast-paced editing techniques encourage rapid consumption and instant gratification, discouraging viewers and creators alike from engaging in deeper analysis or nuanced discussion of complex issues (Rahat et al., 2022). Content creators who wish to access basic livelihood may adhere to these conventions in order to produce content that is visually appealing, entertaining, and thus potentially deemed as “easily digestible” (Alias and Razak, 2024).

Research has also documented how new media's algorithmic filtering and moderation practices can establish echo chambers (Terren and Borge-Bravo, 2021) and filter bubbles (Interian et al., 2023)—in which profitable perspectives are reinforced with strategic elimination of differing voices. Research notes that tailored content recommendations can strengthen existing biases and normalize harmful perspectives (Helmond, 2015). These perspectives may either intersect with the social determinants of health or known risks, such as documentation of how echo chambers can normalize—for entire online communities—sexual violence (Czerwinsky, 2024) or youth suicide (Ferguson, 2021).

In combination, the CSDH framework suggests that media presents diverse utilities towards empowerment—but should be acknowledged as insufficient in meeting the first step in empowerment towards equitable development. Notably, media is not the only empowerment tool which may be insufficient in meeting welfare as the first step of empowerment. While media can bring financial resources to individuals, intentional positioning of media as means for participants to acquire basic livelihood emerges with diverse risks which can undermine the empowerment process.

Media-based empowerment & self-sufficiency

The second step of empowerment involves providing access to means of independence, which may include elements such as “education, land and credit” under the CSDH framework. The CSDH further emphasizes that empowerment should “assure” access, as opposed to merely improving access (2010); without a level of guarantee in this second level of empowerment, individuals are not truly empowered but rather forced to depend upon other agents who provide basic livelihood. While existing literature in education (Kozma, 1991), empowerment education (Hesse-Biber et al., 2006), and education of development professionals (Pattanaik and Pattnaik, 2019) involve media as teaching tools, there is simultaneous risk that media disconnects or demobilizes individuals from self-sufficiency.

At base level, media may contribute to this phenomenon through normalizing content that promotes consumerism and materialism (Lenka, 2014). By glamorizing lifestyles of wealth, luxury, and excess, media messages create unrealistic expectations and desires for material possessions, leading individuals to prioritize consumption as opposed to self-sufficiency (Richins, 1995). Media with empowerment intent, in comparison, may become less attractive to consume when the element of consumerist glamor is removed. How media with empowerment intent either 1) compares to other easily accessible forms of media, or 2) potentially increases participants’ inadvertent exposure to sponsorships and advertisements emerge as critical queries under the CSDH framework.

Media consumption can trap individuals in cycles of passive consumption, in turn diverting attention and resources away from real-world action towards education or employment (Spitzer, 2014). Media consumption can also serve as a form of escapism or distraction from real-world challenges and responsibilities; as such, scholarship documents that media has long been mobilized as easily accessible reprieve from stress and anxiety (Zillmann and Bryant, 2013). With the proliferation of media platforms and on-demand content, the immersive and addictive nature of media can lead to excessive screen time and passive consumption habits, in turn displacing time and energy that could be invested in educational pursuits or employment opportunities (Twenge, 2017). This is compounded by constant stimulation and instant gratification, both of which may hinder individuals’ ability to concentrate and engage in long-term goal setting and planning (Lodge and Harrison, 2019).

Media consumption is also shown to perpetuate social comparison and self-esteem issues, leading individuals to prioritize image management and self-presentation over actual personal growth and development (Vogel et al., 2015). Social media platforms, in particular, facilitate constant comparison with curated lived experiences, which can reinforce feelings of inadequacy, envy, and insecurity (Tandoc Jr et al., 2015). Research further documents the psychosocial concept of fear of missing out, in which the addiction to stay updated on social circles prevents individuals from disconnecting from media consumption (Fioravanti et al., 2021). In combination, pressure to maintain a favorable online persona can become time-consuming efforts which distract individuals from pursuing meaningful goals and accomplishments in the real world (Vogel et al., 2014). This intersects with the CSDH's first stage of empowerment, as individuals are taught to establish a prerequisite of followers as media creators if any profit towards basic livelihood is to be secured.

Two key implications emerge from the CSDH framework. First of all, media has significant capacity to connect individuals to real-world knowledge and tangible actions given the body of research on media-based pedagogies—while presenting simultaneous potential to confine individuals in vicarious, performative, or virtual experiences. Media with empowerment intent should therefore be strategic in design and presentation to ensure real-world impacts can be secured after media consumption. Second, the CSDH's emphasis on assured access is particularly relevant to media-based empowerment. Education scholars have long noted how education can involve investment without guaranteed rewards of self-sufficiency nor basic livelihood (Bourdieu, 2018); in turn, media may emerge as easily accessible respite from this uncertainty and anxiety.

Media & conscientization

The third level of empowerment considered by the CSDH is conscientization, which is central to Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed first published in 1968. In this stage of empowerment, individuals are 1) no longer struggling with basic survival; and 2) no longer dependent on other agents for their own survival. The CSDH suggests that individuals are then well-positioned for “awareness-raising,” in which “structural and institutional discrimination is addressed.” Freire emphasizes that conscientization or critical consciousness (2020) should be offered so that individuals are liberated from false visions of what creates inequalities—as a first step towards being able to make changes to inequitable realities (2020). The CSDH considers Iris Marion Young's notion of “structural oppression”—originating from systems or structures that well-intentioned people participate in collectively on a daily basis (Young, 2020). As such, the ability to see inequalities and underlying imbalances in power may not always be granted to individuals who belong to marginalized groups.

Via the dissemination of information, media can play a central role in conscientization as the third step of empowerment. Raising awareness about systemic inequalities, challenging dominant narratives, and fostering dialogue and debate about social justice issues may be facilitated by media to help contribute to conscientization (Dahlgren, 2013). As specific examples, investigative grassroots journalism and documentaries can help bring visibility to on-the-ground lived experiences of inequalities (Vujnovic and Kruckeberg, 2018). Theoretical analysis suggests that the presence of these narratives does not automatically contribute to empowerment—especially when there is no conflict with pre-existing perspectives (Mezirow, 2018). Freire emphasizes that new information should expose, contradict, and therefore have a chance at changing already-normalized ideologies which have led to the persistence of inequalities (2000). Additionally, Freirean theory of conscientization involves challenging information that intends for audiences to “adapt” to existing inequalities, thus deprioritizing information that actually arms audiences with skills to change inequalities.

Conversely, media can perpetuate false information and create distorted visions of reality that reinforce systemic inequalities and perpetuate oppressive ideologies. Mainstream media outlets naturally intersect with profit-making as a private industry, and thus may prioritize sensationalism and audience engagement over accuracy, truthfulness, and fairness (McChesney, 2008). Significant scholarship documents media representations which perpetuates stereotypes of biases against marginalized communities (Easteal et al., 2015; Ellis and Goggin, 2017; Van Dijk, 1989). In addition to skewed information, there is potential in which media directly facilitates the spread of false information (Tsfati et al., 2020). Proliferation of fake news and misinformation campaigns alters public opinion and skews political discourse, thus undermining democratic processes and exacerbating social divisions (Lewandowsky and Van Der Linden, 2021). In combination, there are significant patterns of framing social problems in individualistic terms or blaming the victims of systemic injustices, towards concealing the structural roots of inequality (Hayvon, 2024, 2025).

When media is created for the purpose of empowerment, the level of control which researchers or development professionals hold over the information contained suggests that the aforementioned risks can be easily reduced. Reflective practice which helps reduce researchers’ own biases (Mortari, 2015) in their content-creation or media creation is but one tool which can reorient media as platforms of conscientization. The CSDH's third level of empowerment emerges with specific relevance to media-based empowerment, as media inherently is well-positioned to challenge old ideas by presenting new perspectives. The CSDH recommends that information should extend beyond the individual level to consider “structural” and “institutional” sources of inequalities (2010), as well as incorporate Freirean concepts of providing sufficient information that serves as leverage—to empower participants towards not just knowing but tangibly changing relevant structures and institutions.

Media and research participation

The fourth stage of empowerment cited by the CSDH is described as “the participation and mobilization level: where the equal taking of decisions is enabled” (2010). Participatory research methodologies often involve this level of empowerment, which aligns with the CSDH's conceptualization of “more positive, creative aspects of power, based on collective action.” Participants who are engaged in designing the research question, research procedures, and the research outputs may thus be more empowered to change existing lived experiences of inequalities (Mannell et al., 2025).

Media can play a significant role in improving access to research participation by enhancing sampling, recruitment strategies, and methods of participation. At base level, media may facilitate diverse and representative sampling by reaching a wide audience in digital spaces beyond physical geographic barriers (Topolovec-Vranic and Natarajan, 2016). Additionally, targeted recruitment campaigns can be tailored to specific demographic groups or communities, to help ensure that samples are more reflective of the inequality to be examined (Vos et al., 2024). By leveraging multimedia formats such as infographics, researchers may effectively communicate complex information in a visually appealing and accessible manner (Sarter, 2006). Media platforms may also offer opportunities for interactive engagement and feedback, allowing potential participants to engage dialogically with researchers in real-time (Wirtz et al., 2018).

Notably, this increased capacity of participation in research through media cannot be assumed to be equitable. Significant research notes a digital divide, in which access to digital connection and inherent capacity to use digital technologies can create inequalities on their own (Cullen, 2001; Lythreatis et al., 2022). There is also value to consider whether media facilitates true participation when more than one individual emerges in the same digital space. Inequitable power dynamics are known to permeate media spaces, with a significant concentration of scholarship on the topic of direct cybervictimization. Research indicates that cybervictimization disproportionately affects marginalized groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ + individuals, and individuals with disabilities (Stoll and Block, 2015). With regard to direct health outcomes, cybervictimization can have serious consequences including psychological distress, social isolation, and suicidal ideation (Nixon, 2014). In addition to cybervictimization, online participation is also shaped by the phenomenon of online polarization, whereby individuals and groups become increasingly divided into ideological communities and engage in hostile, adversarial interactions with those who hold opposing views (Valensise et al., 2023). One significant factor associated with media-based engagement is a culture of impunity that is fostered by anonymity and distance between participants (Relly, 2021). The absence of face-to-face contact reduces empathetic responses, enabling individuals to engage in discrimination without immediate repercussions (Barlińska et al., 2013).

The CSDH framework highlights that media-based empowerment can easily facilitate more diverse participation, although the role of the researcher remains critical. Power dynamics which lead to marginalization, self-censorship, and polarization of perspectives require researchers to eliminate their own contributions to such trends noted in digital spaces. The digital divide also remains to be addressed, as increasing reliance on media for research participation can create tangible enhancements of participatory efforts—which in turn may conceal the inadvertent omission of individuals challenged by digital accessibility.

Media and participatory control

The final step of the CSDH's cited framework is control; whereas the CSDH describes this as “individuals [making] decisions and are fully recognized and rewarded” (2010), Longwe's original framework presents greater detail. First and foremost, there is value in considering how research participation results in recognition of individuals - as well as how new solutions can ensure rewards are not inequitably distributed between academics and community members who make the research possible. Longwe's vision of the final level of empowerment involves marginalized groups co-controlling systems, structures, and institutions which have historically created relevant inequalities. Arguably, this level of empowerment is beyond the reach of most research and community development initiatives. There is nonetheless value to acknowledge how this final step of empowerment aligns with the CSDH's emphasis on “changing the distribution of power within society” as a central objective in all equity projects.

Limitations

Longwe's framework, originally developed to assess gender empowerment in development contexts, outlines five progressive levels: welfare (basic needs), access, conscientization (critical consciousness), participation, and control. While the model offers a clean scaffold for evaluating empowerment processes, there is value in considering how application to media-based empowerment in broader, non-gender-specific contexts may be approached with both strategic adaptation and critical caution.

Primarily, the strength of Longwe's framework lies in its clarity and progression—offering practitioners a layered understanding of how empowerment can evolve from material provision of sustenance to structural influence. In media contexts, these levels can effectively map how marginalized individuals move from engaging with content, to producing their own narratives, and potentially co-governing infrastructures which modify their experiences of empowerment or equality. For instance, applying the model in Indigenous media contexts or youth digital engagement initiatives may help trace shifts from passive reception to collective media authorship and platform ownership; yet applying Longwe's model beyond gender can risk oversimplification, especially when empowerment is treated as a linear or universal process. Recent critiques of empowerment frameworks (Chaudhry, 2019; Colder Carras et al., 2023) highlight how empowerment is often co-opted by institutions or mobilized to develop an impression of progress. As such, empowerment may become adopted as a checklist rather than a transformative, context-specific struggle. Longwe's model, if uncritically applied, holds potential to contribute to this problem—especially when power is assumed to be gained naturally through stage-wise progression rather than contested.

Moreover, Longwe's model was rooted in a feminist analysis of gendered power, focusing on women's marginalization within patriarchal systems. Applying it to broader issues—such as race, indigeneity, or disability—will benefit from intersectional sensitivity. Cause and type of disempowerment may differ: as base baseline example, simply overcoming the digital divide in terms of digital infrastructure may not translate into participation due to linguistic exclusion or algorithmic bias. A rigid application of Longwe's five levels may not capture these nuances and will benefit from further participant involvement throughout a media-based solution.

Lastly, a limitation exists in the assumption that all participants are capable of being moved toward the final stage of co-control. In certain contexts, contesting this level of empowerment may expose participants to certain levels of increased oppression or risks to wellbeing—as there is limited rationale in assuming that co-control is freely accessed. Significant nuance exists in considering whether the immediate foregoing of the fifth tier is optimal, or whether it constitutes confined empowerment. Future scholarship which prioritizes the long-term sustainability of co-control in addition to the wellbeing of participants will bring significant value.

Conclusion

With growing mobilization of media as research methodology; tool for education and pedagogy; and direct community development (Sweet et al., 2013), the CSDH framework suggests value in considering how media contributes to—or potentially hinders—empowerment. Table 1 summarizes the implications along the five-step framework of empowerment cited by the CSDH, towards supporting future initiatives which aim to centralize the objective of equitable community development.

Table 1.

Media and empowerment conceptualized along the Longwe and CSDH frameworks.

Level of empowerment	Implications for media-based research and practice
1. Basic livelihood	Media should be openly acknowledged as insufficient in meeting the needs of basic livelihood for participants Media projects which intersect with profit-generation towards supporting basic livelihood can be valuable, though risks associated with what bring profit on media-creation platforms should be carefully considered
2. Self-sufficiency	Media can contribute to education of participants, which may help them meet their basic needs without reliance on external agents At the same time, media should be acknowledged for its potential to demobilize participants from real-world action This demobilization is inherently linked to the existing structure of education and employment systems, in which marginalized individuals may invest their time and effort but not be rewarded with guarantee of financial independence Media operates under these macro-level structures, and thus can emerge with addictive potential for marginalized participants
3. Critical consciousness	Media is well-positioned to support this level of empowerment in which individuals are given full vision of what creates inequalities, no matter how hidden, macro-level, or embedded within systems and structures Media can amplify marginalized voices, while at the same time being used to deliver and disseminate misinformation Media intending to empower via critical consciousness, under original Freirean theory, can move beyond informing participants that an inequality exists Rather, media should grant participants information that allows them to tangibly change systems and structures which result in inequalities
4. Participation and Decision-making	Media can easily enhance participation in research, though this is still hindered by the digital divide Researchers and health professionals should be aware of how online or digital spaces still can foster inequitable power relationships - and, according to existing scholarship, may foster these inequitable relationships to greater extremes Successful utilization of media towards increasing participation is worthwhile, although there is value in noting how these successes can conceal the omission of groups who face barriers in digital access
5. Co-control of systems, structures, and institutions	Media-based empowerment presents more minimal leverage for participants to be empowered at this level Researchers and development professionals may, nonetheless, acknowledge this as a critical goal - and help participants to move beyond mere decision-making in research projects

With regard to considerations of how each of the tiers in the Longwe framework can be made more concrete, Table 2 below summarizes specific empirical studies in media research and empowerment which may help illustrate the application of tiers. Relevance to the themes is first briefly considered, then supplemented with an empirical description to provide context-embedded comparison. Towards optimizing the applied value of the framework, there is notably a current lack of empirical studies in which participants are explicitly granted co-control of systems, structures, and institutions via media-based engagement. This may speak to both challenges of empowerment at the fifth tier–given its progressive nature requiring solid foundations of the prior four tiers—or the fact that the Longwe framework has not yet been fully explored to its maximum potential in existing empirical literature.

Table 2.

Cases of empirical studies illustrating utility of first four themes in the longwe framework of Media empowerment.

Empowerment level	Study & thematic application	Empirical description	Key nuances
Basic survival	Impact of exposure to mass media on female empowerment: evidence from India. Media supports women's autonomy and economic participation but does not directly provide material resources; it acts as a catalyst for survival-related knowledge and action.	Using India's NFHS data, this econometric study analyzes how mass media exposure influences women's empowerment indicators such as decision-making, mobility, and financial autonomy. Instrumental variables address endogeneity, revealing stronger effects in rural settings and demonstrating that individuals marginalized by gender, geography, and class are active participants in media-enabled interventions.	Nuances: Media exposure alone may not resolve resource deficits; empowerment-gains remain fragile without structural reforms (education, safety, income). Causality, though instrumented, may still reflect unobserved heterogeneity. Media messages may reinforce patriarchal norms depending on content. Access disparities (electricity, literacy, language) risk overstating media's reach.
Self-sufficiency	With a little help of my peers: The supportive role of online contacts for the unemployed. Online social contacts provide informational and emotional support that enhances self-efficacy and job-seeking behavior.	Based on 1322 telephone interviews with unemployed adults in Germany, this structural model links mediated support to increases in job-search self-efficacy and activity. Support predicted greater job-search engagement even after controlling for demographic factors and internet attitudes.	Nuances: Reliance on self-reported data may inflate associations. Online networks may unevenly benefit individuals with existing social capital, potentially widening disparities. Emotional support may buffer stress but cannot compensate for structural unemployment barriers. Increased self-efficacy does not guarantee long-term job stability or quality employment.
Critical consciousness	Empowering or backfiring? The paradoxical effects of digital media skills on depression through (mis)information sharing. Digital skills improve informed decision-making but can also increase exposure to misinformation.	Surveying 916 adults in Shanghai, the study examines how information and social digital skills influence depression mediated by misinformation sharing. Information skills reduce depression directly but inadvertently heighten misinformation exposure, while social skills reduce both misinformation and depression.	Nuances: Digital literacy is not uniformly protective; it may amplify risks within misinformation-rich environments. Critical consciousness efforts must address platform-level design, not just individual skill deficits. Cultural and regulatory contexts (e.g. state media ecosystems) may limit generalizability. Measures of “misinformation” rely on researcher categorization, which may overlook contested knowledge domains.
Participation & decision-making	How Can Social Media Lead to Co-Production (Co-Delivery) of New Services for the Elderly Population? Social media enables participatory co-design of geriatric services despite ongoing digital divides.	This qualitative study investigates how older adults, caregivers, and service providers use social media to co-design health and social services. Interviews and group observations reveal collaboration, reciprocal learning, and shared decision-making toward patient-centered service creation.	Nuances: Digital inequalities among older adults constrain representativeness; those most marginalized may be absent from participatory platforms. Power asymmetries between professionals and participants shape which ideas are implemented. Findings from small qualitative samples are context-specific. The sustainability of participation depends on long-term technological support and institutional commitment.

As a means to further clarify applied utility for practitioners, Table 3 below outlines assessment criteria, indicators, and sample steps for implementation to guide application of the framework. There is also value in considering aforementioned limitations in context-specificity, and as such the directions proposed below may serve primarily as starting points to consider localized efforts of empowerment.

Table 3.

Preliminary framework of practitioner application of longwe's framework of media-based empowerment.

Empowerment level	Assessment criteria	Indicators	Sample steps for implementation
1. Basic livelihood	- Does the media intervention directly address survival needs (food, water, shelter)? - Does it connect users with income-generating opportunities?	- Increased user access to info about jobs, food distribution, or social services - Rise in income from media-linked sources (e.g. selling content, ads)	Map survival needs of participants Partner with livelihood-based organizationss or platforms Design media that links to resource access Clearly identify and communicate any risks of profit or cyber- victimization mechanisms linked to financial wellbeing
2. Self-sufficiency	- Does the media platform build educational or skill capacities? - Does it help users become less dependent on aid or institutions? - Are time/effort investments from participants rewarded with actual gains?	- Increased digital literacy or job-relevant skills - User feedback reporting personal development towards independence - Evidence of learned skills applied offline	Integrate skill-building modules or mentorship Provide pathways from digital learning to offline application Offer clear “next step” goals (e.g. job links, certifications)
3. Critical consciousness	- Does the media content uncover systemic, hidden, or structural inequalities? - Are participants encouraged to analyze and act upon root causes? - Is media content transformational, not just informational?	- Participant-generated content critically analyzing systems - Changes in discourse or user engagement (e.g. from personal stories to structural critique) - Reports of action (e.g. grassroots organizing, advocacy)	Create media tools for dialogue, not just delivery (e.g. participatory video, comment-enabled posts) Train participants to investigate root causes Connect critical media work to real-world action Evaluate participant interpretations and outcomes including divergences
4. Participation & decision-making	- Do participants shape the media content or agenda? - Are marginalized groups equitably engaged throughout the process, with the same level of engagement?	- Shift from passive to active media roles - Inclusion of underrepresented voices despite digital divides	Use co-design or participatory media models Track representation and identify digital access gaps Adjust formats to reduce exclusion (e.g. voice messages for low-literacy users)
5. Co-control of systems/structures	- Are participants gaining influence over the systems that structure media and decision- making? - Are participants shifting from contributors to co-owners or creators of new systems and institutions? - Is there measurable transfer of institutional power or authority?	- Participant-led media initiatives - Evidence of influence on policies, funding, or institutional norms - Long-term sustainability of participant-led platforms	Identify opportunities where co-governance is possible Build long-term capacity for independent institutional ownership Advocate for institutional changes that allow sustainable and impactful shared control Track how media participants shift roles from “subjects” to “shapers” of systems

CSDH: Commission on Social Determinants of Health.

In this theoretical paper which conceptualizes empowerment through a select framework, media emerges with significant capacity to contribute to both empowerment outcomes and disempowerment; despite this, media-based empowerment can play a critical role in the third level of empowerment. The CSDH framework overall suggests that media-based empowerment therefore should be supplemented with novel strategies that meet the first two levels as prerequisites. Future research which considers integrated approaches in which empowerment is not targeted at singular stages of the CSDH framework will bring significant value to the scholarship.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

John C Hayvon

Ethical approval and informed consent statements

Not Applicable; no human subjects involved

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research: the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

This research did not produce any data that is not already accessible in the public domain.

References

Abidin

(2018) Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Emerald Publishing Limited. Available at: https://www-emerald-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-78756-076-520181006/full/html (accessed 7 June 2024).

Alias

Razak

(2024) Revolutionizing learning in the digital age: a systematic literature review of microlearning strategies. Interactive Learning Environments: 1–21.

Alipour

Ghaffari

Zare

(2024) Influencer marketing research: a systematic literature review to identify influencer marketing threats. Management Review Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 5 March 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11301-024-00412-5.

Barlińska

Szuster

Winiewski

(2013) Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: role of the communication Medium, form of violence, and empathy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23(1): 37–51.

Bergsma

(2004) Empowerment education: the link between media literacy and health promotion. American Behavioral Scientist 48(2): 152–164.

Bourdieu

(2018) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In: Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change. Routledge, 71–112. Available at: https://www-taylorfrancis-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351018142-3/cultural-reproduction-social-reproduction-pierre-bourdieu (accessed 7 June 2024).

Braveman

Gruskin

(2003) Poverty, equity, human rights and health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81: 539–545. SciELO Public Health.

Bucher

(2012) Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society 14(7): 1164–1180.

Buckingham

(2015) Do we really need Media education 2.0? Teaching Media in the age of participatory culture. In: Lin

T-B

Chen

Chai

(eds) New Media and Learning in the 21st Century. Education Innovation Series. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 9–21. Available at: https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-981-287-326-2_2 (accessed 7 June 2024).

10.

Chaudhry

(2019) Neoliberal crises of social work in the Global South: ethnography of individualizing disability and empowerment practice in India. International Social Work 62(3): 1117–1130.

11.

Coemans

Wang

Leysen

, et al. (2015) The use of arts-based methods in community-based research with vulnerable populations: protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research 71: 33–39. Elsevier.

12.

Colder Carras

Machin

Brown

, et al. (2023) Strengthening review and publication of participatory mental health research to promote empowerment and prevent co-optation. Psychiatric Services 74(2): 166–172.

13.

CSDH (2010) A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization.

14.

Cullen

(2001) Addressing the digital divide. Online Information Review 25(5): 311–320. MCB UP Ltd.

15.

Czerwinsky

(2024) Misogynist incels gone mainstream: a critical review of the current directions in incel-focused research. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal 20(2): 196–217.

16.

Dahlgren

(2013) The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative Democracy. Springer. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OXCYAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+Political+Web:+Media,+Participation+and+Alternative+Democracy.&ots=llum5rHr8z&sig=CWIyNrTc_rf5R5BF7jxoGkh_AY4 (accessed 7 June 2024).

17.

Di Domenico

Sit

Ishizaka

, et al. (2021) Fake news, social media and marketing: a systematic review. Journal of Business Research 124: 329–341. Elsevier.

18.

Easteal

Holland

Judd

(2015) Enduring themes and silences in media portrayals of violence against women. Women’s Studies International Forum 48: 103–113.

19.

Ellis

Goggin

(2017) Disability and the Media. Bloomsbury Publishing.

20.

Ferguson

(2021) Does the internet make the world worse? Depression, aggression and polarization in the social Media age. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 41(4): 116–135.

21.

Fernández-Aballí Altamirano

(2020) The importance of Paulo Freire to communication for development and social change. In: Servaes

(eds) Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 309–327. Available at: https://link-springer-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-981-15-2014-3_76 (accessed 11 November 2024).

22.

Fioravanti

Casale

Benucci

, et al. (2021) Fear of missing out and social networking sites use and abuse: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 122: 106839. Elsevier.

23.

Freire

(2020) Pedagogy of the oppressed. In: Toward a Sociology of Education. Routledge, 374–386. Available at: https://api-taylorfrancis-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780429339530-34&type=chapterpdf (accessed 7 June 2024).

24.

Green

Holloway

Stevenson

, et al. (2021) The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. London: Routledge. Available at: https://api-taylorfrancis-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781351004107&type=googlepdf (accessed 16 May 2025).

25.

Greijdanus

de Matos Fernandes

Turner-Zwinkels

, et al. (2020) The psychology of online activism and social movements: relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology 35: 49–54. Elsevier.

26.

Hammond

Gifford

Thomas

, et al. (2018) Arts-based research methods with indigenous peoples: an international scoping review. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 14(3): 260–276.

27.

Hanusch

(2007) Publishing the perished: the visibility of foreign death in Australian quality newspapers. Media International Australia 125(1): 29–40.

28.

Hayvon

(2024) Youth culture and new media as revitalized social justice pedagogy: A transcultural analysis of Freire and Urobuchi. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 19(4): 302–316.

29.

Hayvon

(2025) Contributions of speculative media to the sustainable development goals: A preliminary framework based on critical pedagogy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International: 1–13.

30.

Hegarty

Tarzia

(2019) Identification and management of domestic and sexual violence in primary care in the #MeToo era: an update. Current Psychiatry Reports 21(2): 12.

31.

Helmond

(2015) The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society 1(2): 205630511560308.

32.

Hesmondhalgh

(2018) The Cultural Industries. Sage Publications Ltd. Epub ahead of print 2018.

33.

Hesse-Biber

Leavy

Quinn

, et al. (2006) The mass marketing of disordered eating and eating disorders: The social psychology of women, thinness and culture. In: Women’s Studies International Forum. Elsevier, 208–224. 2006. Available at: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0277539506000070 (accessed 11 November 2024).

34.

Interian

Marzo

Mendoza

, et al. (2023) Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: an annotated review of measures and reduction methods. International Transactions in Operational Research 30(6): 3122–3158.

35.

Kozma

(1991) Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 61(2): 179–211.

36.

Lenka

(2014) A review on the role of media in increasing materialism among children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 133: 456–464. Elsevier.

37.

Lewandowsky

Van Der Linden

(2021) Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology 32(2): 348–384.

38.

Lodge

Harrison

(2019) Focus: attention science: the role of attention in learning in the digital age. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 92(1): 21. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

39.

Longwe

(1991) Gender awareness: the missing element in the Third World development project. Epub ahead of print 1991.

40.

Lythreatis

Singh

El-Kassar

(2022) The digital divide: a review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121359. Elsevier.

41.

Mannell

Zhao

Sefton-Green

, et al. (2025) What Australian research offers the study of digital childhoods: a scoping review of digital media use by families with young children. Media International Australia: 1329878X251337831.

42.

Marwick

Boyd

(2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133.

43.

Matamoros-Fernández

Farkas

(2021) Racism, hate speech, and social Media: a systematic review and critique. Television & New Media 22(2): 205–224.

44.

McChesney

(2008) The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. NYU Press.

45.

McCosker

Johns

(2014) Contested publics: racist rants, bystander action and social Media acts of citizenship. Media International Australia 151(1): 66–72.

46.

Mezirow

(2018) Transformative learning theory. In: Contemporary Theories of Learning. 2nd edn. Routledge.

47.

Mortari

(2015) Reflectivity in research practice: an overview of different perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14(5): 160940691561804.

48.

Nagorcka-Smith

Bolton

Dam

, et al. (2022) The impact of coalition characteristics on outcomes in community-based initiatives targeting the social determinants of health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 22(1): 1358.

49.

Nixon

(2014) Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics 143.

50.

Noble

(2020) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001/html (accessed 7 June 2024).

51.

Ory

Hoffman

Hawkins

, et al. (2003) Challenging aging stereotypes: strategies for creating a more active society. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 25(3): 164–171. Elsevier.

52.

Pattanaik

Pattnaik

(2019) Use of mass media and digital communication technology in development education and service delivery: an analytical analysis. Interaction 37(3): 25–34. National Council of Development Communication.

53.

Plamondon

Bottorff

Caxaj

, et al. (2020) The integration of evidence from the commission on social determinants of health in the field of health equity: a scoping review. Critical Public Health 30(4): 415–428.

54.

Podkalicka

Nilsson

Troon

(2024) Popular environmental Media in Australia: reflections on audience engagement and impact. Media International Australia: 1329878X241232167.

55.

Postman

(2005) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Penguin. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zGkhbPEjkRoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=media+racism+for+vPostman,+N.+(1985).+Amusing+Ourselves+to+Death:+Public+Discourse+in+the+Age+of+Show+Business.+Penguin+Books.iews&ots=tL85xdERmY&sig=eQQFfObyERsSsL3mB9wuL_KQ73c (accessed 7 June 2024).

56.

Rahat

Mojgani

Lethbridge

, et al. (2022) Problematic video-streaming: a short review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 48: 101232. Elsevier.

57.

Relly

(2021) Online harassment of journalists as a consequence of populism, mis/disinformation, and impunity. In: The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge.

58.

Richards

Caldwell

(2015) Impact of social media on the health of children and young people. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 51(12): 1152–1157.

59.

Richins

(1995) Social comparison, advertising, and consumer discontent. American Behavioral Scientist 38(4): 593–607.

60.

Roura

(2021) The social ecology of power in participatory health research. Qualitative Health Research 31(4): 778–788.

61.

Sarter

(2006) Multimodal information presentation: design guidance and research challenges. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36(5): 439–445. Cognitive Engineering Insights for Human Performance and Decision Making.

62.

Schmidt

Faieta

Tanner

(2020) Scoping review of self-advocacy education interventions to improve care. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 40(1): 50–56.

63.

Spitzer

(2014) Information technology in education: risks and side effects. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 3(3–4): 81–85. Elsevier.

64.

Stoll

Block

(2015) Intersectionality and cyberbullying: a study of cybervictimization in a Midwestern high school. Computers in Human Behavior 52: 387–397.

65.

Sweet

Pearson

Dudgeon

(2013) @Indigenousx: a case study of community-led innovation in digital Media. Media International Australia 149(1): 104–111.

66.

Tandoc

Jr Ferrucci

Duffy

(2015) Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior 43: 139–146. Elsevier.

67.

Terren

LTL

Borge-Bravo

RBBR

(2021) Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research 9.

68.

Topolovec-Vranic

Natarajan

(2016) The use of social Media in recruitment for medical research studies: a scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 18(11): e5698.

69.

Tsfati

Boomgaarden

Strömbäck

, et al. (2020) Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association 44(2): 157–173.

70.

Twenge

(2017) iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood–and What That Means for the Rest of Us. Simon and Schuster. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HiKaDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT2&dq=iGen:+Why+Today%E2%80%99s+Super-Connected+Kids+Are+Growing+Up+Less+Rebellious,+More+Tolerant,+Less+Happy–and+Completely+Unprepared+for+Adulthood–and+What+That+Means+for+the+Rest+of+Us.&ots=aRUWk0jLV2&sig=AwASBHMCOD4uKSKmcKhb7N-rtzk (accessed 7 June 2024).

71.

Valensise

Cinelli

Quattrociocchi

(2023) The drivers of online polarization: fitting models to data. Information Sciences 642: 119152.

72.

Van Dijk

(1989) Mediating racism: the role of the media in the reproduction of racism. Language, Power and Ideology 7: 199. John Benjamins Amsterdam.

73.

Vogel

Rose

Okdie

, et al. (2015) Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences 86: 249–256. Elsevier.

74.

Vogel

Rose

Roberts

, et al. (2014) Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular media Culture 3(4): 206. Educational Publishing Foundation.

75.

Vos

Adatorwovor

Roberts

, et al. (2024) Community engagement through social media: a promising low-cost strategy for rural recruitment? The Journal of Rural Health 40(3): 467–475.

76.

Vujnovic

Kruckeberg

(2018) Digital media, journalism, PR, and grassroots power: Theoretical perspectives. In: Protest Public Relations. Routledge.

77.

Ward

(2016) Media and sexualization: state of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research 53(4–5): 560–577.

78.

Welch

Petkovic

Pardo

, et al. (2016) Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice 36(4): 63. Public Health Agency of Canada.

79.

Wirtz

Daiser

Binkowska

(2018) E-participation: a strategic framework. International Journal of Public Administration 41(1): 1–12.

80.

Young

(2020) Justice and the politics of difference. In: The New Social Theory Reader . Routledge, 261–269. Available at: https://www-taylorfrancis-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003060963-43/justice-politics-difference-iris-marion-young (accessed 7 June 2024).

81.

Zillmann

Bryant

(2013) Selective Exposure to Communication. Routledge. Available at: https://api-taylorfrancis-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203056721&type=googlepdf (accessed 7 June 2024).