Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article presents an ethnographic study of the London spoken word community, examining how livestreamed open mic events shape communal experiences. While livestreaming spoken word poetry has received little scholarly attention, this study shows how digital platforms expanded participation across geographic boundaries and enabled new forms of access. The research, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to 2022), highlights both the affordances and limitations of online events. Poets valued the increased flexibility of online events, yet also reported a diminished sense of connection. Rather than viewing livestreaming as a substitute for in-person spoken word gatherings, the paper argues that its role is supplementary. The study concludes that while digital tools offer benefits, the core motivations for engaging in spoken word, such as real-time emotional resonance and shared presence, remain tied to physical spaces.

Keywords

spoken word poetry livestreaming digital communities affect communities

Introduction

Spoken word poetry thrives on live performance, where poets and audiences come together in a shared space of creative expression. The self-expression, immediacy of the audience responses, and shared purpose make spoken word open mic events deeply communal, often fostering tight-knit communities. Yet physical venues can create geographical, economic, or accessibility barriers. Digital platforms have reshaped how communities function, offering new ways to overcome these limitations. While asynchronous digital platforms, such as YouTube and Instagram, have been studied in poetry communities (Berens, 2019; Cox, 2020; Kovalik and Curwood, 2019; Marsden, 2018; Shakargy, 2020), less attention has been given to the experience of live synchronous events. Livestreaming presents an intriguing addition to the community, removing the need for physical attendance; however, it is unknown whether it can replicate the intimacy that defines spoken word culture.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digital shift, lockdowns prohibited in-person events, forcing spoken word poetry communities online. The rapid shift to digital events occurred across the cultural sector, as they sought online formats as alternative stages. By examining the unique shift to digital open mics from 2020 to 2022, this study considers how the community navigated both the possibilities and limitations of online platforms. This research addresses a gap in scholarship by focusing on synchronous online spoken word poetry events and the community experiences they foster. It asks two central questions: (1) can live online events address the accessibility constraints of in-person spoken word open mic events? and (2) can these events replicate the emotional support and communal atmosphere of live spoken word events? I argue that digital events succeeded in widening access, allowing poets to participate across geographic boundaries, accommodating those with work or caring responsibilities, and enabling more frequent attendance. However, the use of digital platforms struggled to reproduce the embodied affective exchange underpinning spoken word's sense of community. This research contributes to the wider debates on digital adaptation, showing that success depends less on technological availability than on the users’ ability to produce the emotional and social bonds that define community participation.

Literature review

Spoken word poetry communities

Spoken word poetry is an established art form with a rich, diverse history, serving as a platform for marginalised voices, particularly in relation to class and racial politics (Bearder, 2019); evidenced by movements such as: The Harlem Renaissance (Aptowicz, 2008; Woods, 2006); The Black Arts Movement (Gladney, 1995; Parmar and Bain, 2007); Hip-Hop (Samuels, 2004); Dub Poetry (Bolle-Debessay, 2020; Worley, 2017), and the Punk subculture (Lidington, 1987). Although much of the literature emphasises the political and activist roots of spoken word (Cross, 2010; Dale, 2016; Gladney, 1995; Lidington, 1987; Parmar and Bain, 2007; Sabin, 2002; Worley, 2017), this research found community participation and the therapeutic value of performance as central motivations for poets in the London scene. Scholars have long noted the social function that the storytelling arts have in promoting social bonds and unity (Bietti et al., 2019; Hoffman, 2001). In spoken word performances, this unity is generated as much through non-verbal cues (performance) as through the verbal (poetry).

Community has consistently been framed as a defining feature of spoken word. The Beats dismissed the notion of poetry as a solitary art form and established the 1960s poetry readings as events for socialisation where poets made and maintained friendships and shared their art (Kane, 2003). However, the term community within poetry is complex. Spoken word and related events, such as poetry slams, emerged as alternatives to the perceived exclusivity and cultural gatekeeping of traditional literary poetry, opening the art form to wider participation (Campion, 2021). De Rooij and Bastiaansen (2017), argued that social motives, such as connecting with others who share one's interests and affirming identity, are critical in the consumption of performing arts. Contemporary research has found that access to the spoken word community is a major motivating factor for poet participation (Alvarez and Mearns, 2014; Louise, 2019). Walkington (2020) argues that the creation of spoken word open mic events is often driven by the desire to foster inclusive communal spaces. Spoken word's focus on interaction and community contributes to its appeal and helps maintain audience interest, distinguishing it from traditional poetry readings (Alvarez and Mearns, 2014; Bearder, 2019; Novak, 2011; Walkington, 2020).

Online communities

Advances in communication technology reshaped how communities form and operate, shifting from place-based formations to dynamic and distributed networks (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005). The concept of “community” in digital spaces has been widely debated (Blackshaw, 2010; Fernback, 2007; Hine, 2000; Rheingold, 2000; Ward, 1999). One reason being that online communities are rarely entirely virtual, combining digital and in-person interactions (Blackshaw, 2010; Chen, 2022; Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005; Rotman and Preece, 2010; Schwitter, 2024). Groups often use different forms of communication and media depending on what is most useful at the time (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005).

A central question concerns whether online collectives can be considered ‘communities’ at all (Blackshaw, 2010; Bruckman, 2022). Fernback (2007) warns against using the term community in online settings, arguing that digital groups should not be judged by their format, but by the depth of relational investment among members. Bruckman (2022) suggests adopting a prototype model of community, wherein some groups more closely resemble “ideal” communities than others, depending on context and function. This suggests that community is not a binary state but a continuum of engagement and cohesion. This research adopts that perspective.

Utilising the affordances of online platforms can traverse boundaries that make connecting difficult. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of those in the cultural and creative industries had to undergo a digital transformation. Yue (2022) emphasises that this turn to digital in the cultural and creative industries was framed through a discourse of resilience that simultaneously celebrated adaptation whilst masking the precarity and inequalities faced by cultural workers. In terms of spoken word, this turn to the digital can be understood as a creative strategy for survival and as part of this resilience framework, where the community innovated to sustain artistic practice. The importance of online platforms during the pandemic extended to wider community networks, Andrianimanana's (2023) research on diasporic family networks shows how Facebook acted as a safe space to enable emotional support during periods of restricted mobility. However, while these online practices offered a sense of connection, they were shaped by the absence of face-to-face opportunities.

Digital platforms have structural limitations, particularly in sustaining artistic communities. Baird's (2022) research on graffiti communities highlights how, despite the accessibility afforded by online spaces, the maintenance of artistic communities often depends on shared physical space and in-person spontaneous interaction, which are difficult to replicate digitally. Curwood and Jone'’s (2022) expressed concerns about the use of digital platforms, highlighting issues around privacy, digital fatigue, and the lack of immediate feedback which can compromise the experience of online spoken word events. Their findings underscore the importance of considering not only the possibilities but also the constraints of online performance spaces.

Livestreaming

There is a growing body of work exploring the digital consumption of poetry (Berens, 2019; See also: Benthien, 2021; Kovalik and Curwood, 2019; Shakargy, 2020), including the creation of the ‘Poetry in the Digital Age’ research project and network (Anon, 2025; Korecka, 2023; Wehmeier, 2023). However, research on spoken word livestreaming is limited. Livestreaming has become a major site of digital cultural production. Livestreaming platforms have surged in popularity, and major social media sites have introduced livestreaming functionalities. This shift prompted scholars to reconsider how performance and community operate in digital spaces. Research into livestreaming has expanded rich conceptual frameworks, drawing on theories of labour, intimacy, and placemaking, to explore how streamers generate connection and meaning in real-time (Harris, 2019; Ruberg and Lark, 2021; Woodcock and Johnson, 2019).

Labour is a central theme across livestreaming scholarship. Gandolfi (2016) offers a typology of livestreaming performance, distinguishing between challenge, exhibition, and exchange styles. The “exchange” type foregrounds emotional connection and mutual engagement with the viewers, making it a useful framework for understanding livestreams that prioritise intimacy over spectacle. Gandolfi (2016) also draws on the concept of the “prosumer”, highlighting the participatory role of audiences who simultaneously consume and shape the stream. This framing challenges assumptions about passive viewership and reframes livestreaming as a co-constructed performance space reliant on sustained, relational labour. Woodcock and Johnson (2019) explore the hidden and affective dimensions of this labour, arguing that streamers must perform emotional accessibility, humour, and authenticity to foster parasocial relationships with their audiences. The pressure to constantly be “on” can lead to emotional exhaustion, prompting streamers to adopt performative characters to protect their emotional boundaries (Woodcock and Johnson, 2019). Harris (2019) extends this by demonstrating how personal branding, structuring strategies, and an entrepreneurial mindset cultivate audience attachment. Harri'’s (2019) use of Goffman's (1959) dramaturgical framework is effective in demonstrating how these practices require intentional performances and a strategically curated version of self.

Scholars have highlighted that livestreaming labour is oriented towards the cultivation of community. Chen (2022) takes this perspective, drawing on social exchange theory to outline three stages of viewer engagement: introduction, immersion, and enthusiasm. They demonstrate how recognition and reciprocity between streamer and audience transforms tentative participation into a sense of belonging that extends beyond the stream, even leading to offline relationships. Chen's (2022) model emphasises that sustained emotional investment and social reciprocity are crucial for cultivating loyal and engaged livestream communities. However, Rufas and Hine (2018) and Kew (2021) caution that digital platforms cannot always replicate the affective immediacy of in-person gatherings. Lee et al. (2025) found that cognitive copresence (an awareness of others’ presence) was insufficient to foster community, proposing deeper psychological engagement and interdependence were needed. The literature suggests that community in livestreams is a product of intentional labour, but its success may be shaped by other contextual factors and the way technology is used.

Livestreams are also shaped by spatial and cultural contexts. Ruberg and Lark (2021) argue that livestreaming constitutes a form of digital place-making, with domestic spaces such as bedrooms being particularly intimate. The visibility of domestic settings blurs the line between public and private, offering audiences perceived access to the streamer's offline world. Livestreaming tools may shape community culture by creating new possibilities and boundaries (Ruberg et al., 2023). Pereira and Ricci (2023) demonstrate how livestreaming can function as a site of innovation, professionalisation and economic strategy by increasing production value, whereas Brzozowska and Galuszka (2023) described a virtual festival which deliberately attempted to reproduce the familiar conventions of in-person events, prioritising continuity and accessibility over innovation. Livestreaming is not a uniform practice but a flexible set of tools that can be mobilised either toward experimentation and transformation, or the preservation of existing formats. Livestreaming mediates a tension between stability and change, by offering communities new tools while also introducing new constraints shaped by the affordances and limits of the platforms.

Despite the potential for affective connection, several studies highlight the fragility of this online. Gregersen et al. (2023) describe the phenomenon of “digital fatigue”, in which repeated reliance on online platforms erodes emotional energy. Goh et al. (2021) note that in the short term, livestreaming can initially alleviate loneliness, although Fife (2022) observed a decline in the emotional impact of livestreams over time. Vandenberg et al. (2021) argue that in the rave community, the absence of vocal feedback eroded the sense of collective effervescence, leaving livestreams as merely symbolic versions of in-person events. This suggests that while livestreaming has the potential to enhance and generate forms of community, it may not be enduring.

Community and affect

The emotional benefits spoken word poetry provides are central reasons why many people participate in this art form (see: Alvarez and Mearns, 2014; Curwood and Jones, 2022; Mazza, 2012; Mcardle and Byrt, 2001; McNichols and Witt, 2018; Sharma, 2021). The therapeutic benefits of spoken word poetry extend beyond individual self-expression to encompass the social and communal aspects of this art form. By engaging with spoken word events, people form a sense of community within the spoken word group (Gallant et al., 2019). When individuals experience a sense of community and belongingness, they are more likely to have their emotional needs met (Leary and Cox, 2008).

One dimension that can contribute to this communal experience is the transmission of affect. Affect is an intangible concept that is slippery to define, as it is considered an unconscious experience with a physical response in the body (Gregg and Seigworth, 2010). Affect can be defined as mental states that include attitudes and emotions (Frijda and Scherer, 2009; Hogan, 2016). They are pre-conscious sensations that underlie the formation of emotion. Gregg and Seigworth provide the following explanation of affect:

Affect is found in those intensities that pass body to body (human, nonhuman, part-body, and otherwise), in those resonances that circulate about, between, and sometimes stick to bodies and worlds, and in the very passages or variations between these intensities and resonances themselves. (Gregg and Seigworth, 2010: 1)

Affect is key to the experience of spoken word poetry communities because storytelling can transmit affect between readers or audience members, creating a sense of togetherness (Brennan, 2004; Hogan, 2016). Brennan (2004) described the transmission of affect as the “atmosphere” of the environment literally getting into a person; the emotions of a room can be physically felt and even result in bodily changes. The collective rhythms are felt experiences, generating a sense of unity and belonging. As Gibbs explains: “Bodies can catch feelings as easily as catch fire: affect leaps from one body to another, evoking tenderness, inciting shame, igniting rage, exciting fear” (Gibbs, 2001: 1). Embodiment matters because affect is visceral, and these exchanges shape how belonging and intimacy are produced. Foregrounding embodiment in this way adds to debates around online versus offline community experiences by raising questions about how such exchanges can be replicated digitally.

McGowan (2022) discusses affect and spoken word poetry on digital platforms, noting that “interactive features of a particular media platform represent a digital simulation of the live performance and the concomitant sharing of the experience” (p.172). Features such as liking, sharing, and commenting during events aim to simulate the sense of being physically present at a live show, and often these digital interactions are rooted in bodily gestures (McGowan, 2022) (e.g. a thumbs-up to express liking something) (See Stark and Crawford, 2015 for an exploration into emoji and affect). These digital affordances suggest an ongoing attempt to recreate communal engagement in virtual spaces. Scholars working in digital ethnography traditions (including netnography) (Kozinets, 2015) have highlighted how features such as live comments generate affective interactions (Chen, 2022; Harris, 2019; McGowan, 2022).

Consumers imitate a transmission of affect by utilising the built-in capabilities of the platform. However, these imitations of affect may not be enough to replicate the feelings of connection that participants are used to during in-person events and, therefore, may not be able to nurture community development. McGowan (2022) acknowledges that the experience of affect is different on digital platforms compared to physical live events. Firstly, the lack of proximity in digital formats means that there cannot be a physical transmission of affect, and therefore, it will be experienced differently. Secondly, the physical space in which a live performance takes place shapes the affective landscape. In a digital performance, the affective landscape is shaped by the platform it is hosted on rather than a physical space.

Ahmed (2014) argues that emotions are experienced differently by everyone, even when shared. In Ahmed's sociality of emotions model, emotions form internally, but once expressed (crying, laughing), those emotions have ‘got out’. Expressed emotions are then responded to by others in the vicinity; perhaps they empathise, or perhaps they feel alienated. Emotions connect us to others and place us in relation to a group or community (as an insider/outsider), whether we experience the same feelings or not. The primary distinction between the sociality of emotion model and affect theory is that Ahmed (2014) does not consider emotions to be purely individual or social experiences, instead, they are seen to be constitutive. In this model, emotions create boundaries that delineate the individual (inside) and social (outside). Therefore, it is emotions that shape identities, objects, bodies, and collectives. This differs from affect theory, which considers affect to be pre-emotional and pre-conscious, focusing less on delineating boundaries and shaping meaning, and more on the flows that happen between bodies and environments.

In the sociality of emotions model, emotions are how we make sense of things. A powerful poem about injustice could form emotions such as solidarity, which could define a boundary between us (the audience, the poet) and them (the people described in the poem causing harm). This results in a sense of ‘we’ through shared feelings, even if people are experiencing those feelings slightly differently. In affect theory, it is about the raw feelings we experience and their bodily effect before we can even label them emotions. When a poet is performing, the energy in the room might give you chills or make you feel a connection with others, creating a collective feeling.

Methodology

This qualitative study seeks to understand people's experiences within the London spoken word open mic community using a qualitative and ethnographic approach (O’Reilly, 2005; Williamson, 2006). This research employs multi-sited and online and offline ethnography (Airoldi, 2018; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007; Hine, 2000; Pink et al., 2016; Postill and Pink, 2012).

Data collection

This study used in-depth interviews and participant observation (Hennink et al., 2020; Lofland et al., 2006; Rubin and Rubin, 2011; Tracy, 2019). Data collection began in September 2020 and concluded in May 2022. I undertook 56 semi-structured interviews with London spoken word poets, lasting approximately one hour each. Snowball and purposive sampling was used to identify interviewees (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Etikan et al., 2016; Noy, 2008; Patton, 2002a, 2002b). Snowball sampling was ideal because my research focused on the grassroots open mic scene; therefore, it helped uncover less high-profile individuals (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Noy, 2008). To support the snowball sampling strategy, I used purposive sampling to approach people who fit the criteria for participation. I stopped data collection once data saturation was reached (Fusch and Ness, 2015; Guest et al., 2006).

Participant observation was used to support the interview data as it afforded an understanding of the community in situ rather than relying solely on the interview data. This method was essential because, as Novak (2011) argues, spoken word is written with the intention of live performance and can only be fully understood within that performative context. Participant observation involved attending spoken word open mic events based in London (online and in-person). The 48 open mic events I observed included 28 online events (held on either Instagram or Zoom, being the platforms that dominated spoken word events) and 20 in-person events. Events were chosen based on whether they were organised by or regularly attended by my interview participants. This fits in with a “follow the people” strategy for multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 2016).

Analysis

I used thematic analysis to interpret the data (Braun and Clarke, 2012), because it can produce detailed descriptions of data and analyse subjective experiences (Braun and Clarke, 2012). My analysis technique was guided by the work of Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) and Nowell et al. (2017), deploying both inductive and deductive analysis of the interview transcripts and observation field notes. The inductive analysis allowed for the identification of themes emerging directly from the data without predefined categories, ensuring that participants’ experiences were foregrounded. Concurrently, the deductive component was informed by the key aspects this research focused on and supported by existing literature, ensuring that the analysis was situated within broader conceptual understandings. The predefined deductive codes included ‘community,’ references to ‘mental health,’ and use of ‘digital media’.

The interview transcripts and observation field notes were imported into NVivo to facilitate systematic coding. NVivo enabled efficient data management and organisation, allowing for detailed coding, thematic mapping, and the comparison of emergent patterns across datasets. By integrating both inductive and deductive approaches and employing NVivo for systematic coding, this analytical process ensured both rigour and depth in interpreting participants’ narratives and observed interactions (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006).

To protect the participants’ identities, pseudonyms have been used, and event names have been removed.

Findings and discussion

Barriers to spoken word access and community development

Participants in this study emphasised that social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram, had been a part of the spoken word community since the 2000s and 2010s. These were used to enable poets to share their poetry, advertise shows, and connect with each other. This is also supported by an increase in scholarly attention regarding the use of digital media for poetry (Anon, 2025; Benthien, 2021; Berens, 2019; Korecka, 2023; Kovalik and Curwood, 2019; Sharma, 2021, Wehmeier, 2023). The poets interviewed said their profile pages acted as digital portfolios for fellow poets to support, and to promote themselves for upcoming performance opportunities. Crucially, these uses of social media were built on asynchronous features and were complementary to in-person live events rather than replacements for them. Social media acted as a way to support the community but was not central to the community experience, which was still rooted in face-to-face events (Blackshaw, 2010; Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005; Rotman and Preece, 2010).

Prior to COVID-19 lockdowns, spoken word poetry events in London took place in a range of venues, including pubs, cinemas, cafes, and theatres. Events regularly happened mid-week and during the evening. The repeated opportunities for in-person connection could arguably be one reason why the community has developed as a tight-knit group. This context is significant because the research is grounded in the London spoken word scene, where many poets already knew each other through regular in-person events. These pre-existing relationships may have shaped how poets responded to online events, as they were not creating a new digital community from scratch. Some poets even referred to each other as family,

We are literally a poetry family. As soon as poets meet other new poets, it's like you’ve known each other forever and I think it's because we’re all in the same place to do the same thing. (Tegan, interview)

The reliance on in-person events in the city posed some accessibility challenges to participating in the community. My interviews and observations revealed a recognition of the greater reach that online events afforded the community. The ease of accessibility, eliminating the need to travel, created a feeling of tapping into the community in a new way.

When COVID-19 restrictions were applied to in-person events, poets in the community started to host live online open mic events on platforms including Instagram and Zoom. The decision to move events online happened rapidly, with one of the first online events hosted by a poet based in London happening three days after COVID-19 restrictions were announced (March 2020). The accessibility and wider opportunities for connections were seen as positive outcomes. Digital media's accessibility meant that anyone, anywhere, could join the event (Blackshaw, 2010; Ward, 1999). This was a significant benefit for people with disabilities, work, or caring responsibilities that impeded them from travelling to in-person events. During one observation, I witnessed a poet performing his poetry online, outside the pizza shop where he worked. At the end of his performance, he explained that he usually could not attend in-person events because of his work schedule, but having an online event meant he could participate during his break.

The accessibility of live online events was also evident from my interviews. Speaking to one spoken word event host, Frederick, who moved his in-person event to an online livestream during COVID-19 lockdowns, he questioned why they had not thought to do this previously,

Since lockdown … I think we were all a bit like ‘why haven't we been doing this anyway’ do you know what I mean? Why did we never livestream events? Because I get so many messages from people outside of London who can't come to the events but really want to and they want to support it so I think that's one good thing that will come out of lockdown. (Frederick, interview)

One interviewee, Reece, a single parent, living on the outskirts of London explained that the demands of travelling into the city and managing his caring responsibilities meant he could rarely attend in-person shows. However, after the emergence of live online spoken word events, he was able to regularly attend shows and become more of a participating member. The following excerpt from our interview shows the impact online spoken word shows had on his accessibility to them,

I say pre-lockdown [I attended poetry events] not that often just because I’m a single dad. So I have my kids a lot of the time, so I would have to find a babysitter, then travel to London and come back and do the school run in the morning, so for me I couldn’t go as often as I would like … then I found that everybody was doing IG [Instagram] Lives and Zoom … I’m doing like two or three shows every couple of days now. (Reece, interview)

There was praise for the way that live online events provided more opportunities for connecting to other shows that would usually be inaccessible due to geographical restrictions. An interviewee, Harriet, spoke about participating in a spoken word event in New Zealand despite living in London. Another poet, Noah told me that he felt like he had a “poetry passport” as he was able to perform spoken word across the globe, albeit virtually. Thea and Carter, who began a joint online event, commented on how their audience base is “not just UK and it's not just London”, they noted they had viewers from America, Germany, Belgium, and India. As digital media has done for other communities, online events weakened economic, physical and geographical barriers for spoken word participation and expanded poets’ network globally (Blackshaw, 2010; Kovalik and Curwood, 2019; Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005; Rotman and Preece, 2010).

The emergence of live online events meant poets had access to more events. Pre-COVID-19 events usually occurred once a month but were often scheduled on different days from other organisers to avoid competition and allow poets to attend multiple events throughout the month. With the shift to online events, hosts organised shows more frequently. Poets who had not hosted in-person shows began livestreaming impromptu open mics at random times. My observations revealed that it became common to see multiple, simultaneous livestreams from the community, there were also livestreams from around the world, giving people access to events across different time zones. It became commonplace to see poets perform on one livestream and then see them, a few minutes later, performing on a different show. In our interview, Joshua was one of the poets who spoke about making the most of this newfound flexibility,

I love just like hopping on, hopping off, going to the next open mic online and then hopping off there and then by the end of the night you can hit maybe like 10, 20 poetry open mics in one go. (Joshua, interview)

The initial excitement surrounding these livestreamed shows made it clear that using digital platforms addressed longstanding accessibility challenges within the spoken word community. However, concerns arose regarding community experience. The tendency to “hop” between events limited opportunities to build strong relationships and a sense of community identification. This behaviour can be understood through Chen's (2022) model of livestream engagement, where most participants remained in the ‘introduction’ stage, interacting briefly without progressing to the deeper stages of immersion or enthusiasm, which require sustained reciprocity that characterises deeper immersion. Without the rituals or practices that facilitated ongoing interaction, long-term commitment remained unlikely, resulting in short-lived digital participation (Chen, 2022).

This dynamic aligns with broader critiques of online communities, where scholars argue that digital spaces often lack the commitment or continuity required to sustain meaningful bonds (Blackshaw, 2010; Fernback, 2007). Without the requirement of commitment, these communities can easily fragment and be fleeting as users come and go as they wish simply by ‘logging out’ (Ward, 1999). Fernback (2007) argues that sustainable online groups require a deep sense of commitment, something that traditional in-person spoken word events fostered successfully. During an in-person event, poets would only perform one three-to-five-minute poem but would typically spend several hours listening and speaking to other attendees. In contrast, the digital format encouraged rapid transitions between events, often without sustained attention or interaction. As Chen (2022) and He et al. (2023) emphasise, immersion and a sense of virtual community depend on ongoing interaction and social reciprocity between both the performer and audience. This relational depth was largely absent from the poetry livestreams observed in this study.

The COVID-19 lockdown context further constrained the development of a digital community. The extraordinary conditions of the pandemic meant that digital events were imposed rather than being an organic extension of the community. These circumstances shaped how events were organised and experienced. With no possibility of face-to-face interaction, the usual hybrid nature of online groups, which are often supported by in-person ties was unavailable (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005). Moreover, as Chen (2022) notes in the final stage of viewer engagement, ‘enthusiasm’, the affective ties formed online often extend into offline relationships. The restriction of the lockdowns meant that online engagement existed as the only possible form of engagement and there was increased difficulty in establishing the affective bonds necessary for meaningful community development. Communities formed online, or outside of the pressures of the pandemic, may have different experiences.

Not only were there no opportunities for face-to-face interaction during this time, but it was also an enormous shift from the community experience normally enjoyed by participants. During in-person open mic events in the spoken word community, there would be opportunities for socialising between and after performances and audience members would interact with the poet by clicking their fingers or shouting praise. Online platforms limit such interactions, which restricts how far these newly emerging online connections could develop with respect to community experience and long-lasting relationships (Rufas and Hine, 2018). While this research found that live online events address some of the accessibility constraints of in-person spoken word events, to decipher their role in the spoken word community, it is imperative to understand whether these events can still facilitate a sense of community for poets.

The challenge of fostering community in livestreaming

Analysing the role and impact of live online events for the spoken work community underscored the communal and therapeutic significance of participation for poets. The therapeutic benefits of participating in spoken word are widely acknowledged within the community. One interviewee referred to a spoken word event as a “recreational space with therapeutic benefits” (Frederick). The interviews revealed that a significant motivation for engagement with the spoken word community stemmed from the therapeutic benefits experienced. Over 41% of the interviewees explicitly mentioned mental health benefits as one of the main reasons for participating in spoken word, and an additional 14% referred to these benefits without explicitly labelling them as mental health or therapeutic experiences. The predominance of poems at observed events that referenced a poet's emotional vulnerabilities or traumatic experiences was evident, suggesting that this was a space poets used as both an artistic and emotional outlet.

For livestreaming to contribute meaningfully to the development of the spoken word community, it must foster safe self-expression, meaningful connection, and a sense of support. If these needs are not met, livestreaming may struggle to strengthen communal bonds or provide the emotional support that defines in-person events, limiting its role in the community's evolution. While in-person poetry may allow safe emotional expression in a “third space”, the livestream context reconfigures this dynamic. Woodcock and Johnson (2019) suggest performers often feel compelled to maintain emotional accessibility for viewers, and the added dynamic of performing from your private domestic space (Ruberg and Lark, 2021) can heighten personal exposure and emotional fatigue.

Live online events can struggle to make the same impact as in-person shows due to the limitations of digital media and the way that online platforms are used by participants (Kew, 2021). The connective experience and feedback during and after in-person events are difficult to replicate online, and the absence of them impacts the sense of community one feels. According to the interviews and observational events, the initial feeling towards live online events being an exciting new development was eventually replaced with the concept of them merely being a ‘placeholder’ until in-person events returned,

It felt like this is a way of just stopping it dying you know it was like putting it on heart monitors and stuff, life support. (Connor, interview)

While livestreaming events served as a symbolic continuation of the community during lockdown, they were eventually considered a stopgap, maintaining connection and visibility in the absence of in-person interactions. Fife (2022) who refers to the DIY UK music scene during COVID-19, suggested that the number of livestreams began to reduce because the sense of togetherness declined. This suggestion speaks to the London spoken word community, as poets in this study began to frequently refer to a form of disconnect felt during live online events. As Lee et al. (2023) argue, cognitive copresence alone does not create community; it must be matched by psychological involvement and mutual responsiveness.

The frustrations the poets in this study began to express towards online events can be understood through the lens of affect theory (Brennan, 2004; Gibbs, 2001; Gregg and Seigworth, 2010) and the sociality of emotions (Ahmed, 2014). Many poets interviewed described the online performance as lacking the same energy or atmosphere as in-person events. One interviewee described online events as feeling like “the connection was missing” (Bridget). Livestreaming requires affective performance and emotional labour from the streamer, even when the livestream appears casual (Woodcock and Johnson, 2019). These findings suggest there is a disruption in the transmission of affect (Brennan, 2004). In the definition of affect that Gibbs (2001) provides, affect is an embodied experience that “leaps” between bodies, creating a collective emotional experience. However, during live online poetry events in this study, this affective transmission was either weakened or absent.

This affective shortfall can be better understood through Chen's (2022) model of viewer engagement. The second stage, ‘immersion’, depends on reciprocal interaction between performer and audience. During the livestreams, poets often performed in silence, with little visible or audible audience response, which limits the social feedback loops necessary for emotional investment. Without the reciprocal exchange, viewers (and performers) are less likely to feel immersed. An example of this comes from Bridget, speaking about performing a deeply personal poem about her father's death. During an in-person show, she described how the energy released through the performance was received by the audience in a way that enabled her to process her emotions,

I have a piece about my father's death. When I’m performing that on the stage, the energy that I’m releasing when I’m performing it kind of goes out to the audience and it resonates with them, and it sits there. Then I’m able to have a conversation about it and process it differently.

By contrast, performing the same poem during an online event resulted in a very different experience,

Whereas when I’m performing it to myself quietly and no one's responding and there's nowhere for that energy to go, it just sits in the room, and it relates to me in a more negative way than if I was to perform it on stage … I feel like I didn’t enjoy the performance part of it. I did a lot of happy poems during lockdown. (Bridget, interview)

This example uncovers an implication of how poets adapted their performances to suit the digital environment and its audiences. Several other participants commented on how they chose their poems with an awareness of the livestream atmosphere or the presence of other household members in their immediate space. This is a significant finding as it suggests that digital environments not only reshape the experience of the community, but also the content of the poetry.

Bridget's experience illustrates a breakdown in affective flow. In person, affect circulates between performer and audience, creating a shared emotional experience. However, online, the energy becomes ‘stuck’, leading to an isolating experience. This reinforces Brennan's (2004) idea that affect is tied to an atmosphere that physically enters a space. Without the audience physically present, Bridget feels the energy remains with her, affecting her negatively. For spoken word poets whose performances often involve emotional vulnerability, the emotional toll of this affective labour can be difficult. The absence of immediate audience feedback made poets’ performances feel unrewarding and emotionally draining. The expectation to ‘perform connection’ without receiving it in return reflects what Woodcock and Johnson (2019) describe as the hidden labour of appearing emotionally available. When this is not met reciprocally, it can contribute to feelings of burnout and disengagement.

During online events, poets may feel disconnected and lack the sense of belonging felt during an in-person event (Curwood and Jones, 2022). Although poets could still ‘attend’ these poetry events, they did not feel like they were truly participating in a collective experience. Kyle's description of his experience reinforces this issue,

The reason why you come to poetry events is for the connection with the real people that are in the room, and you don’t get that same connection when you’re just talking to your phone and you see there's maybe 100 people watching you but they’re not, there's no one, there's no one really taking or receiving your energy. (Kyle, interview)

While livestreaming platforms inherently support real-time affective exchange and interactive participation (Gandolfi, 2016; Lee et al., 2023), the nature and quality of this interaction can vary across cultural and technological contexts. Features such as chat boxes and emoji reactions enable opportunities for psychological involvement and foster community identification (Lee et al., 2023). However, participants in this study showed that spoken word poetry depends on the subtle, embodied, synchronous emotional feedback (e.g. nodding heads, snapping fingers, applause, vocalisations). This feedback provides poets with emotional cues that locate themselves within the communal affective experience (Ahmed 2014), which, as highlighted by Kyle's quote above, in this context, was not fully replicable through textual or virtual indicators alone. Poets participating in these events do not merely seek acknowledgement of their presence, but rather a felt connection.

The need for the spoken word community to adapt quickly to online events meant there were no standardised protocols for online events to follow. Consequently, there were no set examples of what a ‘standard’ online event should be like, and events varied widely in how they were organised and experienced. The nature of the digital platforms used to host live online spoken word events plays a significant role in shaping the affective experience (McGowan, 2022). This research found that the two most commonly used platforms in the London spoken word community were Instagram Live and Zoom. Instagram Live was the most frequently used platform, likely because many poets were already familiar with Instagram and it is free to use without time limitations. However, at the time of this research, Instagram Live had restrictive functionality; performers could not see or hear the audience, and the only form of engagement was through a chat box. This restriction poses friction for the creation of an emotional connection. Gandolfi (2016) describes “exchange” style livestreams that are focused on connection and rely on reciprocal feedback to build community. This dynamic was largely unsupported for poets on Instagram Live.

In contrast, Zoom, although less widely adopted in the community, allowed multiple participants to use cameras and microphones, creating more potential for the kind of immersive social exchange that Gandolfi (2016) and Chen (2022) identify as critical for emotional investment. However, Zoom was not commonly used by the spoken word community before COVID-19, meaning that event organisers had to navigate new logistical challenges on this unfamiliar platform, such as sharing meeting links and managing paid subscriptions for events longer than 45 minutes. The contrast between Instagram and Zoom underscores the importance of the digital landscape in shaping the community experience (McGowan, 2022). This aligns with Gandolfi's (2016) argument that platform functionality can either facilitate or inhibit elements of community building in livestreaming.

Instagram, Twitch and Zoom have advantages and drawbacks to their use, and it is important to acknowledge that they have been proven sufficient for community-building in other livestreaming contexts. Twitch has shown that strong interactive communities can emerge through using features such as a chat box, supported by consistent structuring strategies and norms of engagement (Chen, 2022; Woodcock and Johnson, 2019). Twitch streamers often cultivate routine interactions, branded personas, and chat interactions that reinforce feelings of connection with the viewers (Gandolfi, 2016; Harris, 2019). In contrast, spoken word poetry livestreams lacked such established norms or formats. Events were irregular, spontaneous, and unstructured, and as a result, did not translate into a community formation. Therefore, it can be argued that community building in livestreaming is not only a question of platform features, but of how those features are used and for what purpose.

Alongside the ways the platforms shape the affective landscape for the poet (McGowan, 2022), the physical environment of the performer also carries significant implications. Unlike in-person events, where performers are surrounded by an engaged audience, online performances often take place in private spaces, such as a poet's own home. This could be a deterrent, particularly for those who felt uncomfortable performing personal pieces with other house members present. Ruberg and Lark (2021) highlight how livestreams often create digital intimacy by existing in domestic environments. However, while such spaces can enhance emotional connection by blurring the boundary between public performance and private life, this can also amplify unwanted emotional exposure (Ruberg and Lark, 2021). A memorable moment that highlighted this from one of the online shows I observed was when a poet had begun their performance, and midway through their first lines, they stopped, stood up, and closed their door, explaining that their parents were in the house, and they did not want them to listen. Similarly, Naomi, one of my interviewees, explained that she was cautious about what she performed, aware that her family might overhear,

There was also the drawback of, you’re in your own household, I live with my family, for example. I wouldn’t want them listening in on what I’m performing. (Naomi, interview)

This illustrates the tension that can exist between digital intimacy and emotional vulnerability (Ruberg and Lark, 2021). Domestic settings might foster closeness for the viewer, but potentially restrict the emotional openness for the performer. Curwood and Jones (2022) found that some poets hesitated to perform online due to concerns about being overheard by family members. Performing a personal poem to a room of people requires poets to expose their vulnerability. If one performs in an environment where they do not feel safe to be emotionally open, it can fundamentally alter the performance experience. Woodcock and Johnson's (2019) concept of emotional labour and performative boundaries further supports this finding. Their work shows that some livestreamers adopt character personas to introduce emotional boundaries. Similarly, some of the poets in this study made conscious decisions about what to share or withheld content due to their discomfort with their performance space. This suggests that rather than the intimate domestic setting enabling deeper connection, it became a barrier.

Although the livestream is synchronous, the feedback they enable often is not. Performers typically only see comments after their piece has ended, and these are mediated through emojis or text rather than an immediate vocal response. As Vandenberg et al. (2021) observe in the context of digital rave culture, without real-time audience feedback, livestreamed performance risks becoming symbolic of the in-person experience rather than a meaningful replacement. This sense of disconnection was echoed by many poets in this study,

I’ve been performing on a stage in front of real-life people you can touch and who are clapping and who you can hear. To go into a screen where there are emojis floating up and little hearts, it's not the same. (Carter, interview)

While online platforms served as an important interim solution, providing solace to participants in the absence of in-person events, this study found that live online events, without adequate interaction strategies, struggled to replicate the depth of connection typically fostered in-person. Baird's research (2022) found that, with the graffiti community, the in-person experiences are imperative to the community. Despite research showing that online social interactions help maintain relationships and reduce isolation, they perhaps do not meet the spoken word community's needs to be sustained long-term and can feed into digital fatigue (Gregersen et al., 2023).

Scholars have questioned what ties a community together (Ahmed and Fortier, 2003). In the poetry community, the foundation extended beyond the simple act of sharing poetry; it was built on emotional connection, intimacy, and reciprocal feedback. Poets did not receive the same satisfaction from participating in the online events because of the limitations of online platforms and the way they were used (Rufas and Hine, 2018). Emotional connection online requires intentional design and reciprocal feedback (Chen, 2022; Vandenberg et al., 2021). While livestreaming platforms can facilitate connection, their success depends on how they are used. In the case of spoken word poetry, the spontaneous, loosely structured, and emotionally vulnerable nature of performance clashed with the affordances and constraints of livestream technologies. As a result, the community-building potential of online poetry events remained limited. The livestreams allowed poetry to continue to be shared, but they did not sustain the affective infrastructure that defines the spoken word community.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate that while digital platforms significantly expanded access, enabling participation across geographical boundaries and providing greater flexibility for those with work or caring responsibilities during COVID-19, they failed to recreate the fundamentally communal experience of in-person spoken word events.

In online spaces, the transmission of affect is disrupted. Poets found themselves performing into a void, where the absence of immediate, visible audience feedback diminished the emotional connection that live performance usually generates. Poets adapted their poetry or chose different poems to perform to suit the digital setting and their affective experience. This highlights the impact online platforms can have on creative practice as well as community dynamics. Digital intimacy depends on more than shared presence; it requires intentional and sustained reciprocity and feedback. These features were largely absent from the online poetry events studied. These insights do not diminish the potential of livestreaming as an interactive medium but highlight the distinctive demands of spoken word poetry, and the need for further exploration of platform design and event practices that might better support these dynamics.

This research reflects a specific moment in time, the London COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 to 2022. These findings are also based on the London spoken word scene, where pre-existing networks shape how the livestreaming was experienced. Communities in different contexts may have different experiences. However, they speak to broader dynamics that remain relevant beyond the pandemic. Even now, as most cultural participation has returned to in-person formats, digital platforms continue to supplement live events. The lessons identified here remain important considerations for how communities adopt digital tools moving forward.

This research contributes to ongoing debates about digital community by showing that livestreamed events do not automatically generate the emotional reciprocity required for strong communal ties. Livestreaming, in this context, did not create or replace community, but it held space for it. Rather than viewing livestreaming as a substitute for in-person events, this study positions it as a supplementary tool that expands access but cannot, in its current form, replicate the emotional infrastructure of the London spoken word community. Understanding these limitations is essential for future efforts to integrate digital platforms into the spoken word community without compromising on its intimacy, sense of belonging, and emotional connection.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Erica Fletcher

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee at Loughborough University (approval: 3234) on 10/06/2020.

Consent to participate

Respondents gave written consent and signature before starting interviews.

Consent for publication

Respondents provided written consent prior to their interviews that this data may be used in publications and was agreed that participants would be given pseudonyms and identifying characteristics would be removed.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Techne Studentship, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Author biography

Erica Fletcher is a Visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University. Her area of research is in community studies.

References

Ahmed

(2014) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. NED-New edition, 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ahmed

Fortier

A-M

(2003) Re-imagining communities. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6(3): 251–259.

Airoldi

(2018) Ethnography and the digital fields of social media. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21(6): 661–673.

Alvarez

Mearns

(2014) The benefits of writing and performing in the spoken word poetry community. The Arts in Psychotherapy 41(3): 263–268.

Andrianimanana

Fortunat Miarintsoa

(2023) Online gathering in times of physical (im)mobility: Facebook practices of Malagasy mothers in France. International Journal of Cultural Studies 26(6): 750–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779231183005.

Anon (2025) Poetry in the digital age. Available at: https://www.poetry-digital-age.uni-hamburg.de/en.html (accessed 27 August 2025).

Aptowicz

(2008) Words in Your Face: A Guided Tour Through Twenty Years of the New York City Poetry Slam. New York: Soft Skull Press.

Baird

Ron

(2022) Youth and social media: The affordances and challenges of online graffiti practice. Media, Culture & Society 44(4): 764–784. 10.1177/01634437211069969.

Bearder

(2019) Stage Invasion: Poetry & The Spoken Word Renaissance. London: Out-Spoken Press.

10.

Benthien

(2021) Poetry in the digital age. Theories of Lyric. Https://lyricology.org/poetry-in-the-digital-age/ (accessed 14 January 2026).

11.

Berens

(2019) E-literature’s #1 hit: Is Instagram poetry e-literature? Electronic Book Review. Available at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/eng_fac/40 (accessed 14 January 2026).

12.

Bietti

Tilston

Bangerter

(2019) Storytelling as adaptive collective sensemaking. Topics in Cognitive Science 11(4): 710–732.

13.

Blackshaw

(2010) Key Concepts in Community Studies. London: Sage.

14.

Bolle-Debessay

(2020) Dub poetry: A study beyond predefined interpretations . PhD Thesis, King’s College London, UK. Available at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/148280613/2020_Bolle_Debessay_Rachel_1551773_ethesis_amendedforpure202103.pdf (accessed 19 August 2025).

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf DL, and Sher, KJ, (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, pp. 57–71.

16.

Brennan

(2004) The Transmission of Affect. New York: Cornell University Press.

17.

Bruckman

(2022) Should You Believe Wikipedia?: Online Communities and the Construction of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Brzozowska

Galuszka

(2023) Building performance capital during hard lockdown: Insights from the ESNS 2021 virtual-only showcase festival. Poetics 96: 101758.

19.

Campion

(2021) Poetry slam in the UK. In: English

McGowan

(eds) Spoken Word in the UK. Oxon: Routledge, pp.423–436.

20.

Chen

C-P

(2022) Hardcore viewer engagement and social exchange with streamers and their digital live streaming communities. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 26(1): 37–57.

21.

Cox

(2020) Archived bards: platformalism, Hollie McNish & YouTube. C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-Century Writings 8(1): 1–21.

22.

Creswell

Poth

(2016) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. California: Sage Publications.

23.

Cross

(2010) “There is no authority but yourself”: The individual and the collective in British Anarcho-Punk. Music and Politics 4(2): 2–20.

24.

Curwood

Jones

(2022) A bridge across our fears: Understanding spoken word poetry in troubled times. Literacy 56(1): 50–58.

25.

Dale

(2016) Anyone Can Do It: Empowerment, Tradition and the Punk Underground. Surrey: Routledge.

26.

de Rooij

Bastiaansen

(2017) Understanding and measuring consumption motives in the performing arts. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47(2): 118–135.

27.

Etikan

Musa

Alkassim

(2016) Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5(1): 1–4.

28.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 80–92.

29.

Fernback

(2007) Beyond the diluted community concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective on online social relations. New Media & Society 9(1): 49–69.

30.

Fife

(2022) Distant together: creative community in UK DIY music during COVID-19. In: Bruzzi

Biriotti

Caleb

, et al. (eds): UCL Press, pp.49–57. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10155915/ (accessed 18 July 2024).

31.

Frijda

Scherer

(2009) Affect (psychological perspectives). In: Sander

Scherer

(eds) The Oxford Companion to Emotion and the Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 10.

32.

Fusch

Ness

(2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9): 1408–1416.

33.

Gallant

Hamilton-Hinch

White

, et al. (2019) “Removing the thorns”: The role of the arts in recovery for people with mental health challenges. Arts & Health 11(1): 1–14.

34.

Gandolfi

(2016) To watch or to play, it is in the game: The game culture on Twitch.tv among performers, plays and audiences. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds 8(1): 63–82.

35.

Gibbs

(2001) Contagious feelings: Pauline Hanson and the epidemiology of affect – AHR. Australian Humanities Review 24: 1–9.

36.

Gladney

(1995) The Black Arts Movement and Hip-Hop. African American Review 29(2): 291–301.

37.

Goffman

(1959) Presentation of self in everyday life. American Journal of Sociology 55(1): 6–7.

38.

Goh

Tandoc

Jr Ng

(2021) “Live” together with you: livestream views mitigate the effects of loneliness on well-being. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 65(4): 505–524.

39.

Gregersen

Astrupgaard

Jespersen

, et al. (2023) Digital dependence: online fatigue and coping strategies during the COVID-19 lockdown. Media, Culture & Society 45(5): 967–984.

40.

Gregg

Seigworth

(2010) The Affect Theory Reader. North Carolina: Duke University Press.

41.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.

42.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed. London; New York: Routledge.

43.

Harris

(2019) We’ll do it live! Unpacking the community-building labor of twitch streamers. Electronic Journal of Communication 29(3). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandon-Harris-12/publication/369992275_We'll_do_it_Live_Unpacking_the_Community-Building_Labor_of_Twitch_Streamers/links/651aeb29321ec5513c2c008d/Well-do-it-Live-Unpacking-the-Community-Building-Labor-of-Twitch-Streamers.pdf (accessed 27 June 2025).

44.

Yao

Tang

, et al. (2023) Impacts of different interactions on viewers’ sense of virtual community: An empirical study of live streaming platform. Behaviour and Information Technology 42(7): 940–960. 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2053884.

45.

Hennink

Hutter

Bailey

(2020) Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

46.

Hine

(2000) Virtual Ethnography. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

47.

Hoffman

(2001) Treacherous laughter: the poetry slam, slam poetry, and the politics of resistance. Studies in American Humor 8: 49–64.

48.

Hogan

(2016) Affect studies. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-105 (accessed 11 January 2024).

49.

Kane

(2003) All Poets Welcome: The Lower East Side Poetry Scene in the 1960s. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

50.

Kew

(2021) Performance poetry, COVID-19 and the new ‘public sphere’. Wasafiri 36(1): 32–41.

51.

Korecka

(2023) Visual poetry on social media platforms. Available at: https://www.poetry-digital-age.uni-hamburg.de/en/forschung/laufend/social-media-poetry.html (accessed 27 August 2025).

52.

Kovalik

Curwood

(2019) #Poetryisnotdead: Understanding Instagram poetry within a transliteracies framework. Literacy 53(4): 185–195.

53.

Kozinets

(2015) Netnography: Redefined, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

54.

Leary

Cox

(2008) Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action. In: Shah

Gardner

(eds) Handbook of Motivation Science. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press, pp.27–40.

55.

Lee

Y.-H

Yuan

CW (Tina)

(2023) Investigating social presence in “In Real Life” streaming for community building. New Media and Society 27(1): 379–403. 10.1177/14614448231176769.

56.

Lidington

(1987) New terms for old turns: The rise of alternative cabaret. New Theatre Quarterly 3: 107–119.

57.

Lofland

Snow

Anderson

, et al. (2006) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 4th ed. Long grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

58.

Louise

(2019) Poetry and community: An ethnography of Aberdeen’s spoken word scene. Ethnographic Encounters 9(2): 5–7.

59.

Marcus

(2016) Multi-sited ethnography: Notes and queries. In: Falzon

M-A

(ed) Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 181–196.

60.

Marsden

(2018) Oral goes viral – reversing the print revolution. Transnational Literature 10(2): pp. 1–21.

61.

Mazza

(2012) Therapy and poetry. In: Greene

Cushman

Cavanagh

, et al. (eds) The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 1434–1435.

62.

Mcardle

Byrt

(2001) Fiction, poetry and mental health: Expressive and therapeutic uses of literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 8(6): 517–524.

63.

McGowan

(2022) Moved through the screen. Writing in Practice 7: 166–177.

64.

McNichols

Witt

(2018) The use of poetry in counselor training and supervision. Journal of Poetry Therapy 31(3): 145–164.

65.

Novak

(2011) Live Poetry: An Integrated Approach to Poetry in Performance. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

66.

Nowell

Norris

White

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 1–13.

67.

Noy

(2008) Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(4): 327–344.

68.

O’Reilly

(2005) Ethnographic Methods. Oxon: Routledge.

69.

Parmar

Bain

(2007) Spoken word and hip hop: The power of urban art and culture. Counterpoints 306: 131–156.

70.

Patton

(2002a) Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work 1(3): 261–283.

71.

Patton

(2002b) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. California: Sage Publications.

72.

Pereira

Ricci

(2023) “Calling All the Cattle”: Music live streams during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. In: Brewer

Ruberg

Cullen

A. L. L.

(eds) Real Life in Real Time. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14526.003.0006

73.

Pink

Horst

Postill

, et al. (eds) (2016) Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

74.

Postill

Pink

(2012) Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web. Media International Australia 145(1): 123–134.

75.

Preece

Maloney-Krichmar

(2005) Online communities: Design, theory, and practice. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(4): JCMC10410.

76.

Rheingold

(2000) The Virtual Community, Revised Edition: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

77.

Rotman

Preece

(2010) The ‘WeTube’ in YouTube - creating an online community through video sharing. International Journal of Web Based Communities 6(3): 317–333.

78.

Ruberg

Brewer

Cullen

ALL

, et al. (2023) Introduction: the revolution is streaming live: cultural perspectives on the age of live streaming. In: Brewer

Ruberg

Cullen

ALL

, et al. (eds) Real Life in Real Time. The MIT Press, pp.1–24. Available at: https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/5635/chapter/4314860/Introduction-The-Revolution-Is-Streaming-Live (accessed 5 July 2024).

79.

Ruberg

Lark

(2021) Livestreaming from the bedroom: performing intimacy through domestic space on Twitch. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 27(3): 679–695.

80.

Rubin

(2011) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. California: Sage Publications.

81.

Rufas

Hine

(2018) Everyday connections between online and offline: Imagining others and constructing community through local online initiatives. New Media & Society 20(10): 3879–3897.

82.

Sabin

(2002) Punk Rock: So What?: The Cultural Legacy of Punk. London: Routledge.

83.

Samuels

(2004) The rap on rap: The ‘Black Music’ that isn’t either. In: Neal

Forman

(eds) That’s the Joint!: The Hip-Hop Studies Reader. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 147–154.

84.

Schwitter

(2024) How offline meetings affect online activities: the case of Wikipedia. EPJ Data Science 13(1): 67.

85.

Shakargy

(2020) Internetica: Poetry in the digital age. International Journal of Cultural Studies 24(2): 325–341.

86.

Sharma

(2021) Reading and rewriting poetry on life to survive the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Poetry Therapy 34(2): 95–108.

87.

Stark

Crawford

(2015) The conservatism of emoji: work, affect, and communication. Social Media + Society 1(2): 2056305115604853.

88.

Tracy

(2019) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Newark, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

89.

Vandenberg

Berghman

Schaap

(2021) The ‘lonely raver’: Music livestreams during COVID-19 as a hotline to collective consciousness? European Societies 23(1): 141–152. 10.1080/14616696.2020.1818271.

90.

Walkington

(2020) Speak about it, be about it: spoken-word poetry communities and transformative social justice. Critical Criminology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09510-8 (accessed 4 December 2020).

91.

Ward

(1999) The cyber-ethnographic (re)construction of two feminist online communities. Sociological Research Online 4(1): 51–64. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/1/ward.html (accessed 12 November 2019).

92.

Wehmeier

(2023) Formatting the flow. Available at: https://www.poetry-digital-age.uni-hamburg.de/en/forschung/laufend/flow.html (accessed 27 August 2025).

93.

Williamson

(2006) Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library Trends 55(1): 83–101.

94.

Woodcock

Johnson

(2019) The affective labor and performance of live streaming on Twitch.tv. Television & New Media 20(8): 813–823.

95.

Woods

(2006) “Preferring the wrong way”: Mapping the ethical diversity of US twentieth-century poetry. In: Bigsby

CWE

(ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Modern American Culture. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.450–468.

96.

Worley

(2017) No Future: Punk, Politics and British Youth Culture, 1976–1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

97.

Yue

(2022) Conjunctions of resilience and the COVID-19 crisis of the creative cultural industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies 25(3-4): 349–368.

Between convenience and connection: Livestreaming in spoken word poetry communities

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Spoken word poetry communities

Online communities

Livestreaming

Community and affect

Methodology

Data collection

Analysis

Findings and discussion

Barriers to spoken word access and community development

The challenge of fostering community in livestreaming

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Consent for publication

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Author biography

References