Sharon Daniel's "Public Secrets" project is a compilation of testimony from prison inmates, theorists, and Daniel herself in order to create a mosaic dialogue. That is to say, through a multimedia context, Daniel combines a variety of viewpoints/voices to create a more collective whole. This concept is easily likened to Bakhtin's concept of "heteroglossia" discussed in "Discourse in the Novel." Heteroglossia refers to the idea that different languages/discourses co-exist within any literary work (a sense of plurality in language). Most importantly, Bakhtin's argument emphasizes the concept that "verbal discourse is a social phenomenon," and not a singular, definable concept. For this reason, Bakhtin praises the novel, a medium that can most aptly provide a variety of dialogue.
In many ways, Daniel's case study, composed of a variety of voices, functions like a novel. Although there isn't a singularly defined narrative voice, the collective picture creates a sense of thematic unity (Daniel's case combines different forms of language: definitions, quotes, audio testimony, etc).
For a concept with such breadth (the incarceration system), Daniel's formatting/medium seems perhaps more effective than a print or text driven presentation. As Bakhtin would agree, the idea/image of the prison system cannot be created or depicted in a vacuum, it is not a "histological specimen," but rather a living issue, comprised of a myriad of voices. Am I the only one who was impressed with the effect of this medium? If the medium is more representative of it's subject matter is the ultimate effect more powerful?