Sarah Pink

(2007). Applied Visual Anthropology: Social Intervention and Visual Methods, In S. Pink (Ed.). Visual Interpretations: Applied Visual Anthropology (pp.3-28). NY: Berg.

In her definition of visual intervention as bridging gaps between applied and academic visual anthropology, the notion of social intervention interweaves naturally because applied visual anthropology usually entails problem solving and social changes through collaboration among participants. In this regard, Pink calls applied visual anthropology "cultural brokerage". Thus, what matters in applied visual anthropology, the author argues, is that it not the film itself but the collaborative and reflexive processes it undertakes as a means of generating enlightened self-awareness and identity among participants.

Whereas stating the contingency and fluidity of the definition of applied visual anthropology, the author points out its collaborative dimension as the most prevalent theme of this research method and delineates common methodological aspects in three categories: 1) although applied visual anthropology is given a shorter timescale compared to observational cinema type visual method, the means of collaborative knowledge production through participatory scripting practices makes this approach more effective. 2) In addition, this method is intrinsically project-based, which requires interdisciplinary collaborations with colleagues as well as with research participants. 3) Lastly, audiovisual texts created through this method brings forth individual experiences and narratives, whereby intrigues a new understanding of their one self identity while generating empathetic understanding of others' experience among the audience.

With regard to ethics that applied visual anthropology poses on top of the basic ethics code, Pink discuss it in two dimensions: image itself and participants. Pink argues that the interpretation and use of images should be considered and at the same time questions of ownership should be clarified, in particular, in case of unexpected commercial uses of the research materials. For that reason, Pink stresses participants' right to be informed with respect to dissemination as well as confidentiality. [I also add to this researcher-as-filmmaker's subjectivity. It is inevitable that a researcher-as-filmmaker sees social phenomena through his or her eyes and certain aspects of the phenomena are highlighted. While a filmmaker-as-artist may ignore questions of his or her subjectivity by taking an authorship of the material although it doesn't mean discard moral responsibilities entailing the film-making, a researcher will need to pay attention to sources of conflicts that might arise during the film-making. Pink insinuates collaborative scripting practice for this matter, but it requires the researcher's constant reflexivity at the bottom.]