A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. (1998). Jon Prosser (Ed.). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Visual Anthropology: Image, Object and Interpretation (Marcus Banks, 9-23)
"It is the materiality of the visual that allows us to group together a diverse range of human activities and representational strategies under the banner of visual anthropology and to treat them as visual systems" (p. 12).
An Argument for Visual Sociology (Douglas Harper, 24-41)
Finding roots of visual sociology in visual ethnography and documentary photography, Harper asserts that new ethnography, in other words, post-modern ethnography, is partial true rather than complete document, thus ethnographic knowledge should bring the reader to the cultural world rather than report on it from a distance. He supports his argument with statements written by Marcus and Fischer (Anthropology as Cultural Critique, 1987, p. 135):
"Post-modern ethnography...does not move toward abstraction, away from life, but back to experience. It aims not to foster the growth of knowledge but to restructure experience; not to understand objective reality, for that is already established by common sense, nor to explain how we understand, for tha is impossible, but to reassimilate, to reintegrate the self in society and to restructure the conduct of everyday life"(quoted on page 31).
Film-making and Ethnographic Research (Paul Henley, 42-59)
According to Henley, those who deny the objectivity of cinematographic images see "the camera as a catalyst, provoking events, situations and relationships that are revealing precisely because of their atypicality" and "as the medium of a trance-like state whereby the film-maker becomes fully engaged in the lives of the films' protagonists and thereby achieves an understanding that is inaccessible to those who insist on remaining neutral and distant" (p. 43, quoted from Rouch).
Henley states that Rouch, who regarded Flaherty and Vertov as "the inspired precursors of ethnographic film-making", with Flaherty, shared a commitment to active participation with the protagonists in the creating of his films and fictionalization of their lives; with Vertov, shared a belief in the camera as a means of insight beyond everyday observable reality. Grounding in these influences, Rouch introduced documentary conventions into ethnographic documentation.
Henley finds the difficulty of theorizing documentary film in anthropology in film's communicative nature: while the dominant theoretical paradigms were grounded in generalization and abstraction until 1980s, film is concrete and particular such that it is most effective at representing the performative aspects of culture defined in the broadest sense, such as political events, religious rituals, symbolic aspects of everyday life. Recent the paradigmatic change from the positivist tradition to interpretative approaches in anthropology shed light on roles of ethnographic film-making to its strengths, Henley argues. In this paradigm, social life is not a mere expression of underlying structure but idiosyncratic and contingent to day-to-day basis of social performances of many kinds. Thus, Henley writes, "Ethnographic description thus becomes a process of describing and elucidating these performances rather than demonstrating their function or role in an abstract system" (p.51). He elaborates the strength of this shift in emphasis from general schemas to the understanding particular cases: "when greater emphasis is laid on the individual ethnographic case, contextualization can emerge from within the film, often in the form of comments made by the protagonists themselves. Over time, such comments will retain their cultural integrity and be less vulnerable to fluctuations in theoretical fashion" (p. 51).
Henley traces ethnographic film-making that involves protagonists' participation to the anthropologists at the University of Philadelphia who gave cameras to Navajo Indians and inner city teenagers in 1960s (Worth & Adair, 1972, Through Navajo Eyes: An Exploration in Film Communication and Anthropology). Henley notes that whereas these early experiments were motivated exclusively by academic research interests, recent collaborative ventures between researchers and indigenous film-makers tend to be more political and ask social justice.
The Status of Image-Based Research (Jon Prosser, 97-112)
Prosser overviews this article by briefing the history of visual anthropology and visual anthropology, where he finds 'fragmentation' as the root cause of its limited status in academia. He argues that fragmentation represents part of the shifting landscape of contemporary qualitative research. He quotes Ruby's penetrative argument about the reason for the peripheral status of visual anthropology:
When engaged in ethnography, the researcher must convert the complex experience of field work to words in a notebook and then transform those words onto other words shifted through analytic methods and theories. This logocentric approach to understanding denies much of the multisensory experience of trying to know another culture. The promise of visual anthropology is that it might provide an alternative way of perceiving culture-perception constructed through the lens (1996, Visual Anthropology, in D. Levinson and M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 4, 1345-51. NY: Henry Holt and Co.)
To him, reflexivity attempts to reveal explicitly the process by which data and finding were produced. His criticism lies in that reflexivity, of which the emphasis is given to the process, is only partial in many cases: for example, The Ax Fight (1975), misses reflexive insights of inter-personal reactivity, he mentions. [He points out a very important aspect of the discourse of reflexivity, which has been so much formalistic. What about the insights of the researcher or the researched? These should be explored.]
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Picturing Culture: Exploration of Film and Anthropology
Ruby, Jay. (2000). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Exposing Yourself: Reflexivity, Anthropology and Film (pp. 151-180).
Ruby states that reflexivity is a multifaceted concept that has been used in many ways for different purposes and to be reflexive in a work of anthropology is "to insist that anthropologists systematically and rigorously reveal their methods and themselves as the instrument of data generation and reflect upon how the medium through which they transmit their work predisposes readers/viewers to construct the meaning of the work in certain ways" (p. 152). Thus, to him, reflexivity means primarily revealing producer and process, whereby is explored strictly from an anthrologist's point of view.
While exploring reflexivity in anthropological cinema, Ruby points out Chronicle of a Summer (Jean Rouch, 1961) and A Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov) as examples of anthropological cinema in that Chronicle combined personal and participatory concerns with revealing the process, which was an emphasis of A Man with a Movie Camera.
Reflexivity in Ruby's own term is a anthropologist's research practice framed in a new paradigm that explores knowledge production process. This perspective becomes explicit in his experience with Hubert Smith, a documentary filmmaker who attempted to make a reflexive documentary about Mayan culture. Ruby insisted on depicting the director's conversations with the anthropologist involved in the project as well as meetings with the consulting panel list.
Criticizing both art and science in that art (in this case, film) is perceived as an interpretation of reality and science as a mirror of reality, Ruby asks for a new theory of pictorial communication suitable for a visual anthrology. (This new theory could involve the researched's participation...I think.)
Ruby (Picturing Culture, p. 186): “Postmodern critics like George Marcus and James Clifford wish to add another goal—to make viewers aware of the constructed and tentative nature of anthropological knowledge. This admonition logically leads us into a discussion of reflexivity…Martinez (1992) has argued that these two goals should be linked. If a film is reflexively open, less authoritative, and multivocal, viewers may be more able to overcome their ethnocentric tendencies and gain some empathetic feelings for the people portrayed in the film.” –In this argument, an anthropoligist’s reflexivity reflected in an ethnographic film should achieve an ultimate goal of anthropology, which is overcoming ethnocentric tendencies among audiences and gaining empathy for people in the people.
Concerning cooperatively produced and subject-generated films, Ruby writes, “From an anthropological perspective, they offer the possibility of perceiving the world from the viewpoint of people who offer the possibility of perceiving the world from the viewpoint of people who lead lives that are different from those traditionally in control of the means of imaging the world. Subject-generated films are a tool used by some disenfranchised people in their efforts to negotiate a new cultural identity. For other indigenous and minority producers, among movies and television is a way into the profits and power of the established order. These films challenge some basic assumptions about the authorship of ethnographic films and potentially offer insight into the importance of culture in the construction of a film. This shift in authority has the potential to permanently alter ethnographic film practice” (p.196)
As examples of this practice, Ruby points out Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North and the cine-train project of Alexander Medvedkin, Dziga Vertov and others who produced films about local problems with the assistance of local political powers in the twenties and the early thirties in the Soviet Union. Another example mentioned by Ruby is the British film Housing Problems (1935, Edgar Anstey and Arthur Elton), in which people speak for themselves on the screen. However, Ruby states that cooperative and subject-generated films were generally ignored until the 1960s.
As a limitation of cooperative filmmaking, Ruby argues that while a multivocal approach to the documentary empower subjects, the filmmaker still holds the ethical and intellectual responsibility for the film for reasons—lack of subjects’ editorial authorship and lack of an understanding of potential problems, etc.
As Ruby points out, a shared authority in cooperative, collaborative and community-based films brings the subject’s view of themselves to the surface and alienates the journalistic objectivity based on positivism. However, he takes a note from Sol Worth, who disputed the Challenge for Change program while writing an unpublished version of a review of You Are on Indian Land. Worth (1972, A Review of You Are on Indian Land, Draft of a review later published in a revised form in the American Anthropologist, 74 (4), 1029-31) writes, “Teaching others to make and use film was essentially teaching white middle-class values of how information films brought about gradual and democratic change. You Are on Indian Land is a perfect example of a professional white liberal film made in “consultation” with Indians.”—I AM NOT SURE AT THIS POINT ABOUT WHO MADE THE DOCUMENTARY.
Ruby asserts that sharing authority in filmmaking is difficult because collaboration requires the participants to have certain technical, intellectual and cultural parity. Thus he raises the question: if the participants are knowledgeable enough, why would they need outsiders to collaborate?
Exposing Yourself: Reflexivity, Anthropology and Film (pp. 151-180).
Ruby states that reflexivity is a multifaceted concept that has been used in many ways for different purposes and to be reflexive in a work of anthropology is "to insist that anthropologists systematically and rigorously reveal their methods and themselves as the instrument of data generation and reflect upon how the medium through which they transmit their work predisposes readers/viewers to construct the meaning of the work in certain ways" (p. 152). Thus, to him, reflexivity means primarily revealing producer and process, whereby is explored strictly from an anthrologist's point of view.
While exploring reflexivity in anthropological cinema, Ruby points out Chronicle of a Summer (Jean Rouch, 1961) and A Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov) as examples of anthropological cinema in that Chronicle combined personal and participatory concerns with revealing the process, which was an emphasis of A Man with a Movie Camera.
Reflexivity in Ruby's own term is a anthropologist's research practice framed in a new paradigm that explores knowledge production process. This perspective becomes explicit in his experience with Hubert Smith, a documentary filmmaker who attempted to make a reflexive documentary about Mayan culture. Ruby insisted on depicting the director's conversations with the anthropologist involved in the project as well as meetings with the consulting panel list.
Criticizing both art and science in that art (in this case, film) is perceived as an interpretation of reality and science as a mirror of reality, Ruby asks for a new theory of pictorial communication suitable for a visual anthrology. (This new theory could involve the researched's participation...I think.)
Ruby (Picturing Culture, p. 186): “Postmodern critics like George Marcus and James Clifford wish to add another goal—to make viewers aware of the constructed and tentative nature of anthropological knowledge. This admonition logically leads us into a discussion of reflexivity…Martinez (1992) has argued that these two goals should be linked. If a film is reflexively open, less authoritative, and multivocal, viewers may be more able to overcome their ethnocentric tendencies and gain some empathetic feelings for the people portrayed in the film.” –In this argument, an anthropoligist’s reflexivity reflected in an ethnographic film should achieve an ultimate goal of anthropology, which is overcoming ethnocentric tendencies among audiences and gaining empathy for people in the people.
Concerning cooperatively produced and subject-generated films, Ruby writes, “From an anthropological perspective, they offer the possibility of perceiving the world from the viewpoint of people who offer the possibility of perceiving the world from the viewpoint of people who lead lives that are different from those traditionally in control of the means of imaging the world. Subject-generated films are a tool used by some disenfranchised people in their efforts to negotiate a new cultural identity. For other indigenous and minority producers, among movies and television is a way into the profits and power of the established order. These films challenge some basic assumptions about the authorship of ethnographic films and potentially offer insight into the importance of culture in the construction of a film. This shift in authority has the potential to permanently alter ethnographic film practice” (p.196)
As examples of this practice, Ruby points out Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North and the cine-train project of Alexander Medvedkin, Dziga Vertov and others who produced films about local problems with the assistance of local political powers in the twenties and the early thirties in the Soviet Union. Another example mentioned by Ruby is the British film Housing Problems (1935, Edgar Anstey and Arthur Elton), in which people speak for themselves on the screen. However, Ruby states that cooperative and subject-generated films were generally ignored until the 1960s.
As a limitation of cooperative filmmaking, Ruby argues that while a multivocal approach to the documentary empower subjects, the filmmaker still holds the ethical and intellectual responsibility for the film for reasons—lack of subjects’ editorial authorship and lack of an understanding of potential problems, etc.
As Ruby points out, a shared authority in cooperative, collaborative and community-based films brings the subject’s view of themselves to the surface and alienates the journalistic objectivity based on positivism. However, he takes a note from Sol Worth, who disputed the Challenge for Change program while writing an unpublished version of a review of You Are on Indian Land. Worth (1972, A Review of You Are on Indian Land, Draft of a review later published in a revised form in the American Anthropologist, 74 (4), 1029-31) writes, “Teaching others to make and use film was essentially teaching white middle-class values of how information films brought about gradual and democratic change. You Are on Indian Land is a perfect example of a professional white liberal film made in “consultation” with Indians.”—I AM NOT SURE AT THIS POINT ABOUT WHO MADE THE DOCUMENTARY.
Ruby asserts that sharing authority in filmmaking is difficult because collaboration requires the participants to have certain technical, intellectual and cultural parity. Thus he raises the question: if the participants are knowledgeable enough, why would they need outsiders to collaborate?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment
Wang, Caroline & Burris, Mary Ann. (1997). Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369-387.
Wang and Burris define photovoice as "a process by which people can identify, represent, and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique" (p. 369). They emphasize the advantages of photovoice as a needs assessment tool: (1) it is grounded in participatory appraisal that describes the fundamentals of the community needs; (2) Photovoice employs the visual image, a powerful means to describe such needs; (3) the accessibility of photovoice enables even illiterate people to participate; (4) it facilitates the sampling of different social and behavior setting, which may be beyond the researchers' scope; (5) it can sustain community participation. etc.
However, one of the disadvantages that photovoice method may bring is, the authors point out, that "photographs are easy to gather but difficult to analyze and summarize because they yield an abundance of complex data that can eb difficult to digest" (p. 375). Participatory analysis they propose seem to provide a possible solution to the dilemma. The authors argue that to use photovoice for needs assessment, participants should be involved in selecting topics, contextualizing the meaning of a photo, and codifying that identifies issues, themes or theories. Group discussion is critical to all these processes, the authors write. They state that the group discussion may allow VOICE--voicing our indicidual and collective experience, because photogrphs alone, considered outside the context of women's own voices and stories, would contradict the essence of photovoice.
Wang and Burris define photovoice as "a process by which people can identify, represent, and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique" (p. 369). They emphasize the advantages of photovoice as a needs assessment tool: (1) it is grounded in participatory appraisal that describes the fundamentals of the community needs; (2) Photovoice employs the visual image, a powerful means to describe such needs; (3) the accessibility of photovoice enables even illiterate people to participate; (4) it facilitates the sampling of different social and behavior setting, which may be beyond the researchers' scope; (5) it can sustain community participation. etc.
However, one of the disadvantages that photovoice method may bring is, the authors point out, that "photographs are easy to gather but difficult to analyze and summarize because they yield an abundance of complex data that can eb difficult to digest" (p. 375). Participatory analysis they propose seem to provide a possible solution to the dilemma. The authors argue that to use photovoice for needs assessment, participants should be involved in selecting topics, contextualizing the meaning of a photo, and codifying that identifies issues, themes or theories. Group discussion is critical to all these processes, the authors write. They state that the group discussion may allow VOICE--voicing our indicidual and collective experience, because photogrphs alone, considered outside the context of women's own voices and stories, would contradict the essence of photovoice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
