The authors rejects two streams of using video data: one as a replica of unrecorded event and the other as a distorting effect on the researched phenomenon. They argue that a reflexive analysis of video data is essential because the activity of data collection itself is interactive (i am not sure what this means). In this light, they argue, video generated data should be analyzed by providing a faithful record of the process in which interaction occurs.
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology
Lomax, H., Casey, N. (1998). Sociological Research Online, 3(2), xiii-xiv.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
VIA's visual voices: the awareness of a dedicated audience for voices in patient video narratives
Richard Chalfen; Laura Sherman; Michael Rich (2010). Visual Studies, 25: 3, 201 — 209. doi: 10.1080/1472586X.2010.523271
First the authors examine the concept of ‘voice’ in one
model of participant media research (PMR) giving special
attention to parallel variables of hearing, begging questions
about the ‘listening’ component of any communication
process. Second, they describe the use of a research
programme entitled Video Intervention/Prevention
Assessment (VIA) and a series of ongoing video narrative
projects with chronically ill young people at Children’s
Hospital Boston. Young people were asked to show how
they see their own illness-centred lives by using videocam
technology. Third, ‘visual voices’ as found on the videotape
results are examined through Thompson’s five kinds of
voice used by participants living with spina bifida, cystic
fibrosis and, in one case, obesity. We conclude that
knowledge and anticipation of what we have termed
‘a dedicated audience’ is one of the primary variables
in the elicitation of voice and the overall value of
participant media research.
Describing their approach to research as participant media research, in which participants (patients with chronic illness) record themselves in front of a video camera for several weeks once a day, the authors concluded that the patient narratives reveal the complexity of voice. Further they argued that a "dedicated audience" makes such voice more recognizable through the PMR. Stressing the importance of listeners and viewer in PMR, they argued:
"We conclude that knowledge and anticipation of
what we have termed ‘a dedicated audience’ is one of the
primary variables in the success of participant media
research. We found that patients are especially enthusiastic
about engaging in participatory media research when they
sense a concerned audience awaits their tele-presence.
Participants develop an altruistic spirit and tone based on
knowing that ‘my’ knowledge, often grounded in ‘my’
personal life experience, is important and valuable to others
and to the potential improvement of personal care, medical
treatment and even survival." (p. 209).
** Mitchell (2008) South African Journal of Education Vol 28:365-383
"Getting the picture and changing the picture: visual
methodologies and educational research in South Africa"
She also similarly argued that "Visual images are particularly appropriate to drawing in the participants themselves as central to the interpretive process." (p. 374) because of its enhanced accessibility.
First the authors examine the concept of ‘voice’ in one
model of participant media research (PMR) giving special
attention to parallel variables of hearing, begging questions
about the ‘listening’ component of any communication
process. Second, they describe the use of a research
programme entitled Video Intervention/Prevention
Assessment (VIA) and a series of ongoing video narrative
projects with chronically ill young people at Children’s
Hospital Boston. Young people were asked to show how
they see their own illness-centred lives by using videocam
technology. Third, ‘visual voices’ as found on the videotape
results are examined through Thompson’s five kinds of
voice used by participants living with spina bifida, cystic
fibrosis and, in one case, obesity. We conclude that
knowledge and anticipation of what we have termed
‘a dedicated audience’ is one of the primary variables
in the elicitation of voice and the overall value of
participant media research.
Describing their approach to research as participant media research, in which participants (patients with chronic illness) record themselves in front of a video camera for several weeks once a day, the authors concluded that the patient narratives reveal the complexity of voice. Further they argued that a "dedicated audience" makes such voice more recognizable through the PMR. Stressing the importance of listeners and viewer in PMR, they argued:
"We conclude that knowledge and anticipation of
what we have termed ‘a dedicated audience’ is one of the
primary variables in the success of participant media
research. We found that patients are especially enthusiastic
about engaging in participatory media research when they
sense a concerned audience awaits their tele-presence.
Participants develop an altruistic spirit and tone based on
knowing that ‘my’ knowledge, often grounded in ‘my’
personal life experience, is important and valuable to others
and to the potential improvement of personal care, medical
treatment and even survival." (p. 209).
** Mitchell (2008) South African Journal of Education Vol 28:365-383
"Getting the picture and changing the picture: visual
methodologies and educational research in South Africa"
She also similarly argued that "Visual images are particularly appropriate to drawing in the participants themselves as central to the interpretive process." (p. 374) because of its enhanced accessibility.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
On not talking to strangers
: Researching micro worlds of girls through visual auto-ethnographic practices. Gerry Bloustien and Sarah Baker. (2003). Social Analysis, 47(3), 64-79.
Bloustien: ten 15 years old girls for three years. video cameras.
Baker: pre-teen aged girls (8-11), mainly still cameras.
In these research project, the cameras offered the girls a "space to play" (p. 69). [They named auto-visual ethnography]
The authors wrote about the role of the cameras:
"For the girls, the cameras became ways of interpreting and redefining their worlds, ways which frequently expressed far more than the girls were capable of saying, for often it was what was not said that was important." (p. 69).
"Clearly, then, the use of the camera as a methodological tool, and more importantly, placed in the hands and under the control of the young participants, deepened and precipitated a number of previously unforeseen dimensions to the research project." (p. 69)
Authors discussed about camera power arguing that "the camera was so successfully and so efficaciously an entry point into the field across different social domains and locales" (p. 70).
1. It allowed the girls to become active participants as they can control over the final product.
2. It provides researchers with positive dimensions of the research: it fosters reciprocity as the participants are exciting about learning new skills. This aspect is considered "ethical" by the researchers because it balances power relationship involved between researchers and participants [Give and take]
Rethinking of power imbalance, the authors wrote:
3. "What was clear, though, was that the cameras did give the young people license to explore these places of play through the 'objectifying' lens, a license which, in turn, helped to blur the more traditional lines between researcher and researched, and offered new insights about the nature of research." (p. 72).
4. The authors argued that "the use of the camera was able to provide the means of giving the participants an authoritative voice" (p. 72). This implies that the use of the camera was not for reflect reality but for "making the process of mutual discovery and creativity of both the researcher and subjects more transparent" (p. 72). The authors rephrased, "the camera offered insights into the 'layering' of ethnography, the different ways understanding and knowledge are negotiated and realized as part of everyday transactions in the world" (p. 72) . [CREATION OF REALITY]
This layering aspect was the focus of their research projects; they also purposefully examined what is not taken. Thus what mattered to these authors is:
"The point, then, is not what is produced with the visual tool, but how the production relates to the position occupied by the producer in the particular field of that production" (p. 76).
Bloustien: ten 15 years old girls for three years. video cameras.
Baker: pre-teen aged girls (8-11), mainly still cameras.
In these research project, the cameras offered the girls a "space to play" (p. 69). [They named auto-visual ethnography]
The authors wrote about the role of the cameras:
"For the girls, the cameras became ways of interpreting and redefining their worlds, ways which frequently expressed far more than the girls were capable of saying, for often it was what was not said that was important." (p. 69).
"Clearly, then, the use of the camera as a methodological tool, and more importantly, placed in the hands and under the control of the young participants, deepened and precipitated a number of previously unforeseen dimensions to the research project." (p. 69)
Authors discussed about camera power arguing that "the camera was so successfully and so efficaciously an entry point into the field across different social domains and locales" (p. 70).
1. It allowed the girls to become active participants as they can control over the final product.
2. It provides researchers with positive dimensions of the research: it fosters reciprocity as the participants are exciting about learning new skills. This aspect is considered "ethical" by the researchers because it balances power relationship involved between researchers and participants [Give and take]
Rethinking of power imbalance, the authors wrote:
3. "What was clear, though, was that the cameras did give the young people license to explore these places of play through the 'objectifying' lens, a license which, in turn, helped to blur the more traditional lines between researcher and researched, and offered new insights about the nature of research." (p. 72).
4. The authors argued that "the use of the camera was able to provide the means of giving the participants an authoritative voice" (p. 72). This implies that the use of the camera was not for reflect reality but for "making the process of mutual discovery and creativity of both the researcher and subjects more transparent" (p. 72). The authors rephrased, "the camera offered insights into the 'layering' of ethnography, the different ways understanding and knowledge are negotiated and realized as part of everyday transactions in the world" (p. 72) . [CREATION OF REALITY]
This layering aspect was the focus of their research projects; they also purposefully examined what is not taken. Thus what mattered to these authors is:
"The point, then, is not what is produced with the visual tool, but how the production relates to the position occupied by the producer in the particular field of that production" (p. 76).
GIRL MAKING: A CROSSCULTURAL ETHNOGRAPHY ON THE PROCESSES OF GROWING UP FEMALE
Gerry Bloustein (2003). Oxford: Berghahn Books
This book describes her ethnographic research on girlhood. The research methods include in-depth interviews with her subjects and reviewing videos created by teen-aged girls.
This book describes her ethnographic research on girlhood. The research methods include in-depth interviews with her subjects and reviewing videos created by teen-aged girls.
Introduction: Envisioning ethnography
-Exploring the meaning of the visual in research. Gerry Bloustein (2003). Social Analysis, 47(3), 1-7.
Visual images in the forms of photographs, video, film, and new media have become important to ethnographic endeavors and all of the social sciences (She cited from Banks, 2001).
In the use of the camera for recording oneself, Bloustein wrote:
For it the camera seems to objectify, it can also subjectify. The taking and revisiting of a photo or video of oneself become analogous to the way Lacan has described the dream state of "seeing ourselves seeing ourselves" (Lacan 1979: 74, quote in Sanders 1980:1). No wonder the camera and related visual images increasingly find themselves at the heart of ethnographic research. (p. 2)
Introducing Bloustein's and Baker's work with video projects to which girls were invited to record their daily lives to investigate young girls' developing sense of self from their own perspectives and their relations and negotiations with various institutions, Bloustein described:
"Initially, the cameras were conceived of as an innovative solution to the extreme difficulties of entering, or at least having regular and comfortable access to groups that, almost by definition, would be closed to an adult researcher, but quickly, it was realized that the cameras in both projects took on a far more complex role in the research process." (p. 6)
Visual images in the forms of photographs, video, film, and new media have become important to ethnographic endeavors and all of the social sciences (She cited from Banks, 2001).
In the use of the camera for recording oneself, Bloustein wrote:
For it the camera seems to objectify, it can also subjectify. The taking and revisiting of a photo or video of oneself become analogous to the way Lacan has described the dream state of "seeing ourselves seeing ourselves" (Lacan 1979: 74, quote in Sanders 1980:1). No wonder the camera and related visual images increasingly find themselves at the heart of ethnographic research. (p. 2)
Introducing Bloustein's and Baker's work with video projects to which girls were invited to record their daily lives to investigate young girls' developing sense of self from their own perspectives and their relations and negotiations with various institutions, Bloustein described:
"Initially, the cameras were conceived of as an innovative solution to the extreme difficulties of entering, or at least having regular and comfortable access to groups that, almost by definition, would be closed to an adult researcher, but quickly, it was realized that the cameras in both projects took on a far more complex role in the research process." (p. 6)
Thursday, April 7, 2011
On the five obstructions
Hjort, Mette. (Ed.). (2008). London, UK: Wallflower Press.
Preface (M. Hjort, xiii-xxviii)
It overviews The Five Obstructions (2003), Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth's collaborative experimental film. In 2000, von Trier invited Leth, his former teacher and filmmaker, to his game-like project. In his statement, von Trier wrote:
Fiction is limited by our imagination and facts by our insights, and the part of the world that we are seeking cannot be encompassed by a 'story' or embraced from an 'angle'. The subject matter we seek is found in the same reality that inspires fiction-makers; the reality that journalists believe they are describing. But they cannot find this unusual subject matter because their techniques blind them. Nor do they want to find it, because the techniques have become the goal itself. (xvi). . . In a world life where the media kneel before the altar of sharpness, draining life out of life in the process, the DEFOCUSISTS will be the communicators of our era--nothing more, nothing less! (xvii--original. Danish Film Institute 2002)
[For von Trier, the most pressing task in filmmaking is to break the techniques that try to sharpen the representation of reality: Counter-intuitively, these techniques blind us to see the facts and block our imagination. Within this context, he embarked on an experiment with Leth. The Five Obstructions is the result of this experiment to challenge the existing techniques and bring about a new definition of cinematic reality.]
Responding to von Trier's statement, Leth wrote in his statement:
We follow the flow, we see where it wants to to and what it want to do with us. We watch it take form and come together but we must ground it while it is still flowing and not too defined. We are in love. A feeling has bit us, we try to perceive it during its superficial passage yet are afraid of losing it again by understanding it too well. (cited on page xvii)
Leth also tried to break the conventions to "follow the flow", however, he did not think that von Trier's intention of defocus influenced the actual filmmaking of The Five Obstructions (p. xvi).
Style and creativity in The Five Obstructions (Mette Hjort, 15-37)
Hjort discusses styles by looking at the Five Obstructions. Effectively summarizing the film:
"The Five Obstructions, a philosophically-minded experiment involving Danish filmmakers Lars von Trier and Jørge Leth, contributes a number of key insights to the discussion of film and style. Analysis of this work shows, more specifically, that (i) salient regularities can be the mark of creativity at one moment in time and an obstacle to creativity at a later moment in time; (ii) style, narrowly understood as discernible regularities, can be the cause of a loss of style in a broader sense; and (iii) a loss of style that arises n this manner is a problem that can be resolves through strategies involving the obstruction of preferred practices and the imposition of new rules for creative production" (p. 16)
Within this context, she expands the notion of individual style in the context of cinematic authorship. In particular, Berys Gaut (1997, Film authorship and collaboration) is on the focus of her debate. Gaut pointed out some problems that a defense of cinematic authorship as a single author entailed, stressing the collaborative nature of filmmaking, thus suggesting that films should be "multiply categorized: by actors, cameramen, editors, composers, and so on" (p. 165), breaking the rigid categorization by directors. With this respect, Hjort spectulated the validity of the multiple authorship thesis, arguing that, as Gaut conceded, creativity tends to be centralized in filmmaking.
Artistic nesting in the Five Obstructions (Laisley Livingston, 57-75)
Livingston asserted that authorship requires "uncoerced expressive action" that "serves to indicate someone's attitude" (p. 71). He wrote: "Someone who neither makes nore displys anything indicative of any attitudes cannot be an author; anyone who does engage in such expressive actions is in a broad sense an author." (p. 71)
In the case of The Five Obstruction, although its credits include "von Trier as a performer plyaing the role of 'Obstructor' and Leth that of 'Director'" (p. 73), he credit von Trier as joint authors because "the nesting of works by Leth and his collaborators has the function of constituting a favourable context for both the making and reception of Leth's cinematic art" (p. 74), which is done by von Trier. Livinston concluded:
"Obviously, the challenges themselves provide Leth with help in the form of motivation and orientation, but my point here has also been that the film's skillfully crafted story of the Leth/von Trier interaction constitutes a favourable context for the reception and appreciation of the nested works, which acquire certain positively valenced stylistic and thematic qualities only in this context. And this is partly what makes Lars von Trier's help Jørgen Leth' project a success." (p. 74)
[Then, can I think of me as von Trier and PV participants as Leth, who are challenged by missions that I impose to them? This idea at least gives me something to think about. Interesting allegory.]
Work and play: The 5-0 game (Trevor Ponech, 76-94)
Ponech describes The Five Obstructions's production as a game with a particular strain of cinéma-vérité and formost a commitment to participation. Then, Ponech looks into Chronicle of a summer and singled out a commitment to "provocation" in the way the film was produced. For the filmmakers, discovering or recording psychological dramas is not as important as provoking events, "especially otherwise unattainable self-revelations". In short, Ponech states the role of the camera for Rouch and Morin in their approach to cinéma-vérité:
"Participation in the vérité film extends to viewing the cinematic representations of one's self, with an eye to critiquing both mirror and window insofar as its use facilitates self-awareness and communication among participants." (p. 87)
Ponech argued that the film The Five Obstructions moves a step further, as such:
"Von Trier not only pins his subject beneath the camera's lens so that he might reveal something hidden for all, including the subject, to see; he also makes an expert practitioner struggle with practical and creative problems of filmmaking under barbed constraints customised to chafe, like a bespoke hair shirt. (p. 87).
Preface (M. Hjort, xiii-xxviii)
It overviews The Five Obstructions (2003), Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth's collaborative experimental film. In 2000, von Trier invited Leth, his former teacher and filmmaker, to his game-like project. In his statement, von Trier wrote:
Fiction is limited by our imagination and facts by our insights, and the part of the world that we are seeking cannot be encompassed by a 'story' or embraced from an 'angle'. The subject matter we seek is found in the same reality that inspires fiction-makers; the reality that journalists believe they are describing. But they cannot find this unusual subject matter because their techniques blind them. Nor do they want to find it, because the techniques have become the goal itself. (xvi). . . In a world life where the media kneel before the altar of sharpness, draining life out of life in the process, the DEFOCUSISTS will be the communicators of our era--nothing more, nothing less! (xvii--original. Danish Film Institute 2002)
[For von Trier, the most pressing task in filmmaking is to break the techniques that try to sharpen the representation of reality: Counter-intuitively, these techniques blind us to see the facts and block our imagination. Within this context, he embarked on an experiment with Leth. The Five Obstructions is the result of this experiment to challenge the existing techniques and bring about a new definition of cinematic reality.]
Responding to von Trier's statement, Leth wrote in his statement:
We follow the flow, we see where it wants to to and what it want to do with us. We watch it take form and come together but we must ground it while it is still flowing and not too defined. We are in love. A feeling has bit us, we try to perceive it during its superficial passage yet are afraid of losing it again by understanding it too well. (cited on page xvii)
Leth also tried to break the conventions to "follow the flow", however, he did not think that von Trier's intention of defocus influenced the actual filmmaking of The Five Obstructions (p. xvi).
Style and creativity in The Five Obstructions (Mette Hjort, 15-37)
Hjort discusses styles by looking at the Five Obstructions. Effectively summarizing the film:
"The Five Obstructions, a philosophically-minded experiment involving Danish filmmakers Lars von Trier and Jørge Leth, contributes a number of key insights to the discussion of film and style. Analysis of this work shows, more specifically, that (i) salient regularities can be the mark of creativity at one moment in time and an obstacle to creativity at a later moment in time; (ii) style, narrowly understood as discernible regularities, can be the cause of a loss of style in a broader sense; and (iii) a loss of style that arises n this manner is a problem that can be resolves through strategies involving the obstruction of preferred practices and the imposition of new rules for creative production" (p. 16)
Within this context, she expands the notion of individual style in the context of cinematic authorship. In particular, Berys Gaut (1997, Film authorship and collaboration) is on the focus of her debate. Gaut pointed out some problems that a defense of cinematic authorship as a single author entailed, stressing the collaborative nature of filmmaking, thus suggesting that films should be "multiply categorized: by actors, cameramen, editors, composers, and so on" (p. 165), breaking the rigid categorization by directors. With this respect, Hjort spectulated the validity of the multiple authorship thesis, arguing that, as Gaut conceded, creativity tends to be centralized in filmmaking.
Artistic nesting in the Five Obstructions (Laisley Livingston, 57-75)
Livingston asserted that authorship requires "uncoerced expressive action" that "serves to indicate someone's attitude" (p. 71). He wrote: "Someone who neither makes nore displys anything indicative of any attitudes cannot be an author; anyone who does engage in such expressive actions is in a broad sense an author." (p. 71)
In the case of The Five Obstruction, although its credits include "von Trier as a performer plyaing the role of 'Obstructor' and Leth that of 'Director'" (p. 73), he credit von Trier as joint authors because "the nesting of works by Leth and his collaborators has the function of constituting a favourable context for both the making and reception of Leth's cinematic art" (p. 74), which is done by von Trier. Livinston concluded:
"Obviously, the challenges themselves provide Leth with help in the form of motivation and orientation, but my point here has also been that the film's skillfully crafted story of the Leth/von Trier interaction constitutes a favourable context for the reception and appreciation of the nested works, which acquire certain positively valenced stylistic and thematic qualities only in this context. And this is partly what makes Lars von Trier's help Jørgen Leth' project a success." (p. 74)
[Then, can I think of me as von Trier and PV participants as Leth, who are challenged by missions that I impose to them? This idea at least gives me something to think about. Interesting allegory.]
Work and play: The 5-0 game (Trevor Ponech, 76-94)
Ponech describes The Five Obstructions's production as a game with a particular strain of cinéma-vérité and formost a commitment to participation. Then, Ponech looks into Chronicle of a summer and singled out a commitment to "provocation" in the way the film was produced. For the filmmakers, discovering or recording psychological dramas is not as important as provoking events, "especially otherwise unattainable self-revelations". In short, Ponech states the role of the camera for Rouch and Morin in their approach to cinéma-vérité:
"Participation in the vérité film extends to viewing the cinematic representations of one's self, with an eye to critiquing both mirror and window insofar as its use facilitates self-awareness and communication among participants." (p. 87)
Ponech argued that the film The Five Obstructions moves a step further, as such:
"Von Trier not only pins his subject beneath the camera's lens so that he might reveal something hidden for all, including the subject, to see; he also makes an expert practitioner struggle with practical and creative problems of filmmaking under barbed constraints customised to chafe, like a bespoke hair shirt. (p. 87).
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Participatory Video
Images that transform and empower. Shirley A. White. (Ed.). (2003). New Delhi, India: Sage.
In the Forward, White astutely stated that despite participatory communication experiences over the last three decades, scholarly theories and definitions are yet to be developed and more so in information on practical and innovative programs at the grass root level.
Introduction: Video Power (17-30)
White approaches participatory video as a practical program of participatory communication. In the introduction to the book, she asserted that the major objective of participatory communication is to "empower people to shape their own destiny" (p. 20), arguing, "Participatory communication has the capacity to connect human beings as they experience social change" (p. 20).
White summarizes the current development of participatory video:
"Not only are there few definitive concepts but there is remarkable absence of any well-formulated theories to undergird the participatory video practices. While projects have been routinely evaluated, the lessons learned and understandings that have resulted have not led to significant theoretic work on the part of academics or other development professionals."(p.24)
Chapter 2. Involving people in a participatory process (33-62)
According to White, participation surfaced in the 1970s and dominated the development scene since then; in particular, communication technologies have played an important role in giving "voice" to the grass roots people. White emphasizes participatory communication as a process:
It [participatory communication] also must be conceived as process methodology that involves people in an interactive way, making communication resources accessible to them directly, in turn, helping the grass roots people acquire the knowledge and skill that enables a partnership in generating messages. (p. 37)
White describes the outcomes of the process of participatory communication:
"Through the process, a person experiences self-awareness and becomes conscious of social issues that affect their lives. The transformative dynamic of communication exchanges acts as a catalyst for identifying one's own problems, recognizes possible routes to empowerment and self-reliance, and builds a sense of independence through interdependence." (p. 37)
While describing the dimensions of involvement in participatory communication for development, White wrote:
"Initially, people may become involved out of curiosity, but when given the opportunity to be recognized and have a "voice", the enthusiasm builds. Video has proven to be a powerful tool for motivating participation, when used in the initial stages of involvement." (p. 47-48).
Besides, White also discussed confidence and self-development as a dimension of involvement. Here she implies the role of learning to build confidence and let them continue to be involved. She wrote:
"As individuals experience success in expressing views, learning new things, using indigenous knowledge and skills, they will develop the confidence to continue to be involved. They will recognize their own self-development and the fact that they are becoming different people. Feelings of satisfaction and usefulness result from being able to play a part in community effort and be recognized and valued for that part (CONNECT TO STAR'S REFLECTION)." (p. 49)
Discussing the role of the facilitator as a communication catalyst, Nair and White (1999) wrote that they "unlock the human potentials of individuals, increasing their capacity to think, to relate, to act, and to reflect from a foundation of communication competencies" (p. 40) (cited on p. 51).
*Nair, K. S., & White, S. A. (1999). The catalyst communicator: Facilitation without fear. In S. White, K. Nair & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development. New Delhi: Sage.
With regard to conflict, White writes "no change is possible without conflict--the greater the change, the greater the conflict" (p. 58). Thus, she writes as the role of facilitator:
"The development facilitator, as a catalyst communicator, can enter a conflicted community and readily recognize conflicts. Bringing the people together and giving them tools to address their differences is the first order of the day. Creating the opportunity for them to talk about and share their differences will quickly lead to the identification of common interests and aspirations. Participatory Video (PV) has played a vital role in this process throughout communities on all continents" (p. 58)
Finally, White discusses some challenges of participatory communication: One of them is a long time span to build human capacity. In this light, she proposes "mini" projects (p. 60):
In the future there needs to be recognition of the fact that projects need to be small and localized in order to allow participants a safer, more comfortable relationship with fellow community members. These "mini" projects can offer greater feelings of satisfaction and in reality, be more effectively managed and controlled. Small successes produce capacity, confidence, and courage to tackle larger, more complex development plans of action. Communication media--video, audio, and the Internet--will provide the mechanisms for linking and sharing the outcomes of these projects" (p. 60).
For White, PV is useful for conducting mini projects.
Chapter 3. Participatory video: A process that transforms the self and the other (63-101)
White succinctly defined PV as follows:
"Participatory video as a process is a tool for individual, group, and community development. It can serve as a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical awareness that forms the founcation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change. That's what video power is all about." (p. 64)
White distinguished PV as a process and as a product: PV as a process is described as a tool to facilitate interaction and enable self-expression. PV as a product, on the other hand, emphasizes the video itself, which becomes a historical fact. Unlike non-participatory video, White argued, PV as a product is highly interactive to make a message come across via video.
Among others, White stressed PV as a tool for education and self-training that emerged in the use of PV in particular FAO projects. For video has "immediacy" (p. 67) that video can be replayed in the field. In particular, she mentioned video feedback as one of the most powerful yet simple uses of PV, such as videotaping a simple process of pesticides or other similar skills, conducting an interview for participatory research, conducting a training session, etc.
White highly regarded participatory message-making with video, which enables bottom-up grass roots involvement in the development of knowledge construction. Calling this process as PMD (Participatory Message Development), she emphasized the researcher as an important variable in the PMD process and listed the following as other critical variables.
1. Flexibility of the process (i.e., willingness to adapt and change directions)
2. Ability of the development communicator to play the facilitator role
3. The necessity of effective interpersonal communication
4. The joint analysis/teamwork or spirit among the researchers, development communicators and intended receivers
5. Recognizing that the participatory process is an educational process.
As outcomes of her research with Patel (1994), she write the following in relation to video:
"The characteristic and potential of small format video, as a development tool, is an ideal medium of communication when using a participatory research approach"
"Video as a development tool allows people to become involved in the process of decision-making and change in their community, which is an empowering experience."
"The presence of video in the community takes on a new meaning in that its evolution will move from a form of entertainment to a means of serious communication, dealing with and trying to find solutions to day-to-day issues." (p. 70)
In discussing Transformation, White argued that initially transformation must take place within individuals and it is intertwined with knowledge acquisition. She argued that knowledge acquisition is in itself empowering. She further stated:
"It [knowledge] builds the capacity for gaining control over one's own life and life space. It is at the heart of transforming situations and moving toward better quality life" (p. 76). More, she stressed that transformation accompanies conflict, saying, "There is no change without conflict whether it be interpersonal conflict or conflict within one's self" (p. 81). Further, "[C]onflicts can be negotiated in positive and constructive ways through mediation and management...Conflict is actually healthy because it helps move relationships out of a rut and can result in new visions and renewed confidence between conflicting individuals." (p. 81). In this light, she called for the process of reaching a consensus: "Consensus doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees on an issue, but it does mean they can be committed to a decision that is reached through dialog in which each person has been able to freely express an opinion on that issue" (p. 79).
Her personal reflection on those days in which small format video emerged is interesting. She recalled that even in the late 1960s when portable cameras became available, the concepts and norms that had governed television technologies dominated the guidelines for the use of small format video. She recalled that alternative video was born out of experiment, in her case, via an enthusiastic audiovisual librarian, who did not set boundaries for the use of the new technology. Then they teamed up to explore the power of video based on do-it-yourself spirit for students and faculty. Then, interestingly, they traveled to Canada to learn about the Challenge for Change programs for the purpose of learning an approach to participatory media.
Chapter 4. Participatory video that empowers (102-121, Renuka Bery)
Bery gives a succinct definition of empowerment: "Empowerment is closely linked with identity and context. Gaining control of one's life, making one's own decisions and being able to influence the context in which one lives are essential elements of empowerment." (p. 104)
Bery discussed the flexibility of participatory video throughout the world: "Participatory video producers can adapt the medium to meet their needs, whether it is used to expose current reality or to weave a narrative that brings the changing world closer to the viewers. Different styles of participatory video have emerged around the world that address the specific context and needs of the communities it served." Then she concluded, "[P]articipatory video is truly empowering. It opens up new aveunes for telling stories in ways that will build strong individuals and communities. These stories are strong enough to identify problems and to make necessary changes in order to improve lives and to transform societies in ways that value the individual and recognize the unique contribution and dynamic of every interaction" (p. 119).
Chapter 8. Trapped: Women Take Control of Video Storytelling (195-214, K. Sadanandan Nair and Shirley A. White)
The authors introduced participatory video research project that began in 1985 in rural areas of India. This research was experimentation with portable video cameras, responding to questions with respect to video as a communication tool for knowledge production, policy change, and empowerment, in particular, in the context of women's need. They stated that the problems described in this research were different from those identified in the World Bank's recent report on poverty, arguing that women are doubly rejected in a poverty-stricken family environment.
The authors noted that this experimental approach to video gave rise to the concept of participatory video. Based on the data gathered in 23 different villages, the research team produced the documentary called The Trapped. It was reviewed with several women and they confirmed the authenticity of the video and their comments were incorporated in further editing. Then, the research team moved toward the participatory model of message production. First, researchers visited some villages and selected two villages for "experimental" work (p. 204). Next, the researchers used a "Trigger Tape" (p. 205), which consisted of video images of rural women shot throughout earlier days of the research, to catalyze the involvement of village women in the investigation of community problems on their own. Here the authors emphasized the role of researchers as a catalyst as well as the Trigger Tape:
"The primary role of the researcher was that of a catalyst to get the women to discuss their own problems. The Trigger Tape led not only to discussions of problems, but also to the decision to produce a participatory tape jointly with the researchers. The researchers (p. 206) concurred that the reason the women agreed to do their own tapes was that they thought that the researchers depicted their way of life incorrectly. As such, they realized that the researchers made a lot of mistakes just like they do, and therefore were not superior to them. The women felt they could do it because our tape wasn't all that good. All of them were excited about doing video to have some fun. They wanted to show it to their friends and relatives in other village." (p. 206-207)
Finally, five women made a commitment to produce the video, Rural Women's Problems. They were individually or in groups. Then, a camera was left in the village, while the women were asked to document whatever they felt important about the issues they had been discussing. In the following, the village women and the researchers reviewed an hour long video footage. They continued to define problems faced by rural women through group discussions while providing video training simultaneously for a six week period. The authors concluded that "these meetings helped not only to raise issues, but also to find solutions to problems through collective action" (p. 208). The completed video (15 min) were presented in several villages.
The authors compared the two documentaries, The Trapped and Rural Women's Problems:
"Beneath the outward appearances of their 'hard life and abusive life space' they have a bond of dignity. They do not want to be perceived as downtrodden and they value the daily aspects of their lives, even though difficult at times. This pride shows through in the participatory tape they produced.
The Trapped was a 'poor me' story, while Rural Women's Problems was am 'I am Me' story. When women could tell their own story, they carefully portrayed the reality of their daily life, without pity or apology. They declared themselves as people who clearly recognized their problems and had ideas as to how to solve them." (p. 211)
Through the documentation of the participation process, the authors concluded that the process of participation contributed to the participants' transformation in that they formed alliances and gained confidence that their perspectives are valuable; further, the video they created empowered the women for a short duration.
In the Forward, White astutely stated that despite participatory communication experiences over the last three decades, scholarly theories and definitions are yet to be developed and more so in information on practical and innovative programs at the grass root level.
Introduction: Video Power (17-30)
White approaches participatory video as a practical program of participatory communication. In the introduction to the book, she asserted that the major objective of participatory communication is to "empower people to shape their own destiny" (p. 20), arguing, "Participatory communication has the capacity to connect human beings as they experience social change" (p. 20).
White summarizes the current development of participatory video:
"Not only are there few definitive concepts but there is remarkable absence of any well-formulated theories to undergird the participatory video practices. While projects have been routinely evaluated, the lessons learned and understandings that have resulted have not led to significant theoretic work on the part of academics or other development professionals."(p.24)
Chapter 2. Involving people in a participatory process (33-62)
According to White, participation surfaced in the 1970s and dominated the development scene since then; in particular, communication technologies have played an important role in giving "voice" to the grass roots people. White emphasizes participatory communication as a process:
It [participatory communication] also must be conceived as process methodology that involves people in an interactive way, making communication resources accessible to them directly, in turn, helping the grass roots people acquire the knowledge and skill that enables a partnership in generating messages. (p. 37)
White describes the outcomes of the process of participatory communication:
"Through the process, a person experiences self-awareness and becomes conscious of social issues that affect their lives. The transformative dynamic of communication exchanges acts as a catalyst for identifying one's own problems, recognizes possible routes to empowerment and self-reliance, and builds a sense of independence through interdependence." (p. 37)
While describing the dimensions of involvement in participatory communication for development, White wrote:
"Initially, people may become involved out of curiosity, but when given the opportunity to be recognized and have a "voice", the enthusiasm builds. Video has proven to be a powerful tool for motivating participation, when used in the initial stages of involvement." (p. 47-48).
Besides, White also discussed confidence and self-development as a dimension of involvement. Here she implies the role of learning to build confidence and let them continue to be involved. She wrote:
"As individuals experience success in expressing views, learning new things, using indigenous knowledge and skills, they will develop the confidence to continue to be involved. They will recognize their own self-development and the fact that they are becoming different people. Feelings of satisfaction and usefulness result from being able to play a part in community effort and be recognized and valued for that part (CONNECT TO STAR'S REFLECTION)." (p. 49)
Discussing the role of the facilitator as a communication catalyst, Nair and White (1999) wrote that they "unlock the human potentials of individuals, increasing their capacity to think, to relate, to act, and to reflect from a foundation of communication competencies" (p. 40) (cited on p. 51).
*Nair, K. S., & White, S. A. (1999). The catalyst communicator: Facilitation without fear. In S. White, K. Nair & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development. New Delhi: Sage.
With regard to conflict, White writes "no change is possible without conflict--the greater the change, the greater the conflict" (p. 58). Thus, she writes as the role of facilitator:
"The development facilitator, as a catalyst communicator, can enter a conflicted community and readily recognize conflicts. Bringing the people together and giving them tools to address their differences is the first order of the day. Creating the opportunity for them to talk about and share their differences will quickly lead to the identification of common interests and aspirations. Participatory Video (PV) has played a vital role in this process throughout communities on all continents" (p. 58)
Finally, White discusses some challenges of participatory communication: One of them is a long time span to build human capacity. In this light, she proposes "mini" projects (p. 60):
In the future there needs to be recognition of the fact that projects need to be small and localized in order to allow participants a safer, more comfortable relationship with fellow community members. These "mini" projects can offer greater feelings of satisfaction and in reality, be more effectively managed and controlled. Small successes produce capacity, confidence, and courage to tackle larger, more complex development plans of action. Communication media--video, audio, and the Internet--will provide the mechanisms for linking and sharing the outcomes of these projects" (p. 60).
For White, PV is useful for conducting mini projects.
Chapter 3. Participatory video: A process that transforms the self and the other (63-101)
White succinctly defined PV as follows:
"Participatory video as a process is a tool for individual, group, and community development. It can serve as a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical awareness that forms the founcation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change. That's what video power is all about." (p. 64)
White distinguished PV as a process and as a product: PV as a process is described as a tool to facilitate interaction and enable self-expression. PV as a product, on the other hand, emphasizes the video itself, which becomes a historical fact. Unlike non-participatory video, White argued, PV as a product is highly interactive to make a message come across via video.
Among others, White stressed PV as a tool for education and self-training that emerged in the use of PV in particular FAO projects. For video has "immediacy" (p. 67) that video can be replayed in the field. In particular, she mentioned video feedback as one of the most powerful yet simple uses of PV, such as videotaping a simple process of pesticides or other similar skills, conducting an interview for participatory research, conducting a training session, etc.
White highly regarded participatory message-making with video, which enables bottom-up grass roots involvement in the development of knowledge construction. Calling this process as PMD (Participatory Message Development), she emphasized the researcher as an important variable in the PMD process and listed the following as other critical variables.
1. Flexibility of the process (i.e., willingness to adapt and change directions)
2. Ability of the development communicator to play the facilitator role
3. The necessity of effective interpersonal communication
4. The joint analysis/teamwork or spirit among the researchers, development communicators and intended receivers
5. Recognizing that the participatory process is an educational process.
As outcomes of her research with Patel (1994), she write the following in relation to video:
"The characteristic and potential of small format video, as a development tool, is an ideal medium of communication when using a participatory research approach"
"Video as a development tool allows people to become involved in the process of decision-making and change in their community, which is an empowering experience."
"The presence of video in the community takes on a new meaning in that its evolution will move from a form of entertainment to a means of serious communication, dealing with and trying to find solutions to day-to-day issues." (p. 70)
In discussing Transformation, White argued that initially transformation must take place within individuals and it is intertwined with knowledge acquisition. She argued that knowledge acquisition is in itself empowering. She further stated:
"It [knowledge] builds the capacity for gaining control over one's own life and life space. It is at the heart of transforming situations and moving toward better quality life" (p. 76). More, she stressed that transformation accompanies conflict, saying, "There is no change without conflict whether it be interpersonal conflict or conflict within one's self" (p. 81). Further, "[C]onflicts can be negotiated in positive and constructive ways through mediation and management...Conflict is actually healthy because it helps move relationships out of a rut and can result in new visions and renewed confidence between conflicting individuals." (p. 81). In this light, she called for the process of reaching a consensus: "Consensus doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees on an issue, but it does mean they can be committed to a decision that is reached through dialog in which each person has been able to freely express an opinion on that issue" (p. 79).
Her personal reflection on those days in which small format video emerged is interesting. She recalled that even in the late 1960s when portable cameras became available, the concepts and norms that had governed television technologies dominated the guidelines for the use of small format video. She recalled that alternative video was born out of experiment, in her case, via an enthusiastic audiovisual librarian, who did not set boundaries for the use of the new technology. Then they teamed up to explore the power of video based on do-it-yourself spirit for students and faculty. Then, interestingly, they traveled to Canada to learn about the Challenge for Change programs for the purpose of learning an approach to participatory media.
Chapter 4. Participatory video that empowers (102-121, Renuka Bery)
Bery gives a succinct definition of empowerment: "Empowerment is closely linked with identity and context. Gaining control of one's life, making one's own decisions and being able to influence the context in which one lives are essential elements of empowerment." (p. 104)
Bery discussed the flexibility of participatory video throughout the world: "Participatory video producers can adapt the medium to meet their needs, whether it is used to expose current reality or to weave a narrative that brings the changing world closer to the viewers. Different styles of participatory video have emerged around the world that address the specific context and needs of the communities it served." Then she concluded, "[P]articipatory video is truly empowering. It opens up new aveunes for telling stories in ways that will build strong individuals and communities. These stories are strong enough to identify problems and to make necessary changes in order to improve lives and to transform societies in ways that value the individual and recognize the unique contribution and dynamic of every interaction" (p. 119).
Chapter 8. Trapped: Women Take Control of Video Storytelling (195-214, K. Sadanandan Nair and Shirley A. White)
The authors introduced participatory video research project that began in 1985 in rural areas of India. This research was experimentation with portable video cameras, responding to questions with respect to video as a communication tool for knowledge production, policy change, and empowerment, in particular, in the context of women's need. They stated that the problems described in this research were different from those identified in the World Bank's recent report on poverty, arguing that women are doubly rejected in a poverty-stricken family environment.
The authors noted that this experimental approach to video gave rise to the concept of participatory video. Based on the data gathered in 23 different villages, the research team produced the documentary called The Trapped. It was reviewed with several women and they confirmed the authenticity of the video and their comments were incorporated in further editing. Then, the research team moved toward the participatory model of message production. First, researchers visited some villages and selected two villages for "experimental" work (p. 204). Next, the researchers used a "Trigger Tape" (p. 205), which consisted of video images of rural women shot throughout earlier days of the research, to catalyze the involvement of village women in the investigation of community problems on their own. Here the authors emphasized the role of researchers as a catalyst as well as the Trigger Tape:
"The primary role of the researcher was that of a catalyst to get the women to discuss their own problems. The Trigger Tape led not only to discussions of problems, but also to the decision to produce a participatory tape jointly with the researchers. The researchers (p. 206) concurred that the reason the women agreed to do their own tapes was that they thought that the researchers depicted their way of life incorrectly. As such, they realized that the researchers made a lot of mistakes just like they do, and therefore were not superior to them. The women felt they could do it because our tape wasn't all that good. All of them were excited about doing video to have some fun. They wanted to show it to their friends and relatives in other village." (p. 206-207)
Finally, five women made a commitment to produce the video, Rural Women's Problems. They were individually or in groups. Then, a camera was left in the village, while the women were asked to document whatever they felt important about the issues they had been discussing. In the following, the village women and the researchers reviewed an hour long video footage. They continued to define problems faced by rural women through group discussions while providing video training simultaneously for a six week period. The authors concluded that "these meetings helped not only to raise issues, but also to find solutions to problems through collective action" (p. 208). The completed video (15 min) were presented in several villages.
The authors compared the two documentaries, The Trapped and Rural Women's Problems:
"Beneath the outward appearances of their 'hard life and abusive life space' they have a bond of dignity. They do not want to be perceived as downtrodden and they value the daily aspects of their lives, even though difficult at times. This pride shows through in the participatory tape they produced.
The Trapped was a 'poor me' story, while Rural Women's Problems was am 'I am Me' story. When women could tell their own story, they carefully portrayed the reality of their daily life, without pity or apology. They declared themselves as people who clearly recognized their problems and had ideas as to how to solve them." (p. 211)
Through the documentation of the participation process, the authors concluded that the process of participation contributed to the participants' transformation in that they formed alliances and gained confidence that their perspectives are valuable; further, the video they created empowered the women for a short duration.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Symbolism of video
: Exploring migrant mothers' experiences. Yolanda Hernandez-Albujar. (2007). in Gregory Stanczak (2007), Visual research methods: Image, society, and representation (pp, 281-306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The author discussed some ethical issues involved in visual ethnographic video approach in her study of the migratory experience among Latin American mothers in Italy. She argued that the conventional ethnographic videotaping was not feasible because it could disclose identities of the participants. Thus she reconfigured the video (the title is "Voices") by incorporating related images in an experimental way to convey emotions and situations that the participants described through in-depth interviews. She wrote the final video was a practical solution to the participants' refusal to be video-recorded, and writing, "I substituted the participants' faces and their gestures and actions in front of the camera by symbols that engages metaphors of the verbal and visual narratives" (p. 291)
Finally, she discussed some limitations of her work: Although the video should represent the finding, but screening the video itself potentially limit a generation of sociological knowledge. She admitted that the video should be presented alongside with the conventional text analysis of the project for the best understanding of the project. However, she pointed out, access to visual data in publication limits video methodology in the social sciences. Video is not streamlined in the publication unlike still images, she argued.
She quoted Ken Plummer (2001, Documents of life 2, An invitation to a critical humanism) in the delayed use of video for sociology:
"[I]ndeed a whole new generation of "video" experts seems to have emerged outside of sociology to do sociology's work! There are now several generations of "video workers" who have used video as radical means of transforming the orthodox visual image and of providing a whole library of "alternative video forms." (p. 71, cited p. 303)
The author discussed some ethical issues involved in visual ethnographic video approach in her study of the migratory experience among Latin American mothers in Italy. She argued that the conventional ethnographic videotaping was not feasible because it could disclose identities of the participants. Thus she reconfigured the video (the title is "Voices") by incorporating related images in an experimental way to convey emotions and situations that the participants described through in-depth interviews. She wrote the final video was a practical solution to the participants' refusal to be video-recorded, and writing, "I substituted the participants' faces and their gestures and actions in front of the camera by symbols that engages metaphors of the verbal and visual narratives" (p. 291)
Finally, she discussed some limitations of her work: Although the video should represent the finding, but screening the video itself potentially limit a generation of sociological knowledge. She admitted that the video should be presented alongside with the conventional text analysis of the project for the best understanding of the project. However, she pointed out, access to visual data in publication limits video methodology in the social sciences. Video is not streamlined in the publication unlike still images, she argued.
She quoted Ken Plummer (2001, Documents of life 2, An invitation to a critical humanism) in the delayed use of video for sociology:
"[I]ndeed a whole new generation of "video" experts seems to have emerged outside of sociology to do sociology's work! There are now several generations of "video workers" who have used video as radical means of transforming the orthodox visual image and of providing a whole library of "alternative video forms." (p. 71, cited p. 303)
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Through Navajo Eyes
: An exploration in film communication and anthropology. Sol Worth & John Adair (1997). (with a new forward, afterword, and illustrations by Richard Chalfen). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (Originally published 1972)
Forward to the revised edition (ix-xxi)
Chalfen describes the late 1960s and early 1970s as active times in the development of visual anthropology when the Navajo Project was carried out in 1966 (both CFC and the Fogo Island Project embarked in 1967). He noted that the change in the field of visual anthropology was accelerating in 1990s (as of writing this forward) and described one significant change: Visual products are seen as part of a process of communication and demands critical attention. Thus, more correct is anthropology of visual communication rather than visual anthropology. Chalfen ascribes the Navajo Project as a cornerstone of this reformulation. This is clear in the purpose of this project described in Chapter 15:
As we have said, one of the aims of our research was to develop a method for collecting, analyzing, and comparing how various groups and cultures structured their world when making a film about it. (p. 228)
This research was focused on a methodological development to interpret ways in which people in different cultures structure their world in particular by using film production techniques. This context constituted the particular condition of collaborative filmmaking in this project. Chalfen stated:
At this time paradigms of collaborative ethnographic film research were simply not well developed. In this sense the communication scholar Worth and the cultural anthropologist Adair were breaking new ground by suggesting an "action research" collaboration along two dimensions--first, across discipline, and second across the politically loaded divide of scholar/outsider and "native"/insider. (p. xiii)
(In this regard, Chalfen noted some philosophical and ethical issues around the idea of "handing the camera over to others": first, it is not familiar practice (at least back then--me) and it is still Western-oriented thing to force people to do.)
Chalfen categorizes several patterns of participation. The Navajo Project is in the 6th: researchers ask local people to make a movie on anything they choose. This practice, and yet, preserves objectivist attitudes: little emphasis on researchers involvement, and lack of attention to problematizing issues under investigation. On the other hand, a project that immediately followed the Navajo Project draw my attention. In 1971, Adair, approached by a psychiatrist, developed a project on Navajo alcoholism. Two films were produced and one of them was immediately lost. This approach was an advance and actual application of the method to address real problems.
Chapter 16. Some concluding thoughts (252-262)
Afterword to the revised edition (276-341)
Forward to the revised edition (ix-xxi)
Chalfen describes the late 1960s and early 1970s as active times in the development of visual anthropology when the Navajo Project was carried out in 1966 (both CFC and the Fogo Island Project embarked in 1967). He noted that the change in the field of visual anthropology was accelerating in 1990s (as of writing this forward) and described one significant change: Visual products are seen as part of a process of communication and demands critical attention. Thus, more correct is anthropology of visual communication rather than visual anthropology. Chalfen ascribes the Navajo Project as a cornerstone of this reformulation. This is clear in the purpose of this project described in Chapter 15:
As we have said, one of the aims of our research was to develop a method for collecting, analyzing, and comparing how various groups and cultures structured their world when making a film about it. (p. 228)
This research was focused on a methodological development to interpret ways in which people in different cultures structure their world in particular by using film production techniques. This context constituted the particular condition of collaborative filmmaking in this project. Chalfen stated:
At this time paradigms of collaborative ethnographic film research were simply not well developed. In this sense the communication scholar Worth and the cultural anthropologist Adair were breaking new ground by suggesting an "action research" collaboration along two dimensions--first, across discipline, and second across the politically loaded divide of scholar/outsider and "native"/insider. (p. xiii)
(In this regard, Chalfen noted some philosophical and ethical issues around the idea of "handing the camera over to others": first, it is not familiar practice (at least back then--me) and it is still Western-oriented thing to force people to do.)
Chalfen categorizes several patterns of participation. The Navajo Project is in the 6th: researchers ask local people to make a movie on anything they choose. This practice, and yet, preserves objectivist attitudes: little emphasis on researchers involvement, and lack of attention to problematizing issues under investigation. On the other hand, a project that immediately followed the Navajo Project draw my attention. In 1971, Adair, approached by a psychiatrist, developed a project on Navajo alcoholism. Two films were produced and one of them was immediately lost. This approach was an advance and actual application of the method to address real problems.
Chapter 16. Some concluding thoughts (252-262)
Afterword to the revised edition (276-341)
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Familial Pursuits, Editorial Acts
: Documentaries after the Age of Home Video. Orgeron, Marsha,& Orgeron, Devin. (2007). The Velvet Light Trap, 60, 47-62.
The authors observed that a significant number of documentaries created since the 1990s took a form of autobiography, relying upon primary footage taken from home videos. Home movies in the post World War II were promoted primarily by equipment makers for documenting family life and children targeting the baby boom generation (Zimmerman). Reading Zimmerman and Chalfen, the authors summarized that those movies were focused on family togetherness and unity. Yet, with the advent of video, its affordability and simplicity, now home movies become home videography and its influence on a documentary production stream, observed the authors. They stated:
"By the 1980s and 1990s the skills—indeed, even the resources—needed to film and edit no longer appeared the exclusive province of adults, the former gatekeepers of the family iconography. Even kids could use a video camera, and a new generation of videographers was able to move outside of the parentally controlled patterns that dominated the home movie age" (p. 48).
This technology change changed ways in which a new generation of videographers describe their family portraits, the authors argued. They stated:
"homevvvideography lends itself to capturing the family in ways that are not consonant with earlier conventions of home filmmaking, earlier conventions, in fact, that occasionally appear, often by way of contrast, in these recent documentary films." (pp. 48-49)
the allure of these films partly hinges on their promise of a glimpse (p. 50) beyond the surface, an invitation to see the unlovely elements typically concealed by the curtain drawn on private lives, and that these elements are made visible especially through the documentary director’s use of primary home video footage.(p. 51)
The authors observed that a significant number of documentaries created since the 1990s took a form of autobiography, relying upon primary footage taken from home videos. Home movies in the post World War II were promoted primarily by equipment makers for documenting family life and children targeting the baby boom generation (Zimmerman). Reading Zimmerman and Chalfen, the authors summarized that those movies were focused on family togetherness and unity. Yet, with the advent of video, its affordability and simplicity, now home movies become home videography and its influence on a documentary production stream, observed the authors. They stated:
"By the 1980s and 1990s the skills—indeed, even the resources—needed to film and edit no longer appeared the exclusive province of adults, the former gatekeepers of the family iconography. Even kids could use a video camera, and a new generation of videographers was able to move outside of the parentally controlled patterns that dominated the home movie age" (p. 48).
This technology change changed ways in which a new generation of videographers describe their family portraits, the authors argued. They stated:
"homevvvideography lends itself to capturing the family in ways that are not consonant with earlier conventions of home filmmaking, earlier conventions, in fact, that occasionally appear, often by way of contrast, in these recent documentary films." (pp. 48-49)
the allure of these films partly hinges on their promise of a glimpse (p. 50) beyond the surface, an invitation to see the unlovely elements typically concealed by the curtain drawn on private lives, and that these elements are made visible especially through the documentary director’s use of primary home video footage.(p. 51)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Video in development: FILMING FOR RURAL CHANGE
Rico Lie and Andreas Mandler (2009). CTA and FAO
NGO group who used video for development projects throughout the world. Worthwhile noting.
NGO group who used video for development projects throughout the world. Worthwhile noting.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
‘The Life That We Don’t Want’: Using Participatory Video in Researching Violence
Wheeler, Joanna. (2009). IDS Bulletin, 40(3), 10-18
Abstract -------
This article reports on the use of participatory video as a research tool for working in violent contexts. The research asked how people living in poor areas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil can build a bridge between violence and citizenship through participatory social action. Working in violent favelas and housing estates, the process involved creating participatory discussion groups drawn from different segments of the community. Participatory video was one of several tools used in the research process. The main contribution of participatory video was not in generating empirical findings, but in challenging patterns of power and control--------
Wheeler more precisely repeated the last sentence: "It concludes that, while the methodological challenges are certainly more numerous and complex, participatory video was important in terms of the research process and the social action surrounding it, rather than in terms of the research findings it generated" (p. 10).
Wheeler found the root of participatory video in participatory approaches to development work in the 1970s, pioneered by Snowden in 1967. She also noted a recent trend of PV as a participatory action research tool.
Wheeler stated the advantage of using PV as strengthening the research and communication process, more specifically:
-"give participants a greater degree of control over the research process and communication of
findings, and helped build their confidence and their trust in the research process." (p. 12)
-"It also helped create an opportunity for interaction between a diverse group of people who might not otherwise have listened to each other’s perspectives on the violence which affects them all" (pp. 12-13)--catalyzing interaction.
-"A significant dimension to the role of video was the validation of people’s perspectives and views through public screenings" (p. 13)
-"It also served as a feedback mechanism for research participants. Because of their easy replicability and visual nature, the videos facilitated communication of the research beyond the group immediately involved, including dialogues with policymakers." (p. 13)
-"people were more willing to listen to what others were saying when they watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters." (p. 13)
-"the films caught the attention of policymakers. . . . The films framed the debate in a way which would have been difficult to achieve through more conventional presentations or dialogue. As a result of the debate, the city councillor launched a programme using participatory video in over 40 communities across the city" (p. 13).
As limitation of using PV, Wheeler noted, "In a context of fear and mistrust caused by violence, the public nature of video limits what people are able to say." [THIS IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO OP RESEARCH CONTEXT] By the public nature of video, she meant ethics. Besides, Wheeler pointed out the "interviewer effect" that distorts what an interviewee say--they often say what interviewers might want to hear. More critically, video brings up another level of ethics issues. Wheeler noted:
Once the videos are made and copies distributed within the community, the video can be seen by anyone anywhere. This is very different from an interview or a questionnaire, where anonymity is more plausible. This heightens some of the risks arising from using video as a research tool on violence. (p. 14)
Wheeler called interviewee's selective topic/content a "deliberate silence" (p. 14)
Abstract -------
This article reports on the use of participatory video as a research tool for working in violent contexts. The research asked how people living in poor areas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil can build a bridge between violence and citizenship through participatory social action. Working in violent favelas and housing estates, the process involved creating participatory discussion groups drawn from different segments of the community. Participatory video was one of several tools used in the research process. The main contribution of participatory video was not in generating empirical findings, but in challenging patterns of power and control--------
Wheeler more precisely repeated the last sentence: "It concludes that, while the methodological challenges are certainly more numerous and complex, participatory video was important in terms of the research process and the social action surrounding it, rather than in terms of the research findings it generated" (p. 10).
Wheeler found the root of participatory video in participatory approaches to development work in the 1970s, pioneered by Snowden in 1967. She also noted a recent trend of PV as a participatory action research tool.
Wheeler stated the advantage of using PV as strengthening the research and communication process, more specifically:
-"give participants a greater degree of control over the research process and communication of
findings, and helped build their confidence and their trust in the research process." (p. 12)
-"It also helped create an opportunity for interaction between a diverse group of people who might not otherwise have listened to each other’s perspectives on the violence which affects them all" (pp. 12-13)--catalyzing interaction.
-"A significant dimension to the role of video was the validation of people’s perspectives and views through public screenings" (p. 13)
-"It also served as a feedback mechanism for research participants. Because of their easy replicability and visual nature, the videos facilitated communication of the research beyond the group immediately involved, including dialogues with policymakers." (p. 13)
-"people were more willing to listen to what others were saying when they watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters." (p. 13)
-"the films caught the attention of policymakers. . . . The films framed the debate in a way which would have been difficult to achieve through more conventional presentations or dialogue. As a result of the debate, the city councillor launched a programme using participatory video in over 40 communities across the city" (p. 13).
As limitation of using PV, Wheeler noted, "In a context of fear and mistrust caused by violence, the public nature of video limits what people are able to say." [THIS IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO OP RESEARCH CONTEXT] By the public nature of video, she meant ethics. Besides, Wheeler pointed out the "interviewer effect" that distorts what an interviewee say--they often say what interviewers might want to hear. More critically, video brings up another level of ethics issues. Wheeler noted:
Once the videos are made and copies distributed within the community, the video can be seen by anyone anywhere. This is very different from an interview or a questionnaire, where anonymity is more plausible. This heightens some of the risks arising from using video as a research tool on violence. (p. 14)
Wheeler called interviewee's selective topic/content a "deliberate silence" (p. 14)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Looking at and looking back: visualization in mobile research
Murray, Lesley. (2009). Qualitative research, 9(4), 469–488.
Murray defined contemporary social world is mobile (not only in the corporeal sense, but also in the increasing speed and flow of information) and the movement of images is central to the mobility; thus social world is becoming more visual through visual media such as video, the Internet, and mobile phones. Within this context, Murray seeks mobile, visual methodologies responding to mobile social world.
The mobility of the video camera is on her focus. She argued that its capability of contextualizing in time and space makes video a key tool of exploration within a mobile and visual methodology. Secondly, the possibility of repetitiveness in watching a sequence of action broadens a range of viewers, encompassing the researcher, participants, and beyond. Third, its capability to allow an exploration of non-verbal communication and a way of distinct knowledge creation.
A particular use of video is video diary, or self-filming. (This ‘self-filming’, which Pink (Doing visual ethnography) traces back to Sol Worth and John Adam’s ‘Navajo Film themselves’ made in 1966, gives participants the opportunity to represent themselves in time and space--Murray wrote)
As to video as a mobility methodology, Murray argued:
"The use of video methods in particular allows the moment to moment contextualization both
socio-culturally and spatially. Video is itself mobile, facilitating reflections on a sequence of events that can be negotiated into a narrative as part of a collaborative process between the researcher and participant." (p. 484)
Murray defined contemporary social world is mobile (not only in the corporeal sense, but also in the increasing speed and flow of information) and the movement of images is central to the mobility; thus social world is becoming more visual through visual media such as video, the Internet, and mobile phones. Within this context, Murray seeks mobile, visual methodologies responding to mobile social world.
The mobility of the video camera is on her focus. She argued that its capability of contextualizing in time and space makes video a key tool of exploration within a mobile and visual methodology. Secondly, the possibility of repetitiveness in watching a sequence of action broadens a range of viewers, encompassing the researcher, participants, and beyond. Third, its capability to allow an exploration of non-verbal communication and a way of distinct knowledge creation.
A particular use of video is video diary, or self-filming. (This ‘self-filming’, which Pink (Doing visual ethnography) traces back to Sol Worth and John Adam’s ‘Navajo Film themselves’ made in 1966, gives participants the opportunity to represent themselves in time and space--Murray wrote)
As to video as a mobility methodology, Murray argued:
"The use of video methods in particular allows the moment to moment contextualization both
socio-culturally and spatially. Video is itself mobile, facilitating reflections on a sequence of events that can be negotiated into a narrative as part of a collaborative process between the researcher and participant." (p. 484)
Video Cultures Media Technology and Everyday Creativity
Buckingham, David & Willette, Rebekah. (2009). Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan
Web introduction---
Over the past decade, the video camcorder has become a commonplace household object. The rise of YouTube and other video sharing sites has made it significantly easier to distribute amateur video productions, and national broadcasters are increasingly interested in 'user-generated content' and the work of so-called 'citizen journalists'. For some, this growth in access to video production is part of a wider democratisation of media, and the emergence of a much more participatory media culture. However, others argue that such practices amount to little more than a trivial family pastime, that does little if anything to challenge the power of the established mass media. This book explores the diversity of 'video cultures' in contemporary Britain through a series of case studies ranging from citizen journalists to amateur pornographers, and from teenage pranksters to elderly members of video-making clubs. Through its discussion of specific video-making practices, the book raises broader issues about key themes in contemporary cultural studies, including creativity, social capital, identity and technology.
A Commonplace Art? Understanding Amateur Media Production (Buckingham, David, 23-50)
Buckingham rightly pointed out that the growing popularity of amateur video-making has been generally neglected by academic researchers. More recent research trend is focused on the 'domestication' of technology (p. 23), which is inclusion of technology in the fabric of domestic life, yet the focus is placed on equipment, but not what people do with video cameras in the home, Buckingham argued.
In his review, studies around amateur-filmmaking took the form of home mode production, yet Buckingham pointed out that home mode video has not been explored in it own rights.
Buckingham looked at Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller's The Pro-Am Revolution (2004), discussing a productive blurring of boundaries and a new breed of amateurs nowadays. On the other hand, Andrew Keen (2007) attributed the proliferation of participatory media (such as blogs, wikis) to the 'death of culture', in which nothing can be trusted and everything is left in the 'digital forest of mediocrity' influenced by the internet.
** Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Concerning the development of participatory media, Buckingham finds the notion of vernacular creativity central to the development, arguing for the connections of creativity and everyday life.
Buckingham discussed multiple video cultures; home mode is one of them. In some cases, quality matters, while others prioritize contents; to some, public exhibition and dialogue is important, others , irrelevant. [Buckingham does not limit home mode strictly to the home movies.
Buckingham pointed out the potential for empowerment of ordinary people as a recurring feature of popular discourse about amateur filmmaking. But sharply wrote, "Yet, until fairly recently, there has been little evidence that any such democratisation has transpired" (p. 41). In this light, Laurie Ouellette (1995) stated that ‘the people’ are anything but free to create their own programming.
*Ouellette, L. (1995) ‘Camcorder dos and don’ts: popular discourses on amateur
video and participatory television’. The Velvet Light Trap. 36: 33–44.
Reading Jenkins (2006), who argued DIY vernacular culture is pushing mainstream media in new directions and through the network, people create new forms of collective intelligence and access greater collective power to media producers, Buckingham astutely argued:
"[C]ontemporary media often depend upon ‘activity’ on the part of consumers, but that does not necessarily mean that consumers are more powerful: activity should not be confused with agency. . . . Furthermore, since such activities are commercially driven, there are likely to be significant inequalities in the extent to which people are able to participate in them – inequalities which, as Jenkins acknowledges, are not simply to do with access to equipment, but also to do with cultural capital and expertise." (p. 43) (see also Jenkins 2007)
Also, Buckingham asserted that Jenkins focused on highly dedicated groups of people, leaving behind the more banal, every day use of media.
*Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J. and Weigel, M. (2007) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.
Buckingham argued:
"Even so, the political implications of these developments remain to be seen. On one level, it is undoubtedly the case that ‘Web 2.0’ technologies have offered significant new opportunities for communication among already-established radical groups (Clark, 2007) – although one would have to acknowledge that they have also served this function for extreme right-wing groups, and indeed conspiracy theorists and lunatics of all kinds. The case that remains to be made here is whether such technologies are genuinely ‘empowering’, and in what ways. . . . It is likely that
those who make the most use of such facilities are also well provided with other such opportunities in other areas of their lives; and so these technologies might in fact serve to widen the gaps between participants and non-participants rather than to reduce them. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the apparent enthusiasm for ‘user-generated content’ in the contemporary media industries is little more than tokenistic and superficial." (p. 44)
[THIS IS IMPORTANT. PV delves into the area in which 'ordinary' people lack such facilities, not responding to the participatory culture that emerge among certain group of people. 'Participation divide' ]
*Clark, J. (2007) Big Dreams, Small Screens: Online Video for Public Knowledge and
Action. Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, American University.
Power to the People? The Past and Future of Amateur Video (D. Buckingham, 230-238)
"Indeed, one inevitable consequence of the growing accessibility of video technology (as described in our first chapter) is that video is rapidly becoming a mundane, even banal medium. As video camera phones become as ubiquitous as snapshot cameras, and as video is routinely distributed online, the sense of video-making and appearing on video as special experiences – even as in some way glamorous or empowering – is bound to disappear." (p. 237)
In short, for Buckingham, amateur video-making is a form of popular representation and he called for sustained attention to its complex and sometimes paradoxical practice.
Web introduction---
Over the past decade, the video camcorder has become a commonplace household object. The rise of YouTube and other video sharing sites has made it significantly easier to distribute amateur video productions, and national broadcasters are increasingly interested in 'user-generated content' and the work of so-called 'citizen journalists'. For some, this growth in access to video production is part of a wider democratisation of media, and the emergence of a much more participatory media culture. However, others argue that such practices amount to little more than a trivial family pastime, that does little if anything to challenge the power of the established mass media. This book explores the diversity of 'video cultures' in contemporary Britain through a series of case studies ranging from citizen journalists to amateur pornographers, and from teenage pranksters to elderly members of video-making clubs. Through its discussion of specific video-making practices, the book raises broader issues about key themes in contemporary cultural studies, including creativity, social capital, identity and technology.
A Commonplace Art? Understanding Amateur Media Production (Buckingham, David, 23-50)
Buckingham rightly pointed out that the growing popularity of amateur video-making has been generally neglected by academic researchers. More recent research trend is focused on the 'domestication' of technology (p. 23), which is inclusion of technology in the fabric of domestic life, yet the focus is placed on equipment, but not what people do with video cameras in the home, Buckingham argued.
In his review, studies around amateur-filmmaking took the form of home mode production, yet Buckingham pointed out that home mode video has not been explored in it own rights.
Buckingham looked at Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller's The Pro-Am Revolution (2004), discussing a productive blurring of boundaries and a new breed of amateurs nowadays. On the other hand, Andrew Keen (2007) attributed the proliferation of participatory media (such as blogs, wikis) to the 'death of culture', in which nothing can be trusted and everything is left in the 'digital forest of mediocrity' influenced by the internet.
** Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Concerning the development of participatory media, Buckingham finds the notion of vernacular creativity central to the development, arguing for the connections of creativity and everyday life.
Buckingham discussed multiple video cultures; home mode is one of them. In some cases, quality matters, while others prioritize contents; to some, public exhibition and dialogue is important, others , irrelevant. [Buckingham does not limit home mode strictly to the home movies.
Buckingham pointed out the potential for empowerment of ordinary people as a recurring feature of popular discourse about amateur filmmaking. But sharply wrote, "Yet, until fairly recently, there has been little evidence that any such democratisation has transpired" (p. 41). In this light, Laurie Ouellette (1995) stated that ‘the people’ are anything but free to create their own programming.
*Ouellette, L. (1995) ‘Camcorder dos and don’ts: popular discourses on amateur
video and participatory television’. The Velvet Light Trap. 36: 33–44.
Reading Jenkins (2006), who argued DIY vernacular culture is pushing mainstream media in new directions and through the network, people create new forms of collective intelligence and access greater collective power to media producers, Buckingham astutely argued:
"[C]ontemporary media often depend upon ‘activity’ on the part of consumers, but that does not necessarily mean that consumers are more powerful: activity should not be confused with agency. . . . Furthermore, since such activities are commercially driven, there are likely to be significant inequalities in the extent to which people are able to participate in them – inequalities which, as Jenkins acknowledges, are not simply to do with access to equipment, but also to do with cultural capital and expertise." (p. 43) (see also Jenkins 2007)
Also, Buckingham asserted that Jenkins focused on highly dedicated groups of people, leaving behind the more banal, every day use of media.
*Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J. and Weigel, M. (2007) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.
Buckingham argued:
"Even so, the political implications of these developments remain to be seen. On one level, it is undoubtedly the case that ‘Web 2.0’ technologies have offered significant new opportunities for communication among already-established radical groups (Clark, 2007) – although one would have to acknowledge that they have also served this function for extreme right-wing groups, and indeed conspiracy theorists and lunatics of all kinds. The case that remains to be made here is whether such technologies are genuinely ‘empowering’, and in what ways. . . . It is likely that
those who make the most use of such facilities are also well provided with other such opportunities in other areas of their lives; and so these technologies might in fact serve to widen the gaps between participants and non-participants rather than to reduce them. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the apparent enthusiasm for ‘user-generated content’ in the contemporary media industries is little more than tokenistic and superficial." (p. 44)
[THIS IS IMPORTANT. PV delves into the area in which 'ordinary' people lack such facilities, not responding to the participatory culture that emerge among certain group of people. 'Participation divide' ]
*Clark, J. (2007) Big Dreams, Small Screens: Online Video for Public Knowledge and
Action. Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, American University.
Power to the People? The Past and Future of Amateur Video (D. Buckingham, 230-238)
"Indeed, one inevitable consequence of the growing accessibility of video technology (as described in our first chapter) is that video is rapidly becoming a mundane, even banal medium. As video camera phones become as ubiquitous as snapshot cameras, and as video is routinely distributed online, the sense of video-making and appearing on video as special experiences – even as in some way glamorous or empowering – is bound to disappear." (p. 237)
In short, for Buckingham, amateur video-making is a form of popular representation and he called for sustained attention to its complex and sometimes paradoxical practice.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Participatory Theatre and Video: Acting Against Violence in Northern Nigeria
Oga Steve Abah, Jenkeri Zakari Okwori and Ogoh Alubo. (2009). Institute of Development Studies [IDS] Bulletin, 40(3), 19-26.
The authors discussed the use of theatre for development [TFD] and participatory video [PV] in the research on violence in northern Nigeria. First, they carried out a survey throughout several communities, then developed a drama performed in each community and followed by a debate. PV was used throughout. The research finding is interesting: they argued that people do not see contemporary violence as a result of religion; rather, people perceive it as the organizing platform.
Interesting to note the reasons for choosing TFD and PV for this participatory action research (p. 21):
1. high level of illiteracy
2. "Wonderment about video makes people eager to speak to the camera" (p. 21)
3. can "afford participant ownership of the research tools and process.
4. "participatory process. . . is a spur to reflection and self-critical analysis".
5. alternative ways of looking at violence and manipulating the end of violence.-->seed for change.
The way they used PV techniques was to record the process from the community survey through drama-making to the discussions after the performances. It also recorded message from people on opposite sides of the religious and ethnic divides. It was done by trained community researchers.
The authors defined the roles of theatre and PV played:
"Theatre thus played multiple roles of information-gathering, feedback, analysis and triangulation or validation of facts, while PV played a role in building up a broadly accepted and pluralistically-constructed version of events, and in data-recording on both content and process" (p. 22).
Reflecting on the methods, the authors wrote:
"In broad terms, the TFD and PV, the quantitative research and qualitative interviews complemented each other very nicely throughout. The quantitative component provided useful information on the areas most affected by the violent incidents in Kaduna, Plateau and Kano States" (p. 23).
[Seamless use of quantitative, qualitative, arts-based methods for community-based research]
Arguing the suitability of TFD and PV for participatory research, the authors wrote about its connection with oral culture, reinforced reflection, and catharsis:
"The appeal and relevance of such reinterpretation and reflexivity are underscored by the fact that the work we do is mostly situated in oral cultures where the ability to read and write are limited or non-existent. Instead of being constrained by specific questions, people were enabled to connect with the incidents of violence in a reflective manner, through testimony or narration of their experiences during the drama and during the PV discussion. This outpouring appeared to allow them purgation and relief" (p. 24)
They also pointed out the importance of non-verbal expression that constitutes real life reflected in the methods of TFD and PV:
"In real life, most meanings are constructed not just by words, but by signs and body language. Eliciting these through TFD and then capturing them for posterity using PV generates a permanent and rich source of complex data including body language, facial expressions, postures, movements, bodily adornment and material culture" (p. 24)
As an advantage of PV over TFD, the authors argued for its transferability:
"While TFD can only be experienced at the place and the moment when it is happening, the videos enabled community members to see what happened in other communities, hear the views
of others and see the multiple ways these were articulated, including their emotions and bodily
expressions. No dramatic action can be repeated exactly twice, but PV can record the action and
repeat it several times over, which allows for deeper reflection" (pp. 24-25)
The authors asserted that this research contributed to consciousness raising achievement by telling some emblematic stories of individual participants. They attributed two factors --the participatory method and the experiential lives of the community --to the outcome. They argued that these two factors created ownership, participants' ownership not only of the research process but also of the discussions, arguments, etc. [Ownership is discussed in the context of the content]
The authors discussed the use of theatre for development [TFD] and participatory video [PV] in the research on violence in northern Nigeria. First, they carried out a survey throughout several communities, then developed a drama performed in each community and followed by a debate. PV was used throughout. The research finding is interesting: they argued that people do not see contemporary violence as a result of religion; rather, people perceive it as the organizing platform.
Interesting to note the reasons for choosing TFD and PV for this participatory action research (p. 21):
1. high level of illiteracy
2. "Wonderment about video makes people eager to speak to the camera" (p. 21)
3. can "afford participant ownership of the research tools and process.
4. "participatory process. . . is a spur to reflection and self-critical analysis".
5. alternative ways of looking at violence and manipulating the end of violence.-->seed for change.
The way they used PV techniques was to record the process from the community survey through drama-making to the discussions after the performances. It also recorded message from people on opposite sides of the religious and ethnic divides. It was done by trained community researchers.
The authors defined the roles of theatre and PV played:
"Theatre thus played multiple roles of information-gathering, feedback, analysis and triangulation or validation of facts, while PV played a role in building up a broadly accepted and pluralistically-constructed version of events, and in data-recording on both content and process" (p. 22).
Reflecting on the methods, the authors wrote:
"In broad terms, the TFD and PV, the quantitative research and qualitative interviews complemented each other very nicely throughout. The quantitative component provided useful information on the areas most affected by the violent incidents in Kaduna, Plateau and Kano States" (p. 23).
[Seamless use of quantitative, qualitative, arts-based methods for community-based research]
Arguing the suitability of TFD and PV for participatory research, the authors wrote about its connection with oral culture, reinforced reflection, and catharsis:
"The appeal and relevance of such reinterpretation and reflexivity are underscored by the fact that the work we do is mostly situated in oral cultures where the ability to read and write are limited or non-existent. Instead of being constrained by specific questions, people were enabled to connect with the incidents of violence in a reflective manner, through testimony or narration of their experiences during the drama and during the PV discussion. This outpouring appeared to allow them purgation and relief" (p. 24)
They also pointed out the importance of non-verbal expression that constitutes real life reflected in the methods of TFD and PV:
"In real life, most meanings are constructed not just by words, but by signs and body language. Eliciting these through TFD and then capturing them for posterity using PV generates a permanent and rich source of complex data including body language, facial expressions, postures, movements, bodily adornment and material culture" (p. 24)
As an advantage of PV over TFD, the authors argued for its transferability:
"While TFD can only be experienced at the place and the moment when it is happening, the videos enabled community members to see what happened in other communities, hear the views
of others and see the multiple ways these were articulated, including their emotions and bodily
expressions. No dramatic action can be repeated exactly twice, but PV can record the action and
repeat it several times over, which allows for deeper reflection" (pp. 24-25)
The authors asserted that this research contributed to consciousness raising achievement by telling some emblematic stories of individual participants. They attributed two factors --the participatory method and the experiential lives of the community --to the outcome. They argued that these two factors created ownership, participants' ownership not only of the research process but also of the discussions, arguments, etc. [Ownership is discussed in the context of the content]
Diary of a participatory advocacy film project: transforming communication initiatives into living campaigns
Flower, Emilie, & McConville, Brigid. (2009). Development in Practice, 19 7), 933 — 937. doi: 10.1080/09614520903122428
Flower discussed her involvement in a PV project with the White Ribbon Alliance for Safer Motherhood in Tanzania in 2006. Many, including trained health workers and skilled film producers, were involved in this project. Yet, the author noted, "The PV methodology had been incorporated into the process because it reflected the WRA ethos of respect for and participation of all members. . . . In our work in Tanzania, however, the PV method was being brought in at a later stage; the WRA had already decided what was needed, so the film would be used to demonstrate that these were ‘real’ messages and to raise the profile of an existing advocacy campaign. The challenge was to use the PV method as an opportunity for communities to express their views and needs, without imposing a set of agendas" (p. 934-935).
[ This is a special case: PV was instrumental to proving the WRA's agenda]
The authors noted the successful delivery of the final product, showing it through a conference and TV, showing to the Minister of Health, interviewing him again. Yet they emphasized the participatory aspect began later:
"The project had successfully delivered the product, and the team returned to their posts with equipment and assignments. It would have been easy to leave the project there, but the participatory aspect of the video project really began to flourish almost from the moment we left the country. . ." (p. 936)
The local coordinator continued to produce films from participatory perspectives, bringing local voices and responses.
Flower discussed her involvement in a PV project with the White Ribbon Alliance for Safer Motherhood in Tanzania in 2006. Many, including trained health workers and skilled film producers, were involved in this project. Yet, the author noted, "The PV methodology had been incorporated into the process because it reflected the WRA ethos of respect for and participation of all members. . . . In our work in Tanzania, however, the PV method was being brought in at a later stage; the WRA had already decided what was needed, so the film would be used to demonstrate that these were ‘real’ messages and to raise the profile of an existing advocacy campaign. The challenge was to use the PV method as an opportunity for communities to express their views and needs, without imposing a set of agendas" (p. 934-935).
[ This is a special case: PV was instrumental to proving the WRA's agenda]
The authors noted the successful delivery of the final product, showing it through a conference and TV, showing to the Minister of Health, interviewing him again. Yet they emphasized the participatory aspect began later:
"The project had successfully delivered the product, and the team returned to their posts with equipment and assignments. It would have been easy to leave the project there, but the participatory aspect of the video project really began to flourish almost from the moment we left the country. . ." (p. 936)
The local coordinator continued to produce films from participatory perspectives, bringing local voices and responses.
Video for recording and training in participatory development
Frost, Nicola, & Jones, Carolyn. (1998). Development in Practice: Stimulating thought for action, 8(1), 90-94. doi: 10.1080/09614529854043
Frost used video recording as ways of keeping fieldnotes and reports for donors for a multi-disciplinary research of the effects of tourism in eastern Indonesia; Jones used video recording for field and classroom training, and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) community-level workshops. Based upon their experiences, the authors discussed the use of video in participatory development.
1. Creating a record of fieldwork for research--> on-site playback stimulates instant comments on the process [Transparency of research process]
2. Recording participants' discussion on local issues-->useful for supporting funding proposal
3. Used as a training resources instead of paper hand-outs.
Pro's and con's of using video
Pro's: quick and accurate establishment of contexts. flexibility to move around. presentation of a kinetic process. preserving the spatial dynamics of a PRA meeting. can be less intrusive than still cameras with flash.
The authors note the transferability of the advantages of using video for discussion: whereas some may distrust video, preferring to speak anonymity, others become more focused on discussion. Thus, they argue, "Clearly, the appropriateness of video will vary according to context, the individuals involved, and the subject matter being discussed" (p. 92).
The authors discuss the inevitable possibility of trade-off between quality and other purposes such as local involvement, daily feedback, etc.
Discussing editing, the authors argue the potential loss of transparency of video in particular if the editor lacks the original context, yet they play an important role in shaping the final product.
The authors argue that the potential for video relies on its overall objective: who it is intended for and for what purpose.
Frost used video recording as ways of keeping fieldnotes and reports for donors for a multi-disciplinary research of the effects of tourism in eastern Indonesia; Jones used video recording for field and classroom training, and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) community-level workshops. Based upon their experiences, the authors discussed the use of video in participatory development.
1. Creating a record of fieldwork for research--> on-site playback stimulates instant comments on the process [Transparency of research process]
2. Recording participants' discussion on local issues-->useful for supporting funding proposal
3. Used as a training resources instead of paper hand-outs.
Pro's and con's of using video
Pro's: quick and accurate establishment of contexts. flexibility to move around. presentation of a kinetic process. preserving the spatial dynamics of a PRA meeting. can be less intrusive than still cameras with flash.
The authors note the transferability of the advantages of using video for discussion: whereas some may distrust video, preferring to speak anonymity, others become more focused on discussion. Thus, they argue, "Clearly, the appropriateness of video will vary according to context, the individuals involved, and the subject matter being discussed" (p. 92).
The authors discuss the inevitable possibility of trade-off between quality and other purposes such as local involvement, daily feedback, etc.
Discussing editing, the authors argue the potential loss of transparency of video in particular if the editor lacks the original context, yet they play an important role in shaping the final product.
The authors argue that the potential for video relies on its overall objective: who it is intended for and for what purpose.
Monday, April 12, 2010
We've been framed: visualising methodology
Holliday, Ruth. (2000). The Sociological Review, 48 (4), 503-521.
Holliday asserts that reflexivity, alongside with multivocality, has arisen as an outcome of the post-colonial critique of the ethnocentrism of anthropology. She contends that multivocality, however, loses some of its criticality. She quotes Trinh (Visualizing theory : selected essays from V.A.R., 1990-1994, Author:Lucien Castaing-Taylor (Ed.). Trinh's interview with Nancy Chang.(1994). p.440):
"Multivocality...is not necessarily a solution to the problems of centralized and hierarchical knowledge when it is practised accumulatively--by juxtaposing voices that continue to speak within identified boundaries. Like the much abused concept of multiculturalism, multivocality here could also lead to the bland 'melting-pot' type of attitude, in which 'multi' means 'no'--no voice--or is used only to better mask the Voice--that very place from where meaning is put together.
As to reflexivity, Holliday argues, "Reflexivity is the latest in a long line of ... techniques aimed at ensuring the production of greater degrees of 'truth'," thus it can be viewed as a pseudo-positivist approach concerning greater truth.
Holliday stresses video as a confessional medium quoting from Michael Renov (1996, “Video Confessions” in Resolutions: Contemporary video Practices, Univ. of Minnesota Press):
In the case of video confessions, the virtual presences of a partner—the imagined other effectuated by the technology—turns out to be a more powerful facilitator of emotion than flesh-and-blood interlocutors. Camera operators, sound booms, cables, and clapperboards are hardly a boon to soul confession. (pp. 88-89; as cited on page 511)
Holliday’s argument about the power of video diaries in exploring one’s subjectivity is tied with this insight into video as a confessional medium. She wrote:
In terms of the video diaries, then, the power to present one’s subjectivity may override the risk of having that speech appropriated by others (for example, academics). Thus, the fullest confession opens up the greatest space to talk and affords the greatest power at that moment. (p. 512)
[In a participatory video, an interviewing situation may be similar to this confessional setting, for interviewers are much closer to interviewees compared with academics. Thus interviewees’ subjectivity can be more freely expressed and thus the medium of video can be more reflexive in bring out the lived/embodied experience of the interviewees.]
Holliday proposes video diaries as a “Queer Methodology” that “disrespects and disrupts disciplinary boundaries and discriplines”(p. 516) and an unconventional format of academic text.
Holliday asserts that reflexivity, alongside with multivocality, has arisen as an outcome of the post-colonial critique of the ethnocentrism of anthropology. She contends that multivocality, however, loses some of its criticality. She quotes Trinh (Visualizing theory : selected essays from V.A.R., 1990-1994, Author:Lucien Castaing-Taylor (Ed.). Trinh's interview with Nancy Chang.(1994). p.440):
"Multivocality...is not necessarily a solution to the problems of centralized and hierarchical knowledge when it is practised accumulatively--by juxtaposing voices that continue to speak within identified boundaries. Like the much abused concept of multiculturalism, multivocality here could also lead to the bland 'melting-pot' type of attitude, in which 'multi' means 'no'--no voice--or is used only to better mask the Voice--that very place from where meaning is put together.
As to reflexivity, Holliday argues, "Reflexivity is the latest in a long line of ... techniques aimed at ensuring the production of greater degrees of 'truth'," thus it can be viewed as a pseudo-positivist approach concerning greater truth.
Holliday stresses video as a confessional medium quoting from Michael Renov (1996, “Video Confessions” in Resolutions: Contemporary video Practices, Univ. of Minnesota Press):
In the case of video confessions, the virtual presences of a partner—the imagined other effectuated by the technology—turns out to be a more powerful facilitator of emotion than flesh-and-blood interlocutors. Camera operators, sound booms, cables, and clapperboards are hardly a boon to soul confession. (pp. 88-89; as cited on page 511)
Holliday’s argument about the power of video diaries in exploring one’s subjectivity is tied with this insight into video as a confessional medium. She wrote:
In terms of the video diaries, then, the power to present one’s subjectivity may override the risk of having that speech appropriated by others (for example, academics). Thus, the fullest confession opens up the greatest space to talk and affords the greatest power at that moment. (p. 512)
[In a participatory video, an interviewing situation may be similar to this confessional setting, for interviewers are much closer to interviewees compared with academics. Thus interviewees’ subjectivity can be more freely expressed and thus the medium of video can be more reflexive in bring out the lived/embodied experience of the interviewees.]
Holliday proposes video diaries as a “Queer Methodology” that “disrespects and disrupts disciplinary boundaries and discriplines”(p. 516) and an unconventional format of academic text.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Walking with video
Pink, Sarah. (2007). Visual Studies, 22 (3), 240 — 252
In her methodological proposal of "walking with someone" to learn his or her experiences, Pink further inquires into "how the integration of video into this method can serve as a catalyst for creating ethnographic understandings of other people’s experiences and communicating about these to a wider audience" (p. 243).
Her ethnographic study stems from the emphasis of the sensory nature of sociality and empathetic learning by sharing the same sensory experiences. In particular with respect to walking or moving body, she quotes Ingold, "Locomotion, not cognition, must be the starting point for the study of perceptual activity’ (Ingold 2004, 331; 2000, 166; as cited on page 245).
As to benefits of using video in the method, she wrote:
First, video provides us with a tool that can enable embodied communication about, empathetic understandings of and representations of other people’s perceptions of their environments. Second, ... the film/videomaking context serves as a process through which people, things and sensory experiences are drawn together. (p. 245)
Pink attributed David and Judith MacDougall to a key development of a participatory and reflexive form of observational anthropological filmmaking. Building on this approach, Pink defines the method of walking with camera as a place-making practice, for film explores and gathers experiences, things, people, relationships, and so forth, while "meandering" the routes taken by the film subject (p. 247). With respect to empathetic experience of watching such ethnographic films, Pink wrote:
Some types of ‘indeterminate’ experience generated through viewing the embodied experience of another represented in ethnographic film would not necessarily transcend culture, but would allow us to make culturally framed reflections based on our empathetic responses to filmic representations of others’ experiences. (p. 248)
Here, concerning about application of ethnographic knowledge outside of academia, Pink argues for the empathetic engagement that film or video can invite to viewers.
As to walking with camera with a subject, Pink describes a representation of people's experience, thus producing historical text.
In her methodological proposal of "walking with someone" to learn his or her experiences, Pink further inquires into "how the integration of video into this method can serve as a catalyst for creating ethnographic understandings of other people’s experiences and communicating about these to a wider audience" (p. 243).
Her ethnographic study stems from the emphasis of the sensory nature of sociality and empathetic learning by sharing the same sensory experiences. In particular with respect to walking or moving body, she quotes Ingold, "Locomotion, not cognition, must be the starting point for the study of perceptual activity’ (Ingold 2004, 331; 2000, 166; as cited on page 245).
As to benefits of using video in the method, she wrote:
First, video provides us with a tool that can enable embodied communication about, empathetic understandings of and representations of other people’s perceptions of their environments. Second, ... the film/videomaking context serves as a process through which people, things and sensory experiences are drawn together. (p. 245)
Pink attributed David and Judith MacDougall to a key development of a participatory and reflexive form of observational anthropological filmmaking. Building on this approach, Pink defines the method of walking with camera as a place-making practice, for film explores and gathers experiences, things, people, relationships, and so forth, while "meandering" the routes taken by the film subject (p. 247). With respect to empathetic experience of watching such ethnographic films, Pink wrote:
Some types of ‘indeterminate’ experience generated through viewing the embodied experience of another represented in ethnographic film would not necessarily transcend culture, but would allow us to make culturally framed reflections based on our empathetic responses to filmic representations of others’ experiences. (p. 248)
Here, concerning about application of ethnographic knowledge outside of academia, Pink argues for the empathetic engagement that film or video can invite to viewers.
As to walking with camera with a subject, Pink describes a representation of people's experience, thus producing historical text.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Participatory video in geographic research
: A feminist Practice of Looking? Kindon, Sara. (2003). Area, 35 (2), 142-153.
Criticizing the predominant masculinist gaze, Kindon explores possibilities of using participatory video as a means of achieving a feminist practice of looking in geographic research for more equitable outcomes and transformation for research participants.
Citing Sarah Pink's note, "the use of video as a method of qualitative research and representation has become 'revived' as a topic in discussions of qualitative methodologies" (p.586), Kindon maintains:
"[U]sing video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193)." (p.145-146)
In her criticism of the use of video for empowerment, Kindon sharply points out that, while such video enables researchers to discuss participants' self-reflexivity, it does not acknowledge reseachers' influence on the research or encourage their own reflexivity, which makes researchers effectively remain invisible in the video they make. [This is a paradox that Kindon draws from the practice of participatory video.] She continues that by rigorously participating alongside participants, the research method may destabilize conventional power relations between researcher and researched, observer and observed, and documentarians and documented.
Kindon compares cons and pros of using video for research. She writes about the potential benefit of using video, "[G]reater attention can be paid to the corporeal aspects of knowledge production by focusing on everyone's body language, use of and movements through space" (p.148). She cites other negative practices, such as confidentiality (negative impact on researcher-subject relationship) and access (the limitation of context-dependency). Kindon denotes that the same problems arose even in the participatory video project she involved with when those who were not directly involved with the research project were requested for an interview. However, she evaluates that participatory video transformed the relationships and the nature of research as shown in the discussion of the use of created video, which implies ownership, individual experience of empowerment, and a process of disruption of researchers' assumption.
Lastly she sheds light on the (time) commitment necessary to render the potential of transformation and empowerment that PV may bring to participants as well as researchers.
[Pink, S. (2001). More visualizing, more methodologies: on video, reflexivity and qualitative research. The Sociological Review, 49, 586-99.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London.]
-----------
I do this through a consideration of how participatory video may offer a feminist practice of looking, which actively works to engage with and challenge conventional relationships of power associated with the gaze in geographic research, and results in more equitable outcomes and/or transformation for research participants. (p. 143)
I then discuss how a form of participatory video was employed in a bi-cultural research project with a group of Maaori people in Aotearoa New Zealand. This project was developed to explore
the relationships between place, identity and 'social cohesion' in communities in the district.
videos produced were not designed to travel outside of the iwi or be used for advocacy purposes, but were part of a process of internal capacity building and knowledge sharing. (p. 144)
Yet, using video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being (p. 145) framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193). (p. 146)
Criticizing Ruth Holliday's video diary, Kindon argued:
They enable researchers to discuss participants' self-representations and reflexivity, but do not always acknowledge the influence of the researcher, or encourage their self-reflexivity. The researcher effectively remains invisible and reinforces conventions associated with documentary film and scientific observation. If the recordings generated are then treated as 'untainted realities', rather than as representations and/or performances produced in the context of social relationships and strategies of self representation (Pink 2001 b, 87), they may perpetuate unequal power relations and assumptions about objectivity within the research process.
Criticizing the predominant masculinist gaze, Kindon explores possibilities of using participatory video as a means of achieving a feminist practice of looking in geographic research for more equitable outcomes and transformation for research participants.
Citing Sarah Pink's note, "the use of video as a method of qualitative research and representation has become 'revived' as a topic in discussions of qualitative methodologies" (p.586), Kindon maintains:
"[U]sing video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193)." (p.145-146)
In her criticism of the use of video for empowerment, Kindon sharply points out that, while such video enables researchers to discuss participants' self-reflexivity, it does not acknowledge reseachers' influence on the research or encourage their own reflexivity, which makes researchers effectively remain invisible in the video they make. [This is a paradox that Kindon draws from the practice of participatory video.] She continues that by rigorously participating alongside participants, the research method may destabilize conventional power relations between researcher and researched, observer and observed, and documentarians and documented.
Kindon compares cons and pros of using video for research. She writes about the potential benefit of using video, "[G]reater attention can be paid to the corporeal aspects of knowledge production by focusing on everyone's body language, use of and movements through space" (p.148). She cites other negative practices, such as confidentiality (negative impact on researcher-subject relationship) and access (the limitation of context-dependency). Kindon denotes that the same problems arose even in the participatory video project she involved with when those who were not directly involved with the research project were requested for an interview. However, she evaluates that participatory video transformed the relationships and the nature of research as shown in the discussion of the use of created video, which implies ownership, individual experience of empowerment, and a process of disruption of researchers' assumption.
Lastly she sheds light on the (time) commitment necessary to render the potential of transformation and empowerment that PV may bring to participants as well as researchers.
[Pink, S. (2001). More visualizing, more methodologies: on video, reflexivity and qualitative research. The Sociological Review, 49, 586-99.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London.]
-----------
I do this through a consideration of how participatory video may offer a feminist practice of looking, which actively works to engage with and challenge conventional relationships of power associated with the gaze in geographic research, and results in more equitable outcomes and/or transformation for research participants. (p. 143)
I then discuss how a form of participatory video was employed in a bi-cultural research project with a group of Maaori people in Aotearoa New Zealand. This project was developed to explore
the relationships between place, identity and 'social cohesion' in communities in the district.
videos produced were not designed to travel outside of the iwi or be used for advocacy purposes, but were part of a process of internal capacity building and knowledge sharing. (p. 144)
Yet, using video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being (p. 145) framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193). (p. 146)
Criticizing Ruth Holliday's video diary, Kindon argued:
They enable researchers to discuss participants' self-representations and reflexivity, but do not always acknowledge the influence of the researcher, or encourage their self-reflexivity. The researcher effectively remains invisible and reinforces conventions associated with documentary film and scientific observation. If the recordings generated are then treated as 'untainted realities', rather than as representations and/or performances produced in the context of social relationships and strategies of self representation (Pink 2001 b, 87), they may perpetuate unequal power relations and assumptions about objectivity within the research process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
