: 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).
Sunday, May 8, 2011
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 28, 2011
Transformative research and evaluation
Mertens, Donna M. (2009). New York, NY: Guilford.
Introduction (1-7)
Mertens earlier noted four dominant paradigms in educational and psychological research: positivism, constructivism, pragmatism and emancipatory. In this text, he renamed emancipatory to transformative to emphasize working together with people for personal and social transformation. In this context, he discussed the transformative paradigm as "an overarching metaphysical framework" (3) to cover various approaches labeled critical theory, feminist theory, participatory, inclusive, culturally responsive, etc. that aim to furthering social justice through research and evaluation. [Here Mertens mentions research and evaluation together. I wonder what is difference. Perhaps it is the use of terms. Research is often referred to activities of seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge while evaluation as more practical, but knowledge-for the sake of knowledge is not practical in particular in the domain of the transformative paradigm. In a sense, research is part of evaluation.]
1. Resilience, resistance, and complexities that challenge (9-42)
Mertens wrote for the foci of the transformative paradigm:
"Rather, the paradigm focuses on culturally appropriate strategies to facilitate understandings that will create sustainable social change. Understanding the dynamics of power and privilege and how they can be challenged in the status quo is also a priory" (10)
In this light, she emphasized participatory approaches to research and evaluation and stressed the potential role of the researcher or evaluator as an "instrument of social change" (11).
Mertens wrote, "Participatory action research is one example of an approach that is compatible with the transformative paradigm when it is applied to the goal of social justice" (21).
Mertens discussed ethical impetus. Looking at the Belmont report from the U.S. national commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), she wrote that the landscape of ethics is useful, and yet, issues outside of the norms and principles also arise in the conduct of research: "some ethical issues will surface differently or not at all, depending on the researchers' or evaluators' paradigmatic stance" (35)
Chilisa (2005, Educational research within postcolonial Africa. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 659-684) suggests that ethics narrowly defined as protection fails to protect the researched as it fails to recognize ethics in light of respect for the integrity of the researched community.
Mertens also looked into AEA's Guiding Principles over a period of time and other codes, and suggested that revisions of professional association code recently made indicate a "greater awareness of the need to consciously incorporate principles of cultural competence as a salient dimension of their ethical codes" (36): APA, AERA, America Evaluation Association, American Sociological Association, American Anthropological Association, and the United Nations.
[Find out the examples, and look for some examples in Canadian contexts]
Mertens read through Kirkhart (1995, 2005) and Lincoln (1995) for the discussion of research validity. In particular, Kirkhart (2005) proposed "multicultural validity" to indicate "correctness or authenticity of understanding across multiple, intersecting cultural contexts" (p.22) and suggested five justifications for multicultural validity: theoretical, experiential, consequential, interpersonal, methodological.
Lincoln (1995, Standards for qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Francisco) suggested the followings for the criteria for quality in research and evaluation: positionality or standpoint epitemology (researchers should acknowledge all texts are incomplete and limited by the position of the researchers), community (know well enough of the community), attention to voice (researchers should seek out those who are silent), critical reflexivity (high level of awareness to acknowledge the psychologocal state of others and themselves), reciprocity (should demonstrate that a method was used to develop a sense of trust and mutuality with the participants), sharing the perquisites of privilege. (as cited 39-40)
[Checking the quality of the embedded research (PV), it demonstrates sustained quality]
2. Basic beliefs and commensurate theories (43-69)
Some philosophical statements of the transformative paradigm:
Axiology (assumptions about ethics): "Ethical considerations include respect for cultural norms of interaction; beneficence is defined in terms of the promotion of human rights and increase in social justice)
Ontology (assumptions about what exists; what is reality): "Rejects cultural relativism and recognizes the influence of privilege in determining what is real ad the consequence of accepting one version of reality over another; multiple realities are shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender, disability, and other values" (p. 49)
Epistemology (assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the researcher/evaluator and the stakeholders needed to achieve accurate knowledge): Recongnizes an interactive link between researcher/evaluator and participants/co-researchers/evaluator; knowledge is seen as socially and historically situated; issues of power and privilege are explicitly addressed; development of a trusting relationship is seen as critical
Methodology (assumptions about appropriate methods of systematic inquiry): "Inclusion of qualitative methods (dialogical) is seen as critical; quantitative and mixed methods can be used; interactive link recognized between the researcher/evaluator and participants in the definition of the focus and questions; methods are adjusted to accommodate cultural complexity; and contextual and historical factors are acknowledged. especially as they relate to discrimination and oppression. (p. 49)
About Validity
Gaventa and Cornwall (2006, Power and knoweldge. In Reason and Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research (71-82)) argued for the need to evolve new concepts of validity in participatory research and the quality of knowledge. [So, WHAT IS THEIR CONCEPT?]
Mertens stressed that researchers should be sensitive to cultural diversity because "The embedded biases of researchers and evaluators toward culturally diverse people threaten validity. In contrast, validity is enhanced by cultural responsiveness" (62). [Mertens stressed cultural responsiveness as criteria of validity]
In this regard, Mertens disregarded triangulation and called for crystallization: she wrote that triangulation was used to validate findings in traditional qualitative research through different methods. But she implied that triangulation does not convey the multifaceted nature of knowledge, subject to cultural refraction (oh, nice word that I coined), and supported crystallization indicating multidimentionalities, angles of approaches, transmutations, borrowing from Richardson and St. Pierre (2005, Writing: A method of inquiry, in Denzin & Lincoln (eds.) The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd, 959-978)).
6. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (164-198)
Mertens suggests that specific quantitative and qualitative approaches have the potential to be used as a mixed-methods approach as long as they are used in culturally appropriate context.
In particular in the context of participatory action research, Mertens quotes Greenwood and Levine (2007, Introduction to action research, Sage), who argued that AP is not limited to group meetings and qualitative methods. They regarded action research as a research strategy that "generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote social analysis and democratic social change" (p. 5, cited in 183). They summarized, "Surveys, statistical analyses, interviews, focus groups, ethnographies, and life histories are all acceptable, if the reason for deploying them has been agreed upon by the AP collaborators and if they are used in a way that does not oppress the participants" (p. 6).
[GREENWOOD and LEVINE is good to quote to support the mixed method used in my study.]
Introduction (1-7)
Mertens earlier noted four dominant paradigms in educational and psychological research: positivism, constructivism, pragmatism and emancipatory. In this text, he renamed emancipatory to transformative to emphasize working together with people for personal and social transformation. In this context, he discussed the transformative paradigm as "an overarching metaphysical framework" (3) to cover various approaches labeled critical theory, feminist theory, participatory, inclusive, culturally responsive, etc. that aim to furthering social justice through research and evaluation. [Here Mertens mentions research and evaluation together. I wonder what is difference. Perhaps it is the use of terms. Research is often referred to activities of seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge while evaluation as more practical, but knowledge-for the sake of knowledge is not practical in particular in the domain of the transformative paradigm. In a sense, research is part of evaluation.]
1. Resilience, resistance, and complexities that challenge (9-42)
Mertens wrote for the foci of the transformative paradigm:
"Rather, the paradigm focuses on culturally appropriate strategies to facilitate understandings that will create sustainable social change. Understanding the dynamics of power and privilege and how they can be challenged in the status quo is also a priory" (10)
In this light, she emphasized participatory approaches to research and evaluation and stressed the potential role of the researcher or evaluator as an "instrument of social change" (11).
Mertens wrote, "Participatory action research is one example of an approach that is compatible with the transformative paradigm when it is applied to the goal of social justice" (21).
Mertens discussed ethical impetus. Looking at the Belmont report from the U.S. national commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), she wrote that the landscape of ethics is useful, and yet, issues outside of the norms and principles also arise in the conduct of research: "some ethical issues will surface differently or not at all, depending on the researchers' or evaluators' paradigmatic stance" (35)
Chilisa (2005, Educational research within postcolonial Africa. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 659-684) suggests that ethics narrowly defined as protection fails to protect the researched as it fails to recognize ethics in light of respect for the integrity of the researched community.
Mertens also looked into AEA's Guiding Principles over a period of time and other codes, and suggested that revisions of professional association code recently made indicate a "greater awareness of the need to consciously incorporate principles of cultural competence as a salient dimension of their ethical codes" (36): APA, AERA, America Evaluation Association, American Sociological Association, American Anthropological Association, and the United Nations.
[Find out the examples, and look for some examples in Canadian contexts]
Mertens read through Kirkhart (1995, 2005) and Lincoln (1995) for the discussion of research validity. In particular, Kirkhart (2005) proposed "multicultural validity" to indicate "correctness or authenticity of understanding across multiple, intersecting cultural contexts" (p.22) and suggested five justifications for multicultural validity: theoretical, experiential, consequential, interpersonal, methodological.
Lincoln (1995, Standards for qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Francisco) suggested the followings for the criteria for quality in research and evaluation: positionality or standpoint epitemology (researchers should acknowledge all texts are incomplete and limited by the position of the researchers), community (know well enough of the community), attention to voice (researchers should seek out those who are silent), critical reflexivity (high level of awareness to acknowledge the psychologocal state of others and themselves), reciprocity (should demonstrate that a method was used to develop a sense of trust and mutuality with the participants), sharing the perquisites of privilege. (as cited 39-40)
[Checking the quality of the embedded research (PV), it demonstrates sustained quality]
2. Basic beliefs and commensurate theories (43-69)
Some philosophical statements of the transformative paradigm:
Axiology (assumptions about ethics): "Ethical considerations include respect for cultural norms of interaction; beneficence is defined in terms of the promotion of human rights and increase in social justice)
Ontology (assumptions about what exists; what is reality): "Rejects cultural relativism and recognizes the influence of privilege in determining what is real ad the consequence of accepting one version of reality over another; multiple realities are shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender, disability, and other values" (p. 49)
Epistemology (assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the researcher/evaluator and the stakeholders needed to achieve accurate knowledge): Recongnizes an interactive link between researcher/evaluator and participants/co-researchers/evaluator; knowledge is seen as socially and historically situated; issues of power and privilege are explicitly addressed; development of a trusting relationship is seen as critical
Methodology (assumptions about appropriate methods of systematic inquiry): "Inclusion of qualitative methods (dialogical) is seen as critical; quantitative and mixed methods can be used; interactive link recognized between the researcher/evaluator and participants in the definition of the focus and questions; methods are adjusted to accommodate cultural complexity; and contextual and historical factors are acknowledged. especially as they relate to discrimination and oppression. (p. 49)
About Validity
Gaventa and Cornwall (2006, Power and knoweldge. In Reason and Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research (71-82)) argued for the need to evolve new concepts of validity in participatory research and the quality of knowledge. [So, WHAT IS THEIR CONCEPT?]
Mertens stressed that researchers should be sensitive to cultural diversity because "The embedded biases of researchers and evaluators toward culturally diverse people threaten validity. In contrast, validity is enhanced by cultural responsiveness" (62). [Mertens stressed cultural responsiveness as criteria of validity]
In this regard, Mertens disregarded triangulation and called for crystallization: she wrote that triangulation was used to validate findings in traditional qualitative research through different methods. But she implied that triangulation does not convey the multifaceted nature of knowledge, subject to cultural refraction (oh, nice word that I coined), and supported crystallization indicating multidimentionalities, angles of approaches, transmutations, borrowing from Richardson and St. Pierre (2005, Writing: A method of inquiry, in Denzin & Lincoln (eds.) The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd, 959-978)).
6. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (164-198)
Mertens suggests that specific quantitative and qualitative approaches have the potential to be used as a mixed-methods approach as long as they are used in culturally appropriate context.
In particular in the context of participatory action research, Mertens quotes Greenwood and Levine (2007, Introduction to action research, Sage), who argued that AP is not limited to group meetings and qualitative methods. They regarded action research as a research strategy that "generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote social analysis and democratic social change" (p. 5, cited in 183). They summarized, "Surveys, statistical analyses, interviews, focus groups, ethnographies, and life histories are all acceptable, if the reason for deploying them has been agreed upon by the AP collaborators and if they are used in a way that does not oppress the participants" (p. 6).
[GREENWOOD and LEVINE is good to quote to support the mixed method used in my study.]
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1. The nature of qualitative inquiry (3-29)
*Three kinds of qualitative data: interview, observation, and document
The purposes of research and evaluation are different, but research can be evaluative: "When one examines and judges accomplishments and effectiveness, one is engaged in evaluation. When this examination of effectiveness is conducted systematically and empirically through careful data collection and thoughtful analysis, one is engaged in evaluation research" (p. 10)
*Criteria to judge the quality of the findings:
evaluation standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy
nontraditional criteria: trustworthiness, diversity of perspectives, clarity of voice, credibility of the inquirer to primary users of the findings.
Patton noted, "In qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, hinges to a great extent on the skills, competence, and rigor of the person doing fieldwork--as well as things going on in a person's life that might prove a distraction" (p. 14)
Patton discussed the purposes of open-ended responses and participant observation for evaluative research: "the open-ended responses permit one to understand the world as seen by the respondents. The purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions is to enable the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other people without predetermining those points of view through prior selection of questionnaire categories. . . . The task for the qualitative researcher is to provide a framework within which people can respond in a way that represents accurately and thoroughly their points of view about the world..." (p. 21)
In order to overcome the limitations pertaining to what people say, Patton called for participant observation for evaluation research. "The purpose of observational analysis is to take the reader into the setting that was observed" (p. 23).
[In my evaluation research, I utilized participant observation, written out in depth in chapter 3, and made available direct quotes from the observed to provide readers with their points of view.]
2. Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry (37-73)
* Patton presented some analysis strategies: unique case orientation (capturing the details of the individual case being studied), inductive analysis and creative synthesis, holistic perspective (focusing on complex interdependence and providing it as a complex system), context sensitivity (attentive to a social, historical, and temporal context), voice/reflexivity (reflective on my own voice)
With regard to reflexivity, Patton wrote: "Reflexivity has entered the qualitative lexicon as a way of emphasizing the importance of self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one's perspective" (p. 64) He suggested using the first-person, active voice in this light.
Patton seems to be skeptical about paradigmatic division. He argued that a paradigmatic strategy indeed can be a hindrance for evaluation research. He argued:
"Such prejudices and paradigmatic blinders limit methodological choices, flexibility, and creativity. Adherence to a methodological paradigm can lock researchers into unconscious patterns of perception and behavior that disguise the biased, predetermined nature of their methods "decision." " (p. 71)
Further, he argued that "the qualitative-quantitative debate oversimplified and often confused methodological and philosophical issues" (p. 71), as in reality, there are the cases that notably consistent methods and philosophy in a certain paradigm have proven problematic.
3. Variety in qualitative inquiry: Theoretical orientations (75-142)
Patton introduces 16 qualitative inquiries, including phenomenology and grounded theory, which I think are the most relevant to my dissertation research. So I will take a close look at them.
Phenomenology
Foundational question: what is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people?
Phenomenon can be emotion, a relationship, a program, or a culture. The focus is on describing the essence of people's experience in a certain phenomenon and developing a worldview. It usually involves participant observation and in-depth interviews. For example, the essence of being a participant in a particular program can be a kind of phenomenological study. [My chapter 4 is a definitely phenomenological study in that sense.]
Grounded theory
Foundational question: What theory emerges from systematic comparative analysis and is grounded in fieldwork so as to explain what has been and is observed?
Popular in social sciences and methodology with emphasis on generating, instead of testing, theory. Patton asserts that all the approaches are grounded in the empirical world, but the conceptualizations of what to ask vary from one inquiry to another. "While the phrase "ground theory" is often used as a general reference to inductive, qualitative analysis, as an identifiable approach to qualitative inquiry, it consists of quite specific methods and systematic procedure" (p. 126). Thus, he argued:
"As a matter of philosophical distinctness, then, grounded theory is best understood as fundamentally realist and objectivist in orientation, emphasizing disciplined and procedural ways of getting the researcher's biases out of the way but adding healthy doses of creativity to the analytic process." (p. 128-129).
[To the extent that I compared the experience of the research participants with that of others in other programs in Chapter 4, it has a systematic comparison emphasized in grounded theory, and yet, this analysis is not so much grounded theory as phenomenology. On the other hand, Chapter 5 is more linked to grounded theory as I intend to provide some methodological tools to researchers. But I also doubt that it can be called grounded theory as I do not develop theory out of the fieldwork. ]
4. Particularly appropriate qualitative applications (143-205)
Patton holds pragmatism in his approach to methodology: "Pragmatic and utilitarian frameworks can guide qualitative inquiry on their practical and applied underpinnings without having to be attached to or derived from a theoretical tradition." (p. 145)
Patton suggests various evaluation models:
Goal-free evaluation
"doing fieldwork and gathering data on a broad array of actual effects or outcomes, then comparing the observed outcomes with the actual needs of program participants" (p. 169). In general, it purposefully suspends the researcher's judgment.
[Then, I can take up goal-free evaluation for the embedded study. The participants want to find out ways to help increase retention rate, in the end, they suggested a way. There is no way to check the actual effects, but from the participants' perspective, the research brought about some solutions they looked for. ]
Transaction models: responsive and illuminative evaluation
The transaction model of evaluation that Ernie House (1978) called concentrates on case studies and "places prime emphasis on perception and knowing as a transactional process between researcher and research participant" (p. 172). Its variations include illuminative evaluation, developed in educational evaluation, and Stake's (1975) responsive approach to evaluation, which requires to have "face-to-face contact with people in the program and learn about diverse stakeholder's perspectives, experiences and concerns. This responsive evaluation has been integrated into Guba and Lincoln's (1989) "responsive constructivist evaluation" known as the fourth generation evaluation, which is based on naturalistic inquiry.
Connoisseurship studies
It places the evaluator's perceptions and expertise at the center of the evaluation process, "drawing heavily on his or her own judgments about what constitutes excellence" (172).
Interactive and participatory applications:
Placing a greater emphasis on human interaction in designing evaluation strategies, Patton wrote:
Qualitative methods may also be perceived as more personal because of their inductive nature. This means that, again, rather than imposing on people or a program some predetermined model or hypotheses, the results unfold in a way that takes into account idiosyncrasies, uniqueness, and complex dynamics. Finally, qualitative methods may be perceived as more humanistic and personal simply by avoiding numbers. (p. 176)
Action research, action learning, reflective practice
i.e. adult educators interviewing students as case studies, then through cross-case analysis they deepened their sensitivity to new immigrant students and developed their professional skills.
Participatory research and evaluation
Film: Awakening (1990)--a real story of participatory research in a mental hospital
Patton provided an overview of a growing popularity of participatory research:
"Interest in participatory research has exploded in recent years, especially as an element of larger community change efforts (Stoecker 1999). The principal researcher trains the coresearchers to observe, interview, reflect, and/or keep careful records or diaries. Those involved come together periodically to share in the data analysis process. The purpose of such shared inquiry is typically to elucidate and improve the nature of practice in some arena of action" (183).
In particular, participatory evaluation emphasizes "working with people" (183), thus, Patton wrote: "The process is facilitated by the researcher, but is controlled by the people in the program or community. They undertake a formal, reflective process for their own development and empowerment" (183).
Patton noted that participatory evaluation has been used with great success by a number of NGOs and private voluntary organization in the Third World.
Patton also drew attention to various connotations of participatory inquiry, saying that there is no definitive definition for participatory evaluation. Patton, in particular, emphasized teaching inquiry logic and skills as the purpose of participatory evaluation, as "the process of participatory self-evaluation, in and of itself, provided useful learning experience for participants" (184).
[Here Patton suggests participatory evaluation/inquiry as a pedagogical form.]
Finally, he noted, "these participatory approaches often employ qualitative methods because those methods are understandable, teachable, and usable by people without extensive research training." (185)
[Patton regards participatory paradigm from the perspective of pragmatism and links qualitative methods as strong candidates for that paradigmatic inquiry.]
8. Qualitative analysis and interpretation (431-534)
Patton discussed about summative vs. formative evaluation: Summative evaluations are usually accompanied by a full report with data, analysis, and recommendations, whereas formative evaluation is conducted for program improvement and may not generate a written report. Findings are often presented orally to the staff or funders. Patton wrote:
"The methods are qualitative, the purpose is practical, and the analysis is done throughout fieldwork; no written report is expected beyond a final outline of observations and implications. Academic theory takes second place to understanding the program's theory of action as actually practices and implemented" (435)
[The VT research can be viewed as formative evaluation to give insights into the OP program, which is not academic theory oriented and rather concentrates on providing critical insights from the insiders' perspective.]
Theory-based analysis approaches: Patton discusses phenomenological analysis and ground theory analysis in great detail, along with qualitative comparative analysis and analytic induction.
Analytic induction seems to be the most relevant to my approach. It originally emphasized discovering universal causal generalizations, but gradually moved away to qualitative inquiry and comparative case analysis including examination of preconceived hypotheses. In this approach, "researchers actively seek to disconfirm emerging hypotheses through negative case analysis, that is, analysis of cases that hold promise for disconfirming emerging hypotheses and that add variability to the sample. In this way, the originators of the method sought to examine enough cases to assure the development of universal hypothesis." (Jane Gilgun 1995:268-269, We shared something special: the moral discourse of incest perpetrators, Journal of marriage and the family, 57, 265-81). Analytic induction consists of re-examinations.
9. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis (541-597)
In traditional scientific research, among the criteria for judging the credibility are objectivity, validity, systematic rigor of fieldwork procedures, triangulation, etc. The common aim is "to use qualitative methods to describe and explain phenomena as accurately and completely as possible so that their descriptions and explanations correspond as closely as possible to the way the world is and actually operates" (p. 546)
Social construction and constructivist criteria: Lincoln and Guba (1986) proposed credibility (for internal validity), transferability, dependability and confirmability. In combination, they viewed these criteria as addressing trustworthiness (in lieu of rigor). Fundamentally, they are "suspicious of causal explanations and empirical generalizations applied to complex human interactions and cultural system" (546)
Critical change criteria: another stream of qualitative inquiry aims at social and political change. Thus consequential validity matters in addressing the credibility of the inquiry.
[For the analysis of my dissertation study, what criteria should be applied? The set of criteria should stem from the hypotheses of participatory (video) research. What does participatory research claim to be able to do? Does my study prove or disprove it? How do I make judgment? --My judgment should be grounded in constructivist perspective, the fourth generation evaluation. Then, what I need to verify is the claims of participatory research. ]
1. The nature of qualitative inquiry (3-29)
*Three kinds of qualitative data: interview, observation, and document
The purposes of research and evaluation are different, but research can be evaluative: "When one examines and judges accomplishments and effectiveness, one is engaged in evaluation. When this examination of effectiveness is conducted systematically and empirically through careful data collection and thoughtful analysis, one is engaged in evaluation research" (p. 10)
*Criteria to judge the quality of the findings:
evaluation standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy
nontraditional criteria: trustworthiness, diversity of perspectives, clarity of voice, credibility of the inquirer to primary users of the findings.
Patton noted, "In qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, hinges to a great extent on the skills, competence, and rigor of the person doing fieldwork--as well as things going on in a person's life that might prove a distraction" (p. 14)
Patton discussed the purposes of open-ended responses and participant observation for evaluative research: "the open-ended responses permit one to understand the world as seen by the respondents. The purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions is to enable the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other people without predetermining those points of view through prior selection of questionnaire categories. . . . The task for the qualitative researcher is to provide a framework within which people can respond in a way that represents accurately and thoroughly their points of view about the world..." (p. 21)
In order to overcome the limitations pertaining to what people say, Patton called for participant observation for evaluation research. "The purpose of observational analysis is to take the reader into the setting that was observed" (p. 23).
[In my evaluation research, I utilized participant observation, written out in depth in chapter 3, and made available direct quotes from the observed to provide readers with their points of view.]
2. Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry (37-73)
* Patton presented some analysis strategies: unique case orientation (capturing the details of the individual case being studied), inductive analysis and creative synthesis, holistic perspective (focusing on complex interdependence and providing it as a complex system), context sensitivity (attentive to a social, historical, and temporal context), voice/reflexivity (reflective on my own voice)
With regard to reflexivity, Patton wrote: "Reflexivity has entered the qualitative lexicon as a way of emphasizing the importance of self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one's perspective" (p. 64) He suggested using the first-person, active voice in this light.
Patton seems to be skeptical about paradigmatic division. He argued that a paradigmatic strategy indeed can be a hindrance for evaluation research. He argued:
"Such prejudices and paradigmatic blinders limit methodological choices, flexibility, and creativity. Adherence to a methodological paradigm can lock researchers into unconscious patterns of perception and behavior that disguise the biased, predetermined nature of their methods "decision." " (p. 71)
Further, he argued that "the qualitative-quantitative debate oversimplified and often confused methodological and philosophical issues" (p. 71), as in reality, there are the cases that notably consistent methods and philosophy in a certain paradigm have proven problematic.
3. Variety in qualitative inquiry: Theoretical orientations (75-142)
Patton introduces 16 qualitative inquiries, including phenomenology and grounded theory, which I think are the most relevant to my dissertation research. So I will take a close look at them.
Phenomenology
Foundational question: what is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people?
Phenomenon can be emotion, a relationship, a program, or a culture. The focus is on describing the essence of people's experience in a certain phenomenon and developing a worldview. It usually involves participant observation and in-depth interviews. For example, the essence of being a participant in a particular program can be a kind of phenomenological study. [My chapter 4 is a definitely phenomenological study in that sense.]
Grounded theory
Foundational question: What theory emerges from systematic comparative analysis and is grounded in fieldwork so as to explain what has been and is observed?
Popular in social sciences and methodology with emphasis on generating, instead of testing, theory. Patton asserts that all the approaches are grounded in the empirical world, but the conceptualizations of what to ask vary from one inquiry to another. "While the phrase "ground theory" is often used as a general reference to inductive, qualitative analysis, as an identifiable approach to qualitative inquiry, it consists of quite specific methods and systematic procedure" (p. 126). Thus, he argued:
"As a matter of philosophical distinctness, then, grounded theory is best understood as fundamentally realist and objectivist in orientation, emphasizing disciplined and procedural ways of getting the researcher's biases out of the way but adding healthy doses of creativity to the analytic process." (p. 128-129).
[To the extent that I compared the experience of the research participants with that of others in other programs in Chapter 4, it has a systematic comparison emphasized in grounded theory, and yet, this analysis is not so much grounded theory as phenomenology. On the other hand, Chapter 5 is more linked to grounded theory as I intend to provide some methodological tools to researchers. But I also doubt that it can be called grounded theory as I do not develop theory out of the fieldwork. ]
4. Particularly appropriate qualitative applications (143-205)
Patton holds pragmatism in his approach to methodology: "Pragmatic and utilitarian frameworks can guide qualitative inquiry on their practical and applied underpinnings without having to be attached to or derived from a theoretical tradition." (p. 145)
Patton suggests various evaluation models:
Goal-free evaluation
"doing fieldwork and gathering data on a broad array of actual effects or outcomes, then comparing the observed outcomes with the actual needs of program participants" (p. 169). In general, it purposefully suspends the researcher's judgment.
[Then, I can take up goal-free evaluation for the embedded study. The participants want to find out ways to help increase retention rate, in the end, they suggested a way. There is no way to check the actual effects, but from the participants' perspective, the research brought about some solutions they looked for. ]
Transaction models: responsive and illuminative evaluation
The transaction model of evaluation that Ernie House (1978) called concentrates on case studies and "places prime emphasis on perception and knowing as a transactional process between researcher and research participant" (p. 172). Its variations include illuminative evaluation, developed in educational evaluation, and Stake's (1975) responsive approach to evaluation, which requires to have "face-to-face contact with people in the program and learn about diverse stakeholder's perspectives, experiences and concerns. This responsive evaluation has been integrated into Guba and Lincoln's (1989) "responsive constructivist evaluation" known as the fourth generation evaluation, which is based on naturalistic inquiry.
Connoisseurship studies
It places the evaluator's perceptions and expertise at the center of the evaluation process, "drawing heavily on his or her own judgments about what constitutes excellence" (172).
Interactive and participatory applications:
Placing a greater emphasis on human interaction in designing evaluation strategies, Patton wrote:
Qualitative methods may also be perceived as more personal because of their inductive nature. This means that, again, rather than imposing on people or a program some predetermined model or hypotheses, the results unfold in a way that takes into account idiosyncrasies, uniqueness, and complex dynamics. Finally, qualitative methods may be perceived as more humanistic and personal simply by avoiding numbers. (p. 176)
Action research, action learning, reflective practice
i.e. adult educators interviewing students as case studies, then through cross-case analysis they deepened their sensitivity to new immigrant students and developed their professional skills.
Participatory research and evaluation
Film: Awakening (1990)--a real story of participatory research in a mental hospital
Patton provided an overview of a growing popularity of participatory research:
"Interest in participatory research has exploded in recent years, especially as an element of larger community change efforts (Stoecker 1999). The principal researcher trains the coresearchers to observe, interview, reflect, and/or keep careful records or diaries. Those involved come together periodically to share in the data analysis process. The purpose of such shared inquiry is typically to elucidate and improve the nature of practice in some arena of action" (183).
In particular, participatory evaluation emphasizes "working with people" (183), thus, Patton wrote: "The process is facilitated by the researcher, but is controlled by the people in the program or community. They undertake a formal, reflective process for their own development and empowerment" (183).
Patton noted that participatory evaluation has been used with great success by a number of NGOs and private voluntary organization in the Third World.
Patton also drew attention to various connotations of participatory inquiry, saying that there is no definitive definition for participatory evaluation. Patton, in particular, emphasized teaching inquiry logic and skills as the purpose of participatory evaluation, as "the process of participatory self-evaluation, in and of itself, provided useful learning experience for participants" (184).
[Here Patton suggests participatory evaluation/inquiry as a pedagogical form.]
Finally, he noted, "these participatory approaches often employ qualitative methods because those methods are understandable, teachable, and usable by people without extensive research training." (185)
[Patton regards participatory paradigm from the perspective of pragmatism and links qualitative methods as strong candidates for that paradigmatic inquiry.]
8. Qualitative analysis and interpretation (431-534)
Patton discussed about summative vs. formative evaluation: Summative evaluations are usually accompanied by a full report with data, analysis, and recommendations, whereas formative evaluation is conducted for program improvement and may not generate a written report. Findings are often presented orally to the staff or funders. Patton wrote:
"The methods are qualitative, the purpose is practical, and the analysis is done throughout fieldwork; no written report is expected beyond a final outline of observations and implications. Academic theory takes second place to understanding the program's theory of action as actually practices and implemented" (435)
[The VT research can be viewed as formative evaluation to give insights into the OP program, which is not academic theory oriented and rather concentrates on providing critical insights from the insiders' perspective.]
Theory-based analysis approaches: Patton discusses phenomenological analysis and ground theory analysis in great detail, along with qualitative comparative analysis and analytic induction.
Analytic induction seems to be the most relevant to my approach. It originally emphasized discovering universal causal generalizations, but gradually moved away to qualitative inquiry and comparative case analysis including examination of preconceived hypotheses. In this approach, "researchers actively seek to disconfirm emerging hypotheses through negative case analysis, that is, analysis of cases that hold promise for disconfirming emerging hypotheses and that add variability to the sample. In this way, the originators of the method sought to examine enough cases to assure the development of universal hypothesis." (Jane Gilgun 1995:268-269, We shared something special: the moral discourse of incest perpetrators, Journal of marriage and the family, 57, 265-81). Analytic induction consists of re-examinations.
9. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis (541-597)
In traditional scientific research, among the criteria for judging the credibility are objectivity, validity, systematic rigor of fieldwork procedures, triangulation, etc. The common aim is "to use qualitative methods to describe and explain phenomena as accurately and completely as possible so that their descriptions and explanations correspond as closely as possible to the way the world is and actually operates" (p. 546)
Social construction and constructivist criteria: Lincoln and Guba (1986) proposed credibility (for internal validity), transferability, dependability and confirmability. In combination, they viewed these criteria as addressing trustworthiness (in lieu of rigor). Fundamentally, they are "suspicious of causal explanations and empirical generalizations applied to complex human interactions and cultural system" (546)
Critical change criteria: another stream of qualitative inquiry aims at social and political change. Thus consequential validity matters in addressing the credibility of the inquiry.
[For the analysis of my dissertation study, what criteria should be applied? The set of criteria should stem from the hypotheses of participatory (video) research. What does participatory research claim to be able to do? Does my study prove or disprove it? How do I make judgment? --My judgment should be grounded in constructivist perspective, the fourth generation evaluation. Then, what I need to verify is the claims of participatory research. ]
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Ciné-Ethnography
Jean Rouch (2003). (ed. & trans. by Steven Feld). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
The politics of visual anthropology (Jean Rouch with Dan Georgakas, Udayan Gupta, and Judy Janda). (pp. 210-225)
[Today I watched Chronicle of a Summer again. One thing that I noticed is that Rouch and Morin were building relationship with in particular four subjects, Marceline, Marilou (depressed Italian immigrant), Landry (African student), and Angélo (a Renaut worker) throughout. In the last conversation with Marilou, Morin said "for a month..."]
Interviewers asked about how Rouch helped some Africans begin careers in film: It appeared that Rouch interacted with some of his subjects. Some of them "created a narration for the film that works at three levels. The first is a description of what you see, the second is a kind of dialogue, and the third is a statement about his own condition." (p. 219)
[This indicates that the line between filmmakers and subjects were not clearly distinguished in his approach to ethnographic filmmaking. ]
About distortion of reality: Rouch said that the camera magnifies the distortion that the presence of an inquisitor brings to the scene. But it does not matter. For him, researchers can change research practices with a camera by showing the film to its subjects and helping subjects become filmmakers, etc. instead of keeping all the information for the sake of researchers' own.
"When the survey is completed, the anthropologist goes back to the university, writes the dissertation, and possibly wins distinction in the field. What is the result for those who were surveyed? Nothing. There is no feedback from the disruption the anthropologist has created. The subjects will not read the survey. With a camera, there can be a far more fruitful result. The film can be shown to the subjects. Then they are able to discuss and have access to what has happened to them. The can have reflection even if the film is bad, for however incompetent the film may be, there will be the stimulation of the image you give of them and the chance for them to view themselves from a distance, up there on the screen. Such a distortion changes everything." (p. 220)
Chronicle of a film (Edgar Morin, 229-265)
Pointing out various reactions to the film Chronicle of a summer, Morin said it marks the failure and the success of the film: Failure, because the film did not gain the sympathy of the majoirty; success, because Rouch and himself "gave the characters the chance to speak and because, to a certain degree, we gave the public a liberty of appreciation that is unusual in cinema" (p. 259). In particular, he emphasized, the film modified the relationship between actor and spectator: "We have emerged from mystery, we have shown ourselves, present, fallible, men among others, and we have provoked the viewer to judge as a human being" (p. 259).
Morin wrote about cinema-verite:
"Cinéma-vérité: this means that we wanted to eliminate fiction and get closer to life. This means that we wanted to situate ourselves in a lineage dominated by Flaherty and Dziga Vertov. Of course this term "cinéma-vérité" is daring, pretentious; of course there is a profound truth in works of fiction as well as in myths. At the end of the film, the difficulties of truth, which had not been a problem in the beginning, became apparent to me. In other words, I thought that we would start from a basis of truth and that an even greater truth would develop. Now I realize that if we achieved anything, it was to present the problem of the truth." (p. 263)
The politics of visual anthropology (Jean Rouch with Dan Georgakas, Udayan Gupta, and Judy Janda). (pp. 210-225)
[Today I watched Chronicle of a Summer again. One thing that I noticed is that Rouch and Morin were building relationship with in particular four subjects, Marceline, Marilou (depressed Italian immigrant), Landry (African student), and Angélo (a Renaut worker) throughout. In the last conversation with Marilou, Morin said "for a month..."]
Interviewers asked about how Rouch helped some Africans begin careers in film: It appeared that Rouch interacted with some of his subjects. Some of them "created a narration for the film that works at three levels. The first is a description of what you see, the second is a kind of dialogue, and the third is a statement about his own condition." (p. 219)
[This indicates that the line between filmmakers and subjects were not clearly distinguished in his approach to ethnographic filmmaking. ]
About distortion of reality: Rouch said that the camera magnifies the distortion that the presence of an inquisitor brings to the scene. But it does not matter. For him, researchers can change research practices with a camera by showing the film to its subjects and helping subjects become filmmakers, etc. instead of keeping all the information for the sake of researchers' own.
"When the survey is completed, the anthropologist goes back to the university, writes the dissertation, and possibly wins distinction in the field. What is the result for those who were surveyed? Nothing. There is no feedback from the disruption the anthropologist has created. The subjects will not read the survey. With a camera, there can be a far more fruitful result. The film can be shown to the subjects. Then they are able to discuss and have access to what has happened to them. The can have reflection even if the film is bad, for however incompetent the film may be, there will be the stimulation of the image you give of them and the chance for them to view themselves from a distance, up there on the screen. Such a distortion changes everything." (p. 220)
Chronicle of a film (Edgar Morin, 229-265)
Pointing out various reactions to the film Chronicle of a summer, Morin said it marks the failure and the success of the film: Failure, because the film did not gain the sympathy of the majoirty; success, because Rouch and himself "gave the characters the chance to speak and because, to a certain degree, we gave the public a liberty of appreciation that is unusual in cinema" (p. 259). In particular, he emphasized, the film modified the relationship between actor and spectator: "We have emerged from mystery, we have shown ourselves, present, fallible, men among others, and we have provoked the viewer to judge as a human being" (p. 259).
Morin wrote about cinema-verite:
"Cinéma-vérité: this means that we wanted to eliminate fiction and get closer to life. This means that we wanted to situate ourselves in a lineage dominated by Flaherty and Dziga Vertov. Of course this term "cinéma-vérité" is daring, pretentious; of course there is a profound truth in works of fiction as well as in myths. At the end of the film, the difficulties of truth, which had not been a problem in the beginning, became apparent to me. In other words, I thought that we would start from a basis of truth and that an even greater truth would develop. Now I realize that if we achieved anything, it was to present the problem of the truth." (p. 263)
Kino-Eye: The writing of Dziga Vertov
(1984). (Annette Michelson ed. & Kevin O'Brien trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
1923. Kinoks: A revolution
Vertov called the camera a kino-eye [cine-eye] and was so obsessed to the amount that he identified himself with the eye:
"I am kino-eye. I am a builder. I have placed you, whom I've created today, in an extraordinary room which did not exist until just now when I also created it." (17)
"I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it.
Now and forever, I free myself from human immobility, I am in constant motion, I draw near, then away from objects, I crawl under, I climb onto them. I move apace with the muzzle of a galloping horse, I plunge full speed into a crowd, I outstrip running soldiers, I fall on my back, I ascend with an airplane, I plunge and soar together with plunging and soaring bodies. Now I, a camera, fling myself along their resultant, maneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, starting with movements composed of the most complex combination" (17)
1924. The birth of kino-eye
Vertov further defined the kino-eye:
"Not kino-eye for its won sake, but truth through the means and possibilities of film-eye, i.e., kinopravda["film-truth"].
Not "filming life unawares" for the sake of the "unaware," but in order to show people without masks, without makeup, to catch them through the eye of the camera in a moment when they are not acting, to read their thoughts, laid bare by the camera.
Kino-eye as the possibility of making the invisible visible, the unclear clear, the hidden manifest, the disguised overt, the acted nonacted; making falsehood into truth.
Kino-eye as the union of science with newsreel to further the (p. 41) battle for the communist decoding of the world, as an attempt to show the truth on the screen--Film-truth." (p. 42)
Vertov called him and his colleagues kinoks as opposed to cinematographers. Editor and translator explained this term as "cine-eye men".
1924. On Kinopravda
One of Vertov's newsreels, Kinopravda, was distinct from the traditional newsreels in that Vertov experimented in assembling film footage representing a certain epoch into "harmonious" montage (p. 42). It was not a simple recording of an event. The 14th Kinopravda was totally rejected by the authority because of its obscurity and made Vertov perplexed. Nonetheless, Vertov pointed out young people and workers received it well. He simply noted:
"Kinopravda made heroic attempts to shield the proletariat from the corrupting influence of artistic film-drama. To many, these attempts seemed ridiculous. The paltry number of prints of Kinopravda could serve, at most, some thougsands of people, not millions. But though Kinopravda's role in the creation of an extensive workers' repertoire was small, its propagandistic action in the battle with the commercial movie theater repertoire proved signiticant." (p. 44)
[Here, Vertov hinted at the formulation of the kino-eye movement.]
"In attacking Kinopravda our detractors gloatingly point out that it's made from previously shot, and therefore "random" footage. To us this means that the newsreel is organized from bits of life into a theme, and not the reverse. This also means that Kinopravda doesn't order life to proceed according to a writer's scenario, but observes and records life as it is, and only then draw conclusion from these observations." (p. 45)
1924. Artistic drama and kino-eye
In this note, Vertov more clearly demonstrates the essence of the kino-eye movement, rooted in the grassroots participation from worker correspondents and agricultural correspondents:
"Comrades, I am speaking on behalf of the kinoks group. As most of you know, our group doesn't connect either its existence or its work with what is called "art."
We engage directly in the study of the phenomena of life that surround us. We hold the ability to show and elucidate life as it is, considerably higher than the occasionally diverting doll games that people call theater, cinema, etc. " (p. 47)
1925. The Essence of Kino-Eye
Vertov defined the kino-eye movement: "led by newsreel workers, the kinoks, [it] is an international movement, and its development is keeping strides with the worldwide proletarian revolution" (p. 49).
Organized by film editors, cinema-worker correspondents cooperated in making decisions on distribution and other tasks. Vertov used the term "decoding" in defining the objective:
"The method of radio-broadcasting images, just recently invented, can bring us still closer to our cherished basic goal--to unite all the workers scattered over the earth through a single consciousness, a single bond, a single collective will in the battle for communism.
This objective of ours we call kino-eye. The decoding of life as it is. Using facts to influence the workers' consciousness." (p. 49)
The purpose of cinema became clearer to Vertov:
"We will not prepare for the broadcast of operas and drama. We will prepare wholeheartedly to give the workers of every land the opportunity to see and hear the whole world in an organized form; to see, hear, and understand one another." (p. 56, in 1925)
1958. Love for the living person.
Vertov later in his life had this conversation:
"As a matter of fact, everything I have done in cinema was connected, directly and indirectly, with my persistent effort to reveal the thinking of the 'living person.' Sometimes that person was the film's author-director, not shown on the screen. Sometimes this image of the 'living person' included traits not of a single concrete person, but of several and even many people who had been chosen accordingly." (p. 156)
Here he implied that authors can be multiple in cinema.
1923. Kinoks: A revolution
Vertov called the camera a kino-eye [cine-eye] and was so obsessed to the amount that he identified himself with the eye:
"I am kino-eye. I am a builder. I have placed you, whom I've created today, in an extraordinary room which did not exist until just now when I also created it." (17)
"I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it.
Now and forever, I free myself from human immobility, I am in constant motion, I draw near, then away from objects, I crawl under, I climb onto them. I move apace with the muzzle of a galloping horse, I plunge full speed into a crowd, I outstrip running soldiers, I fall on my back, I ascend with an airplane, I plunge and soar together with plunging and soaring bodies. Now I, a camera, fling myself along their resultant, maneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, starting with movements composed of the most complex combination" (17)
1924. The birth of kino-eye
Vertov further defined the kino-eye:
"Not kino-eye for its won sake, but truth through the means and possibilities of film-eye, i.e., kinopravda["film-truth"].
Not "filming life unawares" for the sake of the "unaware," but in order to show people without masks, without makeup, to catch them through the eye of the camera in a moment when they are not acting, to read their thoughts, laid bare by the camera.
Kino-eye as the possibility of making the invisible visible, the unclear clear, the hidden manifest, the disguised overt, the acted nonacted; making falsehood into truth.
Kino-eye as the union of science with newsreel to further the (p. 41) battle for the communist decoding of the world, as an attempt to show the truth on the screen--Film-truth." (p. 42)
Vertov called him and his colleagues kinoks as opposed to cinematographers. Editor and translator explained this term as "cine-eye men".
1924. On Kinopravda
One of Vertov's newsreels, Kinopravda, was distinct from the traditional newsreels in that Vertov experimented in assembling film footage representing a certain epoch into "harmonious" montage (p. 42). It was not a simple recording of an event. The 14th Kinopravda was totally rejected by the authority because of its obscurity and made Vertov perplexed. Nonetheless, Vertov pointed out young people and workers received it well. He simply noted:
"Kinopravda made heroic attempts to shield the proletariat from the corrupting influence of artistic film-drama. To many, these attempts seemed ridiculous. The paltry number of prints of Kinopravda could serve, at most, some thougsands of people, not millions. But though Kinopravda's role in the creation of an extensive workers' repertoire was small, its propagandistic action in the battle with the commercial movie theater repertoire proved signiticant." (p. 44)
[Here, Vertov hinted at the formulation of the kino-eye movement.]
"In attacking Kinopravda our detractors gloatingly point out that it's made from previously shot, and therefore "random" footage. To us this means that the newsreel is organized from bits of life into a theme, and not the reverse. This also means that Kinopravda doesn't order life to proceed according to a writer's scenario, but observes and records life as it is, and only then draw conclusion from these observations." (p. 45)
1924. Artistic drama and kino-eye
In this note, Vertov more clearly demonstrates the essence of the kino-eye movement, rooted in the grassroots participation from worker correspondents and agricultural correspondents:
"Comrades, I am speaking on behalf of the kinoks group. As most of you know, our group doesn't connect either its existence or its work with what is called "art."
We engage directly in the study of the phenomena of life that surround us. We hold the ability to show and elucidate life as it is, considerably higher than the occasionally diverting doll games that people call theater, cinema, etc. " (p. 47)
1925. The Essence of Kino-Eye
Vertov defined the kino-eye movement: "led by newsreel workers, the kinoks, [it] is an international movement, and its development is keeping strides with the worldwide proletarian revolution" (p. 49).
Organized by film editors, cinema-worker correspondents cooperated in making decisions on distribution and other tasks. Vertov used the term "decoding" in defining the objective:
"The method of radio-broadcasting images, just recently invented, can bring us still closer to our cherished basic goal--to unite all the workers scattered over the earth through a single consciousness, a single bond, a single collective will in the battle for communism.
This objective of ours we call kino-eye. The decoding of life as it is. Using facts to influence the workers' consciousness." (p. 49)
The purpose of cinema became clearer to Vertov:
"We will not prepare for the broadcast of operas and drama. We will prepare wholeheartedly to give the workers of every land the opportunity to see and hear the whole world in an organized form; to see, hear, and understand one another." (p. 56, in 1925)
1958. Love for the living person.
Vertov later in his life had this conversation:
"As a matter of fact, everything I have done in cinema was connected, directly and indirectly, with my persistent effort to reveal the thinking of the 'living person.' Sometimes that person was the film's author-director, not shown on the screen. Sometimes this image of the 'living person' included traits not of a single concrete person, but of several and even many people who had been chosen accordingly." (p. 156)
Here he implied that authors can be multiple in cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
