VideoAsMethodology

Video As Methodology

An essential component of this dissertation is the development of a new analytical tool in the use of student-made videos. The need for new research tools that meet changing needs are frequently discussed. Eisenhart, for instance, has written about the array of actions already taken to extend existing research methods. “Yet, important aspects of contemporary life—struggles within groups, movements of people across time and space, internet communications, extralocal networks, consumerism, and the mass media—can be addressed only superficially even with these additional methods (2001, p. 19).” The analysis described in Chapter 4 is the beginning an effort to pursue the issues that are increasingly at the focus of educational research. Directions for improving on the methodology are considered in Chapter 5.

The choice of student-made video as the tool of choice is, however, not novel. When “rethink[ing]” her own research, Hammond indicated a movement “toward media-based research” (2003, p. 40), and Goldman-Segal (1998) is a pioneer in video-ethnography for studying education, but informant-made videos (or films) have rarely been used since Worth and Adair (1972) first sought culture in them. Worth and Adair taught Navajo informants how to use movie cameras, which were the contemporary technology, primarily because a lot was already known about the Navajo and they seemed a good test case of what might be learned about culture when the informants have had little exposure to movies and television (p. 27). The study, however, was not replicated, and Worth (1981) backed away from asserting a strong resemblance between language and film ¹. It is in how Bellman and Jules-Rosette (1977) built on their approach that is taken up in this research.

Bellman and Jules-Rosette used film and video with the Kpelle in Africa and stressed a different aspect of their informant’s work. They compared their use to photographic elicitation (1977, p. 15), a method of using photographs to stimulate an informant’s conceptions of what is portrayed. With video, however, informants can demonstrate attitudes and concepts in how they use the camera that they may not entirely be aware of or that would be less likely or more difficult to talk about. Photographic elicitation draws forth comments that might not arise in a standard interview because it provides people with something to relate to, but by putting people behind the camera, their relationships with what is in front of the camera are displayed in real time, their expectations can become visible in their efforts to anticipate events, their immediate reactions to events can become displayed, and they have the opportunity to narrate or converse with other participants. They can additionally be asked to comment on the recordings they have made.

The information provided by having the informant behind the camera is based on the following, often overlooked, assertions:

No matter how “disinterested” the observer filmmaker or videoist is in the events taking place, he [or she] perceives them from an intentional perspective located in the “here and now” of the recording situation. . . . Not only do some elements in the setting change to accommodate the presence of the camera, but the camera operator throughout the process of filming or taping makes definitive choices of what to shoot, when to turn the camera on and off, and where to use zoom, pan, dolly, crane, and follow shots. These decisions, whether they are made for aesthetic considerations or to posit a particular feature of the setting, are intentional choices. (Bellman & Jules-Rosette, 1977, p. 3)

The choices made by the camera operator and the immediate responses to the operator’s actions are thus available for infinite—in real time, slowed down, sped up, or frozen—viewings.

As data, informant-made videos have three significant advantages: First, individual positions—both material and metaphorical—are uniquely demonstrated by informant actions and the reactions they provoke. This provides the opportunity to view social relations in great detail. Second, the video is available for numerous viewings by diverse audiences. The analysis can be shared in detail, evaluated, and extended. The availability of the data allows interpretations to be dissected, making disagreements and efforts for consensus more meaningful. Lastly, the data includes images and audio and the informant’s engagement with both. The material environment is thus made particularly salient by the nature of video production, and student productions reflect its meanings and the ways in which cameras can be used within the context.

The contribution of a detailed visual realm to the study of social relations should not be underestimated. Images provide concrete data, the meaning of which may remain contested but for which patterns can be sought to resolve disputes that seem unresolvable in the study of speech. It is the ability of “images [to] not only carry information in the constant battle over meaning but . . . to mediate power relations” (Fischman, 2001, p. 31). Informant-made videos display the material positions of participants, which are theorized to reflect and shape relations through qualities such as distance and height (Hodge and Kress, 1988). The camera operator’s affordances to choose positions is central to the microanalysis. Power is rarely spoken about concretely or consciously acted upon, but it’s role can be revealed in semiotically rich informant-made videos. A wealth of new information becomes available that is untouched in standard discourse analyses or video recordings.

Previous

Contents

¹ His death in 1977 ended his use of the method. The 1981 book in which he wrote about the differences between language and film consisted of work collected after his death.

Next

References