Dear All
I'm writing to let people know about an edited book that
might be of interest. Since 2003 I have been drawing
together a collection of papers about uses of video (and
to a lesser extent photography) in applied anthropology
research which aims to make some kind of social
intervention. The final result is the edited volume VISUAL
INTERVENTIONS (2007) which has just been published by
Berghahn books in the Studies in Applied Anthropology
series. Most of the chapters discuss uses of video in
applied and participatory research of different kinds, and
some of these might be of interest to people on this list.
To find out more about the book see
http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=PinkVisual
Sarah
--
Dr Sarah Pink
Reader in Social Anthropology
Programme Director, Sociology
Department of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
LE11 3TU
[log in to unmask]
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/depstaff/staff/pink.htm
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:03:54 -0000
Duncan Fuller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> How about everyone keeps sending in their individual
>responses for now, and then we can set about collectively
>compiling them into something that makes sense using the
>Wiki format?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>T.J.M.P.Power
> Sent: 14 January 2008 09:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
>
> Both sound like good ideas to me
>
> :-)
>
> Tom Power.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List on
>behalf of Isabelle Lemaire
> Sent: Sat 1/12/2008 01:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
>
> Hello all,
>
> Great conversation! I'm however struggling a little
>with the email
> format since it's hard to keep up with the changes. Here
>are a few
> ideas:
>
> 1- Use a Wiki (i.e. collaborative online document) to
>work on these
> statements together? Google doc is the one I like to
>use.
>
>For a fun and instructive video on wikis:
> http://dotsub.com/films/wikisinplainenglish/index.php
>
> 2- We could also use a blog, so the format lends itself
>to
> conversation a bit more... Where we can add comments to
>several
> entries and keep up with the changes visually.
>
> 3- We could also keep working on the Wikipedia
>definition, the site
> says it needs clean up.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Isabelle Lemaire
> +44 (0) 793 190 6996
> MSN: izlemaire
> Skype: izlemaire
> Google chat: isabelle.lemaire
> SL: izza kamachi
> Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/i_lemaire
>
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 15:15, Chris Seeley wrote:
>
>> § What is 'PV'? What's your definition? What is 'PV
>>in
>> research'? Is there any difference? What are the main
>>things to
>> do with PV, and PV in research that you think are their
>>key
>> defining features? What is PV for in research? What
>>can it add?
>> What wider issues of importance currently 'surround' PV
>>in
>> research? What's the politics of PV in research?
>>
>> PV in research makes explicity all the process issues
>>which are so
>> often hidden in conventional research - such as - who
>>makes sense?
>> Who chooses what to research? Who edits the information?
>>Who
>> presents the information? PV offers the opportunity for
>>research
>> with rather than on people. It casts the researher as
>>being in
>> service of the community of interest, rather than the
>>"researched"
>> being in the service of the researcher. PV, then, acts
>>to adjust
>> conventional power relations.
>>
>>
>>
>> § What is 'research'? What's your definition? What
>>are the
>> main things to do with research that you think is its
>>key defining
>> features?
>>
>> Research is a deliberate process for coming to know. In
>>social
>> settings, good research is conducted in self-reflective
>>ways, and
>> is conducted with rather than on other people.
>>Researchers need to
>> be explicitly aware of how their own interventions
>>inevitably
>> affect what they are researching with consequences which
>>are both
>> intended and unintended. research is a political act
>>which seeks,
>> explicitly or implicitly, to foreground some knowledge
>>whilst
>> leaving other knowing in the background.
>>
>>
>>
>> § Where are you/we 'at' with PV? What is the current
>>status of
>> PV? What's the current context surrounding PV? What
>>does it
>> offer? What sets it apart from other approaches?
>>
>> I think PV has so much to offer in terms of making power
>>relations
>> and the nature of research transparent. It requires a
>>thoroughness
>> and level of engagement which I am currently concerned
>>falls
>> outside the kinds of expectations of many commissioners
>>of
>> research. It seems to me that PV is currently most
>>accepatable when
>> the "haves/uppers" are "researching" the "Other
>>/lowers/have-nots".
>>
>> § What are the main issues facing the further
>>development of PV
>> in research? What are the major threats and
>>opportunities facing PV
>> in research? Where do we want PV in research to go?
>> How do we get
>> to where we want to be with PV? What needs to happen to
>>support the
>> development of PV in research in the UK and beyond?
>>
>> Thoughts: Issues are timing / engagement / adequate
>>funding / the
>> requirement for researchers to spend potentially
>>extended periods
>> with communities of interest. It would be good to get PV
>>
>> "evidence / data" acceptable in mainstream PhDs and
>>Masters'
>> theses. There is a great opportunity with YouTube /
>>Facebook etc
>> for PV to be carried out anyway - but what of the
>>editing and
>> quality processes? How does PV based research raise the
>>level of
>> attention and importance given to process issues such
>>that its
>> egalitarian principles can be recognised and valued?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Duncan Fuller
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
>>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> Happy New Year! At a meeting before xmas held to
>>discuss the
>> various trainings undertaken so far I 'volunteered' to
>>take on the
>> development of the network statement on (the development
>>of) 'PV in
>> research' that we all might feel comfortable signing up
>>to, and
>> which might stand as a statement of intent etc in years
>>to come.
>> So please reacquaint yourselves with Chris's plea below,
>>the text
>> and style of the Cork declaration that might provide an
>>interesting
>> format to follow in building up such a statement, and
>>have a look
>> at the responses that came in following Chris's original
>>email (at
>> the bottom of this one). Then, let me know (either on
>>this list,
>> or privately) what you think in response to the
>>following questions:
>>
>> § What is 'PV'? What's your definition? What is 'PV
>>in
>> research'? Is there any difference? What are the main
>>things to
>> do with PV, and PV in research that you think are their
>>key
>> defining features? What is PV for in research? What
>>can it add?
>> What wider issues of importance currently 'surround' PV
>>in
>> research? What's the politics of PV in research?
>>
>> § What is 'research'? What's your definition? What
>>are the
>> main things to do with research that you think is its
>>key defining
>> features?
>>
>> § Where are you/we 'at' with PV? What is the current
>>status of
>> PV? What's the current context surrounding PV? What
>>does it
>> offer? What sets it apart from other approaches?
>>
>> § What are the main issues facing the further
>>development of PV
>> in research? What are the major threats and
>>opportunities facing PV
>> in research? Where do we want PV in research to go?
>> How do we get
>> to where we want to be with PV? What needs to happen to
>>support the
>> development of PV in research in the UK and beyond?
>>
>> Cheers for now
>>
>> Duncan
>>
>> From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List
>>[mailto:PV-NET-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris High
>> Sent: 29 November 2007 13:25
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Network statement on PV in research
>>
>> We'll discuss this at a meeting next month, but I found
>>a copy of
>> the Cork Declaration on rural development today, and
>>thought I'd
>> get the ball rolling.
>>
>> One of the main outputs of the network will be a
>>statement on what
>> PV is and what it's for in research. The idea is to
>>have something
>> we can all sign up to, and that will then be there to
>>refer to in
>> research in project bids, giving some weight to PV as a
>>research
>> method. It should also make a good discussion about
>>ethics etc.
>>
>> The attached document was what gave me the idea, and has
>>been an
>> important thing in rural development policy and practice
>>in Europe
>> since it was published. I'm not proposing we copy the
>>style too
>> closely, because it seems far too Brussels for my taste,
>>but I'm
>> posting it to give an idea.
>>
>> So the question is: What would we like to have in our
>>statement in
>> an ideal world?
>>
>> Chris
>> [Duncan Fuller]
>>
>> In an 'ideal world' all research would be undertaken for
>>the common
>> good and the enhancement of social justice,
>>emancipation, to make a
>> difference etc etc - as such, and my starter for ten, is
>>that such
>> a statement should be clear about the need for PV to be
>>seen in the
>> wider context of action, not just extraction (of someone
>>elses
>> information. as 'research').
>>
>> .ideally PV should be the tool used in participatory
>>learning and
>> action processes to build capacity and confidence and be
>>used to
>> promote engagement by disadvantaged people in
>>communication,
>> dialogue and negotiation - horizontally but also
>>vertically with
>> more powerful groups. It is a useful tool because it
>>overcomes
>> communication barriers where there are high levels of
>>illiteracy
>> and is powerful because it shows the visual context to
>>those who
>> may not be so familiar - and perhaps can open the eyes
>>of those who
>> are familiar with this context because it shows it to
>>them in a
>> different light - so it can challenge entrenched
>>beliefs. I think
>> that as with any participatory process there are risks
>>and
>> challenges, and that the quality of facilitation is
>>crucial but can
>> be variable. Documentary video making is separate from
>>PV, but
>> often confused with it.in the latter it is important
>>that ordinary
>> people have the chance to use this tool in their own
>>research -
>> they should set the research agenda and should control
>>the
>> copyright to any video produced during the research
>>process. Also
>> such research processes should be inclusive, but also
>>aware of the
>> differences that exist in any 'community' and so efforts
>>should be
>> made to support the voices of those who are the least
>>vocal and
>> have the least power.
>>
>>
>> At the root of participatory approaches in development
>>research is
>> the idea that your questions are always tentative and
>>partial and
>> the only chance to make them more complete and
>>meaningful is
>> through openly and humbly engage with the people
>>concerned. Such a
>> 'participation' is not an ethical addition but a
>>methodological
>> necessity. In my view, this is a key point.
>>
>> Historically, participatory perspectives have placed a
>>great
>> emphasis on the ethical dimension. I don't think such
>>emphasis is
>> necessary nor helpful. It certainly hasn't stopped the
>>spreading of
>> tokenistic uses of participation in mainstream
>>development. Indeed,
>> the opposite is true: all tokenistic 'participatory'
>>components in
>> otherwise centralised or donor-driven programmes are
>>there
>> precisely to seek (and, in our non-ideal world, usually
>>find)
>> ethical legitimation.
>>
>> All this emphasis on ethics has (accidentally?) driven
>>the
>> attention away from the more fundamentally challenging
>>idea that
>> 'participation' (humbling and openly engage with the
>>people
>> concerned) is in most development contexts a strictly
>> methodological necessity.
>>
>> When you don't know what you don't know, how can you ask
>>questions?
>> If you expect most of what is crucial in your research
>>to be beyond
>> the horizon of your world view and your theoretical
>>models - as you
>> should when working in development -how can you still
>>grasp what
>> you can't see and can't understand? How can you build
>>into your
>> approach the expectation that you are going to be
>>surprised?
>> Certain methods (e.g. PV) can help to deal with these
>>issues -
>> although not with all issues -better than others (e.g.
>> questionnaires).
>>
>> This doesn't mean that the ethical issue should be
>>dismissed.
>> Simply, ethics is not to be dealt with at the level of
>>methology,
>> but much earlier on. There might be ethically sensitive
>>researchers
>> and research programmes but there are no ethical
>>methodologies, and
>> we certainly should keep away from such a trap.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is
>>believed
>> to be clean.
>>
>> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by
>>Information
>> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is
>believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by
>Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
|