Recording Social Life: Reflexivity and Video Methodology

Abstract

The degree to which researcher generated visual records (for example video texts) may be used to collect valid information about the social world is subject to considerable academic debate (cf. Feld and Williams, 1975;Gottdiener, 1979 andGrimshaw, 1982). On the one hand the method is assumed, by implication, to have limited impact on the data, the taped image being treated as a replica of the unrecorded event (Vihman and Greenlee, 1987;Vuchinich, 1986). On the other, it is suggested that the video camera has a uniquely distorting effect on the researched phenomenon (Gottdiener, 1979: p. 61; Heider, 1976: p. 49). Research participants, it is argued, demonstrate a reactive effect to the video process such that data is meaningful only if special precautions are taken to validate it. Strategies suggested include a covert approach to the data collection itself (cf. Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Haass, 1974;Gottdiener, 1979;Albrecht, 1985) or the application of triangulative techniques such as respondent validation (Gottdiener, 1979;Albrecht, 1985 andArborelius andTimpka, 1990). In this paper we suggest that both these views are problematic. The insistence of one on marginalising the role of the research process and the other on attempting to separate the process from the research data is at the expense of exploring the degree to which the process helps socially and interactionally produce the data. As we demonstrate, the activity of data collection is constitutive of the very interaction which is then subsequently available for investigation. A reflexive analysis of this relationship is therefore essential. Video generated data is an ideal resource in as far as it can provide a faithful record of the process as an aspect of the naturally occurring interaction which comprises the research topic.

Challenges and Support When Teaching Science Through an Integrated Inquiry and Literacy Approach

“…Another threat to validity in a classroom video study concerns how the participants react to the presence of video cameras in the classroom-an issue often referred to as reactivity (C. Heath et al, 2010;Knoblauch et al, 2006;Lomax & Casey, 1998). It is a serious methodological issue to consider for researchers exploring social action in the context in which that action occurs, because the situations to be studied can be modified by the camera to greater or lesser extent (Knoblauch, Tuma, & Schnettler, 2014).…”

The politics of performance: methodological challenges of researching children’s experiences of childhood through the lens of participatory video

“…Although it is claimed that participants are crucial to the construction of PV outputs (c.f. Haw, 2008), we want to suggest that the interests and concerns of the academic members of the research team can be equally influential and, as such, need to be reflexively acknowledged (Kindon, 2003;Lomax and Casey, 1998;Pink, 2007;Schnettler and Raab, 2008). Moreover with its capacity to review all aspects of the film-making, including un-anticipated events, dilemmas and contradictions, the research team is arguably central to developing understandings of how the process and politics of participation as well as the wider ethical concerns governing research with children might shape the production of PV data.…”

The promise and problems of video diaries: building on current research

“…Indeed, the indiscriminate and uncompromising gaze of the camera may not provide the indisputable representation of reality that is sometimes supposed (Rich et al 2000). Similarly, others (e.g., Chaplin, 1994;Lomax and Casey, 1998) have suggested that visual images and their understandings are not direct or unproblematic representations, but rather are co-created by producers and viewers. In this way, they are similar to other texts and should, therefore, be subject to the usual interpretive cautions.…”