The Video Camera Spoiled My Ethnography: A Critical Approach

Abstract

As videography and other media technologies are normalized in the field of qualitative methods for the purpose of data collection, there is a growing need to discuss the benefits and limitations of these data collection tools. This article chronicles an ethnographic video study focused on the experiences of Muslim adults living in the Netherlands, and why the author opted to end the project. Issues focus on reckoning with the imperial gaze of the camera, performative behavior of participants before the camera and interdisciplinary tensions the researcher faced from conflicting trainings as a qualitative methodologist and media practitioner.

Ethical Considerations for Qualitative Research Methods During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Emergency Situations: Navigating the Virtual Field

“…While not strictly an ethical concern, video and other media technologies, rather than promoting communication, have been described as potentially distancing the researcher and participant through an observer effect—“an intrusive triangulation with the device as the third character” (Gregory, 2020, p. 4). This can elicit performative behavior and place emphasis on a “visual end product” that is “aesthetically acceptable” (Gregory, 2020). Online research may contribute to this distancing as it reduces the researcher’s ability to monitor and respond to participants’ contexts, facial expressions, and body language.…”

A Manifesto for Better Research Failure

“…As this collection of papers exemplifies, research failure is best understood as a continuum-spanning an almost innumerable range of manifestations (Firestein, 2016). Even in the edition's but half dozen papers, there's both considerable diversity yet also tight cohesion in the research failures discussed, which occurred in: Every stage of the research process, from ontology (Eckert, 2020), design (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020), methodological frameworks (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020), data collection (Cohen-Miller, Schnackenberg, & Demers, 2020;Eckert, 2020) and analysis (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020) and community engagement (Held, 2020) All facets of research, including: the physical, such as how data are generated (Gregory, 2020); the social, such as in community relations (Held, 2020); participant rapport (Eckert, 2020); and cultural contexts (Gregory, 2020). Established (Eckert, 2020) to novel research methods (Cohen-Miller, Schnackenberg & Demers, 2020;Gregory, 2020) Failures can relate to absence (Held, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) or presence (Gregory, 2020); ourselves (Wohlfart, 2020) or others (Held, 2020); the overt and obvious (Eckert, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) to the tacit and hidden (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020).…”

“…Even in the edition's but half dozen papers, there's both considerable diversity yet also tight cohesion in the research failures discussed, which occurred in: Every stage of the research process, from ontology (Eckert, 2020), design (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020), methodological frameworks (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020), data collection (Cohen-Miller, Schnackenberg, & Demers, 2020;Eckert, 2020) and analysis (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020) and community engagement (Held, 2020) All facets of research, including: the physical, such as how data are generated (Gregory, 2020); the social, such as in community relations (Held, 2020); participant rapport (Eckert, 2020); and cultural contexts (Gregory, 2020). Established (Eckert, 2020) to novel research methods (Cohen-Miller, Schnackenberg & Demers, 2020;Gregory, 2020) Failures can relate to absence (Held, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) or presence (Gregory, 2020); ourselves (Wohlfart, 2020) or others (Held, 2020); the overt and obvious (Eckert, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) to the tacit and hidden (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020). The failures were explained in many different ways, including but not confined to, individual issues, such as: foundational misunderstandings of participants (Eckert, 2020;Held, 2020), lack of adequate preparation (Held, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) or prior experience (Wohlfart, 2020), lack of field work (Eckert, 2020;Held, 2020), and pressures created from external deadlines (Held, 2020).…”

“…The failures were explained in many different ways, including but not confined to, individual issues, such as: foundational misunderstandings of participants (Eckert, 2020;Held, 2020), lack of adequate preparation (Held, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020) or prior experience (Wohlfart, 2020), lack of field work (Eckert, 2020;Held, 2020), and pressures created from external deadlines (Held, 2020). Broader contextual factors contributed too, including: inadequacies in the methodological literature (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020), disciplinary silos and tensions (Gregory, 2020) and the sheer complexity of the research being done (Eckert, 2020;Gregory, 2020;Held, 2020).…”

Reflecting on the Losses and Gains of an Unorthodox Year

“…In the editorial they share with researchers their manifesto for Better Research Failures. Concomitantly, the wonderful manuscripts included in this issue reassure us that at times the research journey can be something of a nightmare (Ciuhan & Iliescu, 2020;CohenMiller et al, 2020;Eckert, 2020;Gregory, 2020;Held, 2020;Wohlfart, 2020). Here, Clark and Sousa's manifesto encourage us to embrace these failures with enthusiasm and to share them confidently, allowing these failures to facilitate new learnings and creativity.…”