Tag Archives: video

Video as a Replacement to the Ethnographer

Posted by

2

Video is one of the most important and effective ways of communicating research findings. As such, video is often used to convey participant stories and communicate ethnographic findings. Increasingly, video has become a substitute for note taking and in some case, it has essentially been billed as a cheap, quick alternative to fieldwork.

But it isn’t a replacement for fieldwork and the trained ethnographer, regardless of what some might say. Claiming that it can do what fieldwork can do is akin to saying that hotplates can replace all other modes of cooking – in some instances that’s true, but not when you’re talking about cooking a meal for multiple people on a daily basis. Of course the analogy isn’t perfect here, but it hopefully conveys the point that while video ethnography is part of the tool kit in qualitative research, claiming it can replace ethnographic fieldwork is misleading and, well, often flat wrong.  Video is a tool. As with any tool, knowing when and how to use it is pivotal to its success. And while anyone can use a hammer, in the hands of a professional carpenter, the results will probably be superior to those of the average person.

So what do I mean when talking about video ethnography. Video ethnography is the recording of the stream of activity of subjects in their natural setting, in order to experience, interpret, and represent culture and society. At least, that is what it has meant.  Unlike ethnographic film, it cannot be used independently of other ethnographic methods, but rather as part of the process of creation and representation of societal, cultural, and individual knowledge.  Uses of video in ethnography include the recording of certain processes and activities, visual note-taking, and ethnographic diary-keeping. Video is not a replacement for fieldwork or the fieldworker. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, assuming that putting a camcorder in the hands of a participant and thinking they will capture everything needed for analysis assumes that the participant isn’t self-selecting. People record what they want, not what you need – context is often overlooked, unpleasant or uncomfortable situations are omitted, and the subjects of the video are driven by the participant’s biases. Second, using participant video as a substitute for the ethnographer on the ground means that the right questions to ask rarely emerge. It is like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. We end up with only the tail and base or analysis and recommendation on a small portion of the observed rather than the whole.  So, without accompanying fieldwork the video is of limited value and may yield conclusion that are misleading of flat out dangerous.

Video ethnography involves:

  • Observation, including extensive filming of practitioners
  • Allowing practitioners to view the video recorded material and reflexively discuss their practice
  • Building the capacity for the ongoing and critical appraisal of practice

Video-ethnographic methods seek to foreground practitioner knowledge, expertise, and insight into the dynamics of their own work processes. This is achieved by first talking with practitioners about their beliefs, structures, work and organizational processes, and by seeking an articulation of the social, professional, environmental, and organizational contingencies that both enable and constrain their practice. By allowing practitioners to discuss their practices in response to video footage researchers gain insight into areas of practice that may be benefit from redesign. Video ethnography is contingent on the researcher gaining the trust of practitioners, on becoming familiar with the site and on being trusted to be present at time and in places where critical conducts are undertaken. And that combined, collaborative structure of the research design is what produces real insight.

Despite the new rhetoric of empathy and inclusiveness, of involving the user and understanding people’s needs, the person pointing the camera still occupies a position of authority in relation to the subject. This is no less real just because it is concealed beneath a soft blanket of warm feeling. Whether the camera is held by the practitioner or the subject/researcher, the fact remains that even in an increasingly video-centric world, the camera is still an intrusion, altering the situation.  This is why we occasionally turn the camera off – seeing the changes that emerge when recording is off is as important as what we capture on film. So eliminating the researcher from the field equation means relying on a medium that is fraught with unresolved issues as subjects of the video negotiate power and meaning. In other words, if the camera is all you have to go on, especially if there isn’t even an ethnographer using it, there will people an enormous number of misleading statements and representations.

So what am I suggesting? It’s rather simple. Anyone saying they can produce ethnographic research and analysis without the use of an ethnographer in the field is selling a bill of goods.  It is cheap and fast, but yields information that is decidedly limited. As a tool in the larger project it has become indispensable, but as a replacement it is lacking.  In an era of budget cuts and the ever-present need to get insights quickly, it is tempting to look at something like video ethnography as it is often being billed (i.e. putting cameras in the hands of participants and leaving it largely at that) as a viable alternative to more complete research. But sometimes cheap and fast simply don’t make the grade.  For a marketer or designer, the question becomes, are the upfront savings worth getting your product or message wrong?

Analytical Basics of Photo and Video Journaling

Posted by

2

Increasingly, research involves elements of visual journaling. The advent of the smart phone and access to cheap, small digital camcorders and cameras has made it easier to involve participants in the process of data collection through time.  The question is, what to do with all the video and images you collect as participants essentially become part of the research team? Step one is to simply organize what it is that comes in from a visual standpoint. Step two is to categorize the data based along lines of what the participants tell you about it. I specifically look at the linguistic component here.

Initial analysis should identify the level of reflection. What are the basic cognitive frames around which the language is centered. While there are any number of levels the researcher can devise, I typically subscribe to the levels of reflection developed in Chabon & Lee-Wilkerson (2006):

  • Level 1 – Descriptive: When describing the image or video, the participant provided evidence that new knowledge was obtained, which allowed him/her to make sense of new experiences or make links between old and new knowledge (what one used to think/did vs. what was learned and how it affected him/her).
  • Level 2 – Emphatic: When describing the image or video, the participant expressed thoughts or emotions about others and self. He/she reflects their experience (emotions, attitudes, beliefs) onto how future participants may feel or react to the experience. Participant empathizes with those around him/her, projecting expectations and empathy.
  • Level 3 – Analytic: When describing the image or video, the participant demonstrates the application of learning to a broader context of personal life. The photo journal entry provides evidence of learning/growth in order to contrast, compare, or plan for new actions or responses. Participant also notice unexpected positive or negative outcomes related to the image or video – greater attention is paid to connecting the research topic with other ideas, issues, etc.
  • Level 4 – Metacognitive: When describing the image or video, the participant demonstrate examination of the learning process, showing what learning occurred during the journaling, how learning occurred, and how newly acquired knowledge or learning altered existing knowledge, practices or beliefs. The participant plans to change future behavior based on the project experience and its outcome(s) on his/her life.

To help diminish bias, entries are coded independently by two individuals unfamiliar with the topic, and then compared for differences which are to be resolved by consensus.  Once the data are coded and the relevant themes identified, they can then be tied to the business objectives of the project, resulting in better strategies, greater innovation and increased revenue.

Art, Video and Client Acceptance

Posted by

2

When we conduct qualitative research it is inevitable that we have clients who choose to dismiss what we have to say.  More accurately, there are people within the organization that have, for a host of reasons, made the decision, consciously and subconsciously, to find any excuse possible to reject the finding.  The question is what to do about it.  That means reflecting on what the objections to the work are and the underlying case being used to dismiss the findings. Unfortunately, I think a large part of it stems from the fact that we, unlike a computer program used to crunch data, are the instruments of investigation, analysis and reporting.  The researcher frequently takes on the role of omnipotent, unseen author and expert – and that can be disconcerting to the person on the receiving end of the research. The text, sound clip, or video narrative is filtered through the researcher’s eyes; eyes that are, if trained properly in the tenets of the anthropological discipline, self-reflexive and committed to the honest and ethical treatment of the information gathered.  And in this lie the subtle politics of power and the subject/researcher relationship.

Our words alone, for right or wrong, frequently lack credibility in the minds of business executives and designers who are intent on validating their work or personal views.  What we have to say can be ignored in the light of “common sense” experience held by the business and design teams.  Conversely, while the statements of participants have credibility, their thoughts are often seen as disjointed, irrelevant, or dismissible as singular anecdotal moments.  By constructing stories, both parties (researcher and participant) gain credibility and influence.  The narrator/editor gains the status of author and guide, moving from being perceived as irrelevant to the business situation to a position of authority.  The participant is given greater significance in that he or she is understood as representational of a wider range of meaning, cultural patterns, and behavior.  The participant or participants used in a final work convey a coherent message that can, when the “story” is told well by the author/editor, be implemented by members of the audience.  Video in particular serves to provide specific direction while enticing the audience to tread into deeper waters, thus sparking greater innovation.

In conducting fieldwork, we as anthropologists are asked to share the concrete experiences of the participants’ environment, shared behavior, language, social relations, etc.  In sharing that rich and complex world, new ideas and deeper understanding emerge on the part of the client.  We as the experts see, hear, write, and film what are the most important aspects of the field experience and distill them into something that can be used by the various members of the business, development, and design teams.  And because video is such a potentially influential tool, showing the drama of daily life, the dramatic and artistic side of the story can create waves in the business community that the traditional, omnipotent style of presentation cannot.  Presentation styles, choices of material and stories, lighting, viewing angles, organization, etc. all work to structure the portrayal of a culture or population in ways particular to the ethnographer or team of ethnographers and in ways the client can relate to.  There is an inherent story-like character to all ethnographic accounts of the field.  This is doubly so when research is presented in the video format because of limitations of the lens and the limited timeframe of most cinematic pieces; the convention of film is to present information to an array of senses in a relatively short amount of time.  This does not imply that the videos we create are fictions or that the goal is simply to dazzle the audience.  It simply means that ignoring the story-like nature of the video results in dry, dull work that does little to impact the attitudes, expectations, and development directions of our clients.

The goal is ultimately to shake the client’s foundations of belief, to rattle his or her assumptions, to create a new state a awareness.  It serves to evoke a participatory feeling in the viewers and bring them into the moment of experience, compelling them to consider new ways of classifying and thinking about their world, as well as their processes. There is an artistic element to good research and its presentation. Without the art of ethnography, though it may sound counterintuitive, the findings are easier to dismiss. The story is central to the success of any ethnographic project.

So Video Ain’t Science

Posted by

0

None of us would claim that sticking a camera in someone’s face doesn’t alter the dynamics or change the behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions we are trying to study.  But I do argue that the use of video in market research and data collection should lead the way in understanding and developing more complete pictures of user-centered design, customer-focused products and services, and customer behavioral patterns.  Unfortunately, the methodology has sometimes been disregarded as too expensive, too subjective, or not reflecting “real science.”

Even in an age where video capture is part of every living moment, it’s not uncommon for a researcher using video in data collection to run into people concerned with the validity of the method.  Sometimes the concerns revolve around whether film and video are art or science.  Because of its interpretive, creative, impressionistic, and emotional attributes, art is sometimes assumed to be in direct conflict with an objective, value-free science—apparently creating an unavoidable conflict between the goals of film as art and user research as science. Consequently, people, academics and professionals alike, assume limited possibilities for video.

Film and video are frequently seen as a humanistic sideline to significant scientific work designed to satisfy the creative urge or appeal to the emotional pliability of the audience.  Ultimately, the producer of the final visual document is seen as selectively building subjectively constituted data and constructing a piece that reflects his/her interpretation rather than “the facts.”  However, the same can be said for any written document, particularly when behavioral research methods are applied to data collection for a specific task or client need.  And it holds true for both the quantitative and qualitative sides. The impact is wide reaching; a logo-centric culture perpetuates a compartmentalizing and hierarchizing of sources of ethnographic knowledge, which prevents researchers from benefiting from the full breadth of insight and information available.  Slide decks and written reports often have pictures, and films often use verbal narratives, subtitles or intertitles, and have accompanying written material, in the shape of film-makers’ notes, contemporary ethnographies, study guides, or internally produced handouts and bibliographies.  The reality is that while the film-focused researcher does indeed run the risk of compromising the complex realities of a particular behavior or series of behaviors, the risk is no greater than that of the researcher relying primarily on the written word.

Typically, film is accepted most openly is when it is considered to fit the documentary archetype.  This stems from the widely held belief that film is a mirror for the world, that the camera never lies.  Within a positivist science, the camera is regarded as a device for scientifically recording data about human behavior that is more objective than other types of information because of the mechanical nature of the collection device.  It can be argued that unedited research footage is scientific data that researchers can study because of its assumed purity. However, given the context of the work (time limitations and constraints imposed by the nature of contractual research), the footage supplied by the camera may be as close as we can get to a check of objectivity.  The reality of research purchased by a company is such that it assumes, even demands, a final product that is easily used, applies to a wide range of internal needs, and can be readily disseminated.

For some, manipulation of the footage (editing it into a film, altering, etc.) destroys its “scientific value.”  Thus the science of film is found in the raw footage, while the art of film is located in constructing it into a film.  In a perfect enactment of this model, collaborative teams go into the field to film material that the scientist studies and the filmmaker transforms into art.  In actuality, this fantasy is never realized.  The footage is indeed dissected and analyzed by the researcher, typically transformed into a product the client will readily consume, but by its very nature qualitative research always has a degree of subjectivity.  In fact, any and all research, be it in the field and interpretive or in the laboratory and highly controlled, involves subjectivity and personal biasing to one degree or another.  This hardly invalidates the work or the means by which data are captured and displayed.  Validity and reliability are not necessarily one and the same.

In fact, the film or video editor who was not present at the interview can assume the role of journalistic gatekeeper. This is precisely the role of the editor in many documentary film productions.  There is no question that pieces of information may be lost, but the alternative of having a film be ignored or a report sit unused because the basic issues could not be made clear quickly and concisely may conceivably outweigh this fact.  It is a simple reality of conducting research for industry.  The editors job, then, is to ensure that the video is dynamic and concise enough to engage the audience(s) while conveying the most important information.

 

By Gavin

 

Four Essential Elements of Recording Participants

Posted by

0

Whether we conduct field studies for clients as a consultant, or we are part of a larger an organization, we frequently report data.  We’ve each used different strategies — the executive summary, the dreaded PowerPoint slides — all in an effort to effectively communicate our findings, or to persuade developers, executives, and others, to take into account the needs of users in their decision-making about products or business directions.

Those of us who make our living as business anthropologists (of whatever stripe) often sense the frustration that we are becoming “experts” about users, while key stakeholders remain ensconced in their offices, never to change their perceptions or convictions.

While we recognize the inherent value of bringing people into the field with us whenever possible, we are obviously never going to manage to involve all of the stakeholders.  Sometimes the people we most need to persuade with user understanding are those who are the most skeptical of our methods and findings—and they’re not about to give up a lunch hour or an evening to come on a field visit with us. The question becomes:  How do we persuade them of the necessity of understanding the user?

We could start by taking our own advice. In our media-rich culture, the convention most people are used to for persuasion about contested issues and the reporting of human experience is not print.  Sorry, folks.  Our clients don’t read anthropology journals, they often don’t even read the editorial page—they watch TV. And the executive summary on your latest field study report is never going to give people the richness of detail or direct experience with users and consumers that you need them to have to change the direction of their project, or their business.  They just aren’t going to believe in your findings strongly enough.  Because those are your conclusions, your experiences, not theirs.  You did a field study.  They didn’t. And video can be the pivotal element.

Of course, video ethnography has some obvious advantages and disadvantages.  While we all realize that unethical editing can easily skew data and partially control the transferred “reality” of events, primary experience with research participants on video can be far more persuasive than summarized bullet points.

Done right, video summaries of field research, organized and divided by simple title text and fade-to-black, can allow our clients to have a “vicarious experience” with research participants, and give them detail and conviction about our conclusions.  They’ve been given the opportunity to come up with conclusions on their own.

SOME BASIC DOCUMENTARY HOW-TOs

  • First and foremost, be comfortable with the camera. The superior low light capabilities and easy handling of today’s consumer DV cameras make them ideal for field use. The more you fiddle with lights, focus, and focal length, the more you draw attention to the camera. Subjects are often familiar with consumer camcorders and thus more comfortable with them than their larger, professional counterparts.
  • Use a shotgun microphone mounted on the camera as opposed to a lavalier. Clipping a microphone onto the subject raises the subject’s awareness about being recorded.
  • Mount the camera on a tripod and sit far enough to the right or the left of the camera that the camera is not in the subject’s field of vision while he or she is making eye contact with you. This makes for much more natural conversation.
  • Do not make editing decisions based on the transcript of the interview. Watch the tape. Transcripts lack the nuance that often make the subject’s meaning clearer. Something seemingly as innocuous as a misplaced comma by the transcriber can completely alter the meaning of the transcript. Make certain that it is clear to the viewer what question is being answered. When possible use the interviewer’s question from the tape.
      By Gavin