Hull, G.A. & Nelson, M. E. (2005): Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224-262.
Link to video in research paper : http://www.oaklanddusty.org/videos.php
The authors selected a digital media project from Digital Underground Storytelling for You(th), based on two critieria: most acclaim received and it was analyzable due to its use of only still images, voice over, and music. The method chosen to analyze the project was to utilize the timeline feature in the software that was used to create it. The story was transcribed and then assigned meaning making based on this timeline. The authors conclude that only by this multimodal method could Randy’s (the composer) story so effectively engaged the audience.
“We also believe our analysis and Randy’s story offer a strong counterclaim to the argument that digital media simply facilitate the multimodal composing that could and does exist apart from computer technologies. If we are correct, the particular meanings and the experience of viewing and constructing these meanings via this form of multimodality are unique. Believing as we do that a culture and atime’s mediational means, our psychological and material tools if you will (cf. Vygotsky, 1978), are intimately connected with our capacities to think, represent, and communicate, it would seem hugely important to widen our definition of writing to include multimodal composing as a newly available means.” (Hull, G.A. & Nelson, M. E. 2005)
The complexity of analyzing this story while it was only two minutes and 11 seconds struck me as I read the details of the authors’ efforts to do so. As with most other previous works addressing digital media, the very newness of the field of research was highlight as well as the subsequent need for more research was stressed.
Possible Discussion Question:
Did the authors’ decision not to analyze the music aspect in as extensively as the words and images of the digital story detract from their research results?
How might meaning making been assigned to the music? What tools could be utilized?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Models of Multimodal Research: Digital Storytelling as a Case Example
Hayes, R., & Matusov, E. (2005): From "ownership" to dialogic addressivity: Defining successful digital storytelling projects. THEN: Journal of Technology, Humanities, Education and Narrative
The authors address two research questions:
With such a disparity of definitions and their implicit goals, how do we define success in such projects? How can the act of collaborative digital story authorship help to develop mutual curiosity and relationship-building among the participants?
This was explored within the context of three digital story telling projects at the LLAC. Interesting points:
The discussion of the initial view of ownership as the authors deemed appropriate to the evolution of addressitivity through Bakhtin's definitions of monologic and dialogic.
“We decided that, for our purposes, dialogicity was a key element of success, since all projects by design had at least two authors (at least one adult and at least one child). Further, internal dialogicity was an especially important criterion for success, since one important purpose of the projects (and in a broader sense, the class itself), was for the students develop a dialogic relation with the children, getting to know them as living, unpredictable, non-stereotyped people (aka unfinalized). This success criterion was overlooked by the simpler and individualistic notion of ownership that we initially proposed
( Hayes & Matusov,2005).
The authors state that while the digital media project (the activity) should be in line with the University student and the children getting to know each other(the broader goal). The authors conclude that the “successful” digital media project also fostered dialogic internal addressivity between the children and the University students. Furthermore, that digital media provided a format that “for adults and children to reverse the traditional roles of child novice and adult expert, and in breaking these traditional patterns of interaction (Hayes & Matuso, 2005).
Possible discussion questions:
Do you agree with the authors switch from “ownership” to “addressivity”?
How is it appropriate to deem a digital media project successful or not when it is ambiguous by its nature? Or in what ways is it appropriate to evaluate it?
Links to digital media projects in this paper.
(Fake) Crackheads (Windows Media) (Movie format), 5823 K.
Getting to Know LACC Staff (Windows Media) (Movie format), 3467 K.
The authors address two research questions:
With such a disparity of definitions and their implicit goals, how do we define success in such projects? How can the act of collaborative digital story authorship help to develop mutual curiosity and relationship-building among the participants?
This was explored within the context of three digital story telling projects at the LLAC. Interesting points:
The discussion of the initial view of ownership as the authors deemed appropriate to the evolution of addressitivity through Bakhtin's definitions of monologic and dialogic.
“We decided that, for our purposes, dialogicity was a key element of success, since all projects by design had at least two authors (at least one adult and at least one child). Further, internal dialogicity was an especially important criterion for success, since one important purpose of the projects (and in a broader sense, the class itself), was for the students develop a dialogic relation with the children, getting to know them as living, unpredictable, non-stereotyped people (aka unfinalized). This success criterion was overlooked by the simpler and individualistic notion of ownership that we initially proposed
( Hayes & Matusov,2005).
The authors state that while the digital media project (the activity) should be in line with the University student and the children getting to know each other(the broader goal). The authors conclude that the “successful” digital media project also fostered dialogic internal addressivity between the children and the University students. Furthermore, that digital media provided a format that “for adults and children to reverse the traditional roles of child novice and adult expert, and in breaking these traditional patterns of interaction (Hayes & Matuso, 2005).
Possible discussion questions:
Do you agree with the authors switch from “ownership” to “addressivity”?
How is it appropriate to deem a digital media project successful or not when it is ambiguous by its nature? Or in what ways is it appropriate to evaluate it?
Links to digital media projects in this paper.
(Fake) Crackheads (Windows Media) (Movie format), 5823 K.
Getting to Know LACC Staff (Windows Media) (Movie format), 3467 K.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Identity as Represented through Words and Image
Identity as Represented through Words and Image
Assigned Reading: Pink, 147-217:
Ethnographic Photography and Printed Text
Pink begins by stating that photographs are representations and not “the truth” about any one society or culture (paraphrased). She further relays that it is the combination of writing (text) and images that enrich reflexive ethnography. Pages 149 and 150 contain a discussion of the appropriate use of tenses – either present or past tense – and the effect this has on the ethnographic work.
Discussion Question: Which tense do you find appropriate and why?
Pink points out that only recently have researchers began to explore the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. On page 152, Pink stresses the importance of image presentation and its use to guide or inspire the reader to reflect upon the meanings that the ethnographer assigned to the images. She reviews alternative or unconventional methods of presentation such as not captioning for intentional ambiguity such as in Berger and Mohr’s work. Pink explores Edwards’ two categories of images: expressive (creative) that encourages the reader to apply their own interpretation and realist which uses images in a documentation style. The interesting point is that the two categories need not be mutually exclusive.
Discussion Question: Do you agree or disagree with this mix of styles within the same ethnographic work?
Pink cautions that ethics should be considered in a broader context than just the willingness of the informant. The ethnographer’s own “knowledge of the social, cultural, and political contexts” (p. 166) should also be an ethical consideration.
Video in Ethnographic Representation
Pink explores the role of video editing. Pink discusses reader interpretation which can be influenced in various ways. For example, in guided viewing the audience is asked to think about the subject in a particular context or point of view as they watch the video.
Discussion Question: Is it appropriate or what value is added when the ethnographer influences the viewing beyond the text and video?
I thought it was an interesting ethical issue that Pink raises on page 183 in the notes to Figure 7.1. Pink references an incident where she was a presenter and some audience members were photographing the presenters’ slides to practice a form of visual note taking. Pink requested that her slides not be photographed on her belief that a research participant may have agreed for the presenter to show a clip in public but not the additional layer of that being photographed or taped by yet another researcher and used. Discussion Question: Do you agree with Pink’s ethical rationale for asking that her slides not be photographed?
Ethnographic Hypermedia Representation
Pink defines interactive hypermedia “usually consists of sets of interlinked files that contain writing words, still or moving images, sound or a combination of these (p. 192).”
The hypermedia is used to support interactivity on multilevel planes.
Key themes that run across these chapters are the ethical obligations of the ethnographer to the informant or participant, the need for further research on multimedia in ethnography, and the value of reflexive ethnography.
Other websites:
Video in research: introducing the video ethnography process (Sarah Pink 2004)http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Activities/Themes/IT-assisted/videoinresearchSarahPink.ppt
This site contains online resources that Pink states can be used in conjunction with her text Doing Visual Ethnography:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/visualising_ethnography/
Another website that can be used for further reference in relation to Pink’s book entitled Working Images.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/workingimagesbook/chapters.htm
Assigned Reading: Pink, 147-217:
Ethnographic Photography and Printed Text
Pink begins by stating that photographs are representations and not “the truth” about any one society or culture (paraphrased). She further relays that it is the combination of writing (text) and images that enrich reflexive ethnography. Pages 149 and 150 contain a discussion of the appropriate use of tenses – either present or past tense – and the effect this has on the ethnographic work.
Discussion Question: Which tense do you find appropriate and why?
Pink points out that only recently have researchers began to explore the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. On page 152, Pink stresses the importance of image presentation and its use to guide or inspire the reader to reflect upon the meanings that the ethnographer assigned to the images. She reviews alternative or unconventional methods of presentation such as not captioning for intentional ambiguity such as in Berger and Mohr’s work. Pink explores Edwards’ two categories of images: expressive (creative) that encourages the reader to apply their own interpretation and realist which uses images in a documentation style. The interesting point is that the two categories need not be mutually exclusive.
Discussion Question: Do you agree or disagree with this mix of styles within the same ethnographic work?
Pink cautions that ethics should be considered in a broader context than just the willingness of the informant. The ethnographer’s own “knowledge of the social, cultural, and political contexts” (p. 166) should also be an ethical consideration.
Video in Ethnographic Representation
Pink explores the role of video editing. Pink discusses reader interpretation which can be influenced in various ways. For example, in guided viewing the audience is asked to think about the subject in a particular context or point of view as they watch the video.
Discussion Question: Is it appropriate or what value is added when the ethnographer influences the viewing beyond the text and video?
I thought it was an interesting ethical issue that Pink raises on page 183 in the notes to Figure 7.1. Pink references an incident where she was a presenter and some audience members were photographing the presenters’ slides to practice a form of visual note taking. Pink requested that her slides not be photographed on her belief that a research participant may have agreed for the presenter to show a clip in public but not the additional layer of that being photographed or taped by yet another researcher and used. Discussion Question: Do you agree with Pink’s ethical rationale for asking that her slides not be photographed?
Ethnographic Hypermedia Representation
Pink defines interactive hypermedia “usually consists of sets of interlinked files that contain writing words, still or moving images, sound or a combination of these (p. 192).”
The hypermedia is used to support interactivity on multilevel planes.
Key themes that run across these chapters are the ethical obligations of the ethnographer to the informant or participant, the need for further research on multimedia in ethnography, and the value of reflexive ethnography.
Other websites:
Video in research: introducing the video ethnography process (Sarah Pink 2004)http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Activities/Themes/IT-assisted/videoinresearchSarahPink.ppt
This site contains online resources that Pink states can be used in conjunction with her text Doing Visual Ethnography:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/visualising_ethnography/
Another website that can be used for further reference in relation to Pink’s book entitled Working Images.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/workingimagesbook/chapters.htm
Monday, March 2, 2009
Hey
Goood questions tasha, I look forward to discussing them in class
I think the reflexivity versus the scientific realism and objectivity that govern conservative ways of understanding are intrinsic to how people think of research- as some divine truth waiting to be discovered. The epistemological shift come from the idea that knowledge is, in fact, situated among and between different people, experiences and situations and in order to understand authentic reality ( I think the non –sugar coated version) it is important for us to use not just acknowledge our own biases but represent research as something we are activity participating in and influenced. This is particularly important in the social sciences where gender, age, class etc. are inextricable from the research conducted work to influence the understandings gained for more than we see.
I think these types of understanding are antithetical to what we are normally used to because the natural sciences, from which most positivist scientific research is derived and from which most academically situated research is conducted, proposes to uncover truths and universal understandings when in fact it limits itself by not considering the different ways people represent themselves, communicate with others and act in relation to situations around them.
This book offers a great perspective on the types of research we should be doing =)
Goood questions tasha, I look forward to discussing them in class
I think the reflexivity versus the scientific realism and objectivity that govern conservative ways of understanding are intrinsic to how people think of research- as some divine truth waiting to be discovered. The epistemological shift come from the idea that knowledge is, in fact, situated among and between different people, experiences and situations and in order to understand authentic reality ( I think the non –sugar coated version) it is important for us to use not just acknowledge our own biases but represent research as something we are activity participating in and influenced. This is particularly important in the social sciences where gender, age, class etc. are inextricable from the research conducted work to influence the understandings gained for more than we see.
I think these types of understanding are antithetical to what we are normally used to because the natural sciences, from which most positivist scientific research is derived and from which most academically situated research is conducted, proposes to uncover truths and universal understandings when in fact it limits itself by not considering the different ways people represent themselves, communicate with others and act in relation to situations around them.
This book offers a great perspective on the types of research we should be doing =)
Pink Part I – Thinking about Visual Research
In her introduction, Pink gives a brief overview of discussions that have taken place regarding the role of film and photography in ethnographic research. She explains the evolution of thought from a stance of irrelevance, to an objectified tool, to a more subjective component of ethnography.
Throughout the introduction and Part I, Pink promotes a participatory or collaborative approach, similar to Chaplin’s “visual sociology” (p. 11). Pink shows how issues of ethics should encourage researchers typically to choose such collaboration (she does however concede that each research scenario is different and thus photography and film should be used as most appropriate).
Although Pink addresses the following questions, I think they would make for good discussion questions about “doing visual ethnography:”
- Can reality be observed and recorded? Why or why not?
- If something is visible is it true? Explain your thoughts.
- Can objective information be extrapolated from the observation or recording of participants? Why or why not?
*Paraphrased (p. 23)
I thought the point Pink makes regarding subjectivity and tendency to value ethical codes of conduct differently is essential to all researchers interested in ethnography; it was also a point emphatically addressed in the training I went to for teaching overseas. I liked how Pink used Rapport’s guide, and think we all would find it useful in the case of evaluating a cultural practice. Furthermore, it is very important that an ethnographer takes time to try to uncover “local notions of harm and anxiety” (p. 42).
Lastly, as ethnographers, I think it is important, as Pink said, to reflect on how we bring both our personal and professional views to any study, and to incorporate how participants might perceive us. This idea again reminds me of Steve McCurray’s work as a photographer for National Geographic. You can read about the Afgan women I mentioned in class last week at the link attached to his name.
You can read about the Afghan woman I mentioned in class last week at the link attached to his name, or at least see 2 contrasting pictures of her I attached to this post.
-Tasha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)