Participating researcher or researching participant?
On possible positions of the researcher in the collection (and analysis) of mobile video data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v4i2.127267Keywords:
conversation analysis, data collection, mobility, multimodality, research practice, video analysisAbstract
The article explores different participant positions that are available to researchers of social interaction during the collection of mobile video data. In the data presented, participants are engaged in outdoor activities that essentially involve some form and amount of mobility. The authors analyse the positions they have adopted in collecting data involving groups of mobile participants. The positions have varied depending on whether the activities allow, or even assume, researchers to draw on some specific participant knowledge. The article focuses on moments of adjustment during which the authors, as researchers collecting data, evidently make decisions about what to record and how to participate in the ongoing activity, and which thus reflect their spontaneous, negotiable and planned participation on site. As researchers of social interaction increasingly draw on data that involve mobility, it is pertinent to consider the possible positions that they may adopt and the practices that they employ in the collection and analysis of such data.
References
Amundrud, T. (2011). On observing student silence. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(4), 334–342. doi:10.1177/1077800411401190
Broth, M., Laurier, E., & Mondada, L. (Eds.). (2014). Studies of video practices: Video at work. London, England: Routledge.
Brown, K. M., & Banks, E. (2014). Close encounters: Using mobile video ethnography to understand human–animal relations. In C. Bates (Ed.), Video methods: Social science research in motion (pp. 95–120). London, England: Routledge.
Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2008). Using a head-mounted video camera to understand social worlds and experiences. Sociological Research Online, 13(6), Art. 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/1.html.
Chen, R. (2021). The researcher’s participant roles in ethical data collection of autistic interaction. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 4(2).
Edmonds, R. (2021). Balancing research goals and community expectations: The affordances of body cameras and participant observation in the study of wildlife conservation. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 4(2).
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.175–206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goico, S. (2021). Participation frameworks in the course of video-based fieldwork in mainstream classrooms: Negotiating the role of the researcher. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 4(2).
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 257–286. doi:10.1515/sem-2012-0063
Greenebaum, J. B. (2010). Training dogs and training humans: Symbolic interaction and dog training. Anthrozoös, 23(2), 129–141. doi:10.2752/175303710X12682332909936
Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2013). Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 3–61). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
ten Have, P. (2002). The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), Art. 21, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203217.
Heath, C. (1997). The analysis of activities in face to face interaction using video. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 183–200). London, England: Sage.
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analyzing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99–121). London, England: Sage.
Heritage, J., & Stivers, T. (1999). Online commentary in acute medical visits: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science & Medicine, 49(11), 1501–1517. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00219-1
Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2003). Analysing visually available mundane order: A walk to the supermarket. Visual Studies, 18(1), 36–46. doi:10.1080/14725860320001000056
Hindmarsh, J., & Llewellyn, N. (2018). Video in sociomaterial investigations: A solution to the problem of relevance for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 21(2), 412–437. doi:10.1177/1094428116657595
Hofstetter, E. (2021). Analyzing the researcher-participant in EMCA. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 4(2).
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2012). Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research, 12(3), 255–279. doi:10.1177/1468794112436655
McHoul, A. (2008). Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 823–826. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.009
McHoul, A., Rapley, M., & Antaki, C. (2008). You gotta light?: On the luxury of context for understanding talk in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 827–839. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.007
McIlvenny, P. (2018). Inhabiting spatial video and audio data: Towards a scenographic turn in the analysis of social interaction. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1). doi:10.7146/si.v2i1.110409
McIlvenny, P. (2015). The joy of biking together: Sharing everyday experiences of vélomobility. Mobilities, 10(1), 55–82. doi:10.1080/17450101.2013.844950
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Moving together: Mobile formations in interaction [Editorial]. Space and Culture, 17(2), 104–106. doi:10.1177/1206331213508679
McIlvenny, P., & Davidsen, J. (2017). A big video manifesto: Re-sensing video and audio. Nordicom-Information, 39(2), 15–21.
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for transcribing multimodality. Version 5.0.1. Available from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription.
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. doi:10.1111/josl.1_12177
Mondada, L. (2014). Shooting as a research activity: The embodied production of video data. In M. Broth, E. Laurier, & L. Mondada (Eds.), Studies of video practices: Video at work (pp. 33–62). London, England: Routledge.
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977–1997. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, B. Schnettler, J. Raab & H.-G. Soeffner (Eds.), Video analysis: Methodology and methods (pp. 51–68). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
Monteiro, D., Mondada, L., & Tekin, B. S. (in preparation). Collaboratively video-ing mobile activities.
Ochs, E., Graesch, A. P., Mittmann, A., Bradbury, T., & Repetti, R. (2006). Video ethnography and ethnoarchaeological tracking. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches (pp. 387–409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. 3rd edition. London, England: Sage.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, England: Polity.
Shrum, W., & Scott, G. (2016). Video ethnography in practice: Planning, shooting, and editing for social analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, R. (2020). Seeing the trouble: A mountain rescue training scenario in its circumstantial and situated detail in three frames. Ethnographic Studies, 17, 41–59. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4050535
Smith, R. J. (2019). Visually available order, categorisation practices, and perception-in-action: A running commentary. Visual Studies, 34(1), 28–40. doi:10.1080/1472586X.2019.1622445
Tuncer, S. (2016). The effects of video recording on office workers’ conduct, and the validity of video data for the study of naturally-occurring interactions. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(3), Art. 7, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs160373.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
