Researching the Visual

When describing photo documentation, Rose describes photo-documentation as a researcher taking ‘a carefully planned series of photographs which are then discussed in an interview with a researcher’. This makes me think about being in history lessons when I was younger, being told that photographs were not reliable sources of information. I think photography is an incredible medium and can be used to spread a narrative effectively, but there’s always an element of photographer’s bias. 

The description for photo-elicitation, asking participants to take photographs, brings to mind the trend in couples opting for their guests to have disposable cameras, over hiring a wedding photographer. This in turn makes me think of one of the earlier readings in which Arthur Berger writes ‘We all do research, all the time’. One doesn’t naturally connect the idea of wedding photography being a form of research.

In the section about photo-documentation, Rose writes about gentrification and the changes of places over time. This made me think of my home town. With the changing nature of the high street, shops come and go but their memory remains. I recently went home for the weekend and spoke with my mother in the market square, pointing out where less than ten years ago the Woolworth's used to stand, another spot where was a wishing well I’d throw money into as a child, all while sitting in a café which up until a few months ago didn’t exist. I’ve only just turned 20 and already I have multiple maps comprised of mental images of the same space. 

 In the section about photo-elicitation I find the switch of control between the researcher and the photographer really interesting. Beforehand they would have been told what kind of things to photograph and been a tool for the researcher. After the photographs are taken the balance of power completely changes, the photographer is the only one who can tell them what they’re looking at in the photographs and what it means.

Researching People

“The point is that we must bed our subjects more often—that we should be more forward, direct, candid, and adventuresome in ways that show the flesh of the people behind all of the garments they wear in everyday social life.” I love this quote. It reminds me of something I saw written on a blog giving writing advice, “Your characters are like geodes; if you want to see what they're really made of, you must break them”. When one thinks about an interview taking place, the customs seems civilised and mildly sterile. I think the word interview has had a massive shift over the last few decades. When the Sex Pistols were interviewed by Bill Grundy on his television show in 1976, there was such a divide between the interviewer and the interviewee; Grundy showing clear contempt for the group and attempting to maintain a higher position of status. Fast forward to today and the likes of Graham Norton interview people in a way which puts everyone on equal footing. In a past reading on research, there were descriptions for different kinds of groups (interpersonal, small group, organizational, mass media) and how these groups would impact how people spoke. Erving Goffman understood the need to connect with people to properly understand them. By speaking to someone as a subject of study, ignoring the human parts of both them and yourself, the result will not be successful. Presumably for most people there has to be an element of trust and familiarity involved before 'going to bed' with someone. Goffman acknowledged this. 

 

Hermanowicz lists 25 tips on how to interview properly, the fifth of which is 'Sometimes remain quiet when your date it quiet'. This seems really key to me. I think under interview conditions its easy to feel the need to keep talking as this seems like a logical way to keep the interview flowing. By remaining silent, you almost remove the interview aspect and allow the conversation to flow as it would outside of those constraints.

Space reading response

The concept of a ‘space of flows’/ sphere of the net is really interesting to me and increasingly relevant. The net ‘refers to material time-sharing activities that are no longer bound to a particular place’. In an age where our interaction with each other is becoming more and more based in the virtual world, it is interesting to see this phenomena from an academic point of view. The concept of the virtual world as an actual space is quietly refreshing. When my parents were my age, meeting new people had to take place in the real world. Now, with the boom of social media and the death of the house party, almost everyone I meet, I do so in a net space.

 I would be interested to know how these theories of space could be applied to an older generation; my parents don’t accept facebook messenger or texting as real communication, even skype is a push. Has growing up with a concept of these online devices and their potential for communication made my generation more open to the idea of interacting in a net space, leaving my parent’s generation to constrict social activity to a space of flows?

Soja’s argument of three spaces really resonates with me. After moving out of my childhood home and into a house in the same town, I often find myself driving past my old address. I could apply Soja’s idea of first space to the house itself, the walls and ceilings and garden. Soja’s idea of second space can be applied to what the house meant to me, the things which made it my house, the paintings and memories I made within. I could apply Soja’s argument of third space to the house now, acknowledging that I see its first space, remember its second, and know that they can exist without the other. Although the house is the same physically as it was when I lived there, it’s meaning has changed.

Discourse Analysis Reading Response

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 

Within this week’s reading there is a section looking at 'Death of the Dad', a newspaper article written by Melanie Phillips in 1997. 

The article observes the ‘re-engineering of men to be more like women’. This really stood out to me. In the context of the article, this re-engineering stands to put men in a less dominant place, i.e. the place of women in the past. Throughout history women have conformed to what men have perceived their ‘place’ in society to be, neither embracing or neglecting womanhood, simply following protocol. ‘Woman’ as an identity came much later. Fast forward to today and there’s a notion that to be a girl is a negative. I have known women who use the word woman as an insult, telling male coworkers to ‘stop being such a woman’ or ‘man up’ as if to be male was equivalent to being proficient at a task. Recent times have also seen the rise of ‘not like other girls’ being used to describe young women, placing them on a pedestal as something ‘other’ than a girl, because to be a girl is synonymous with idiocy.

This article extract reminded me of an essay written by Sherry Ortner entitled ‘Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?’ which looks at how historically woman have maintained nurturing positions, whilst men have created and shaped the culture of society. With more women entering predominantly male industries today, and vice versa with a boom in the number of male nurses, this seems relevant.

Another line highlighting how this wave of feminism 'placed the idea of fatherhood itself under siege' is key because it demonstrates that in attempting to empower one group (single mothers), this wave of feminists have alienated and invalided another (fathers). It is interesting that in 20 years, feminism has reinvented itself to be so much more inclusive. In 1997, Melanie Phillips was writing about misandry before it even had a name. Before, the very notion of feminism was perceived to be wholly threatening towards men; now, feminism is a non-gender specific commonplace.