Disclaimer. Not my favourite book, nor subject. It was hard work.<\/p>\n
Doing Visual Ethnography by Sarah Pink is a book dedicated to assisting budding ethnographers collect and synthesise their material in a way that offers academic rigour to a style of research that has many potential pitfalls in terms of viewer interpretation. Her primary media interests are, video, photographs, and the Internet. She considers how those web based components shape the understanding of the viewer.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Pink sees the importance of conducting research in numerous public places and recognises that any meaningful interchange occurs in areas outside those classically used in ethnography, such as the Internet.[2]<\/sup><\/a> The view that culture can be investigated online is slowly gaining approval among the research community; some anthropologists have added online ethnography to their analysis, but others are hesitant to accept the soundness of this different method. Pink\u2019s book appears to add to the growing discourse attempting to fix criteria for online ethnography. Ultimately there is a kind of hope that it will earn favour and be respected as an accepted research methodology. Personally, I’m not so sure the methodological structure and capacity for transparent peer review are all that obvious given the variety of subject areas it can cover.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the eyes see, and the ears hear, the mind believes.\u201d Attributed to Harry Houdini, the famous quote reminds us both of the power of misdirection and the horrors of misinterpretation. This was my initial thought as I quickly scanned the book. In part, my concerned response comes from engaging with Wycliffe Bible translators years ago. The art of using symbols like written and spoken language to capture reality in such a way that most people will interpret the meaning in similar ways is challenging at the best of times. It takes time, expertise, an open mind, patience and testing. The problem, of course, is that Wycliffe was translating before the upheaval of postmodern relativism and its emphasis on the multivariate way in which individuals see and experience reality. Consequently, I had the feeling that Sarah Pink was heading in that same direction with impunity. Although it became apparent that wasn\u2019t the case, there is a sense in the book that Pink favours using various media to emphasise the \u2018experience\u2018 of the researcher alongside details. Though I like the concept of \u2018experience\u2019, it\u2019s not always reliable as a source for explaining reality or defining historical events as a shared truth from which we can leap. For the modernist, a synoptic view of fact is central to social cohesion and cultural understanding; so long as that view is provable, rational, justifiable and bears scrutiny. Pink, however, through the back-and-forth dialogue between visual ethnographic theory and sociological critique, navigates visual ethnography\u2019s more postmodern approach. Early on, Pink refers to Johannes Fabian who called for greater participation in observation to justify the need for visuals in research. As above, Fabian noted that recording reality is complicated, and observation alone does not form an accurate understanding. Merely assuming that visual ethnography in the right hands will cause viewers to grasp the context and message in complimentary but nuanced ways, is not reasonable or predictable. [3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Attending to this critique, Pink refers to the use of \u201cfield notes\u201d throughout the text. [4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 At one point making the observation that images are field notes too. Proper inquiry requires the ethnographer to respect the details not contained in the image; pictures, videos and even words can be deceptive on their own. Moreover, when words are added without reference to the context, we only have a perspective from the mind of the recorder, which may be politically motivated. So far as I can assess, Pink believes images should tell the story of the observations of the researcher and should be able to coexist with the interpretation of the researcher. [5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0 The images should engage the script and vice versa.<\/p>\n Since I enjoy images among words, and audio-visual material too, I’m aware that they draw from within me an emotional response that doesn’t always correspond with the situation the visual media records. Those reactions may not be entirely rational, and they can have the effect of shifting understanding away from the author’s intention. It’s a little like telling a joke in a sermon, it may be appropriate and inoffensive, but it can leave people remembering little more than the fun they had. Emotional responses are tricky to predict or work with. Yet, they can also be helpful, if used judiciously.<\/p>\n Years ago, my wife and I made a simple audio-visual on poverty in Auckland city. It was before the days of computers, PowerPoint, data projectors and the internet. To put the whole thing together required some sophisticated equipment, so we received the assistance of New Zealand Christian Broadcasting. The CEO of the company was a well-known journalist and news host who helped us with the narrative. He made a comment that has stayed with me over the years, “People will rarely remember what you say, but they will remember how they felt”. He went on to say, “never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. The task was to articulate a message clearly and to use media to emphasise the point – never the other way around. My great concern with current Press Media is that truth has become the victim of entertainment, and entertainment is now the mediator between what we choose to believe, or not. When it comes to being judicious – the horse of falsehood has already bolted. Whether academia can genuinely rescue hypermedia from the growing legacy of infotainment, is anyone\u2019s guess. My suspicion is not.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Sarah Pink, Doing Visual Ethnography<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd: Kindle Edition, 2013). 2<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid. 203-204<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid. 38-40<\/p>\n