Sarah Pink’s Walking with video. Visual Studies
This week I read Sarah Pink’s Walking with video. Visual Studies. This article explores the research method of walking with research participants while video-recording, to “produce empathetic and sensory embodied (emplaced) understandings of another’s experience” which might be “interpreted empathetically by its audiences.” The author applies this method to her research exploration of Green Lane Community Garden, and her interactions with the primary research participant David, who guided her through the site (garden).
What does the particular visual research method offers and what it doesn't offer?
The method provides multiple avenues to learn about the research participant. From a phenomenological and ethnographic perspective, by observing the research participant in the garden setting, the researcher is able to embody his experience more meaningfully. More specifically, the researcher explores how the act of walking with the research participant helps to further embody the research participant’s experience. The following example introduced by the researcher reaffirmed this notion:
“The movement of his (David’s) feet drew my (the researcher’s) camera to the ground several times as he used them to indicate the textures of the soil, sometimes to show me where I should or should not step in order to avoid muddy patches”
This experience highlights how the combination of video and walking result in complimentary research findings. They both offer a better understanding of the research participant’s experience through different forms. By walking with the participant, the researcher sees and feels David’s experiences, and by video recording, the researcher will be reminded of those experiences in addition to the wider context by observing the video after the site visit.
The method provides multiple avenues to learn about the research participant. From a phenomenological and ethnographic perspective, by observing the research participant in the garden setting, the researcher is able to embody his experience more meaningfully. More specifically, the researcher explores how the act of walking with the research participant helps to further embody the research participant’s experience. The following example introduced by the researcher reaffirmed this notion:
“The movement of his (David’s) feet drew my (the researcher’s) camera to the ground several times as he used them to indicate the textures of the soil, sometimes to show me where I should or should not step in order to avoid muddy patches”
This experience highlights how the combination of video and walking result in complimentary research findings. They both offer a better understanding of the research participant’s experience through different forms. By walking with the participant, the researcher sees and feels David’s experiences, and by video recording, the researcher will be reminded of those experiences in addition to the wider context by observing the video after the site visit.
How does this method compare to interviewing both in terms of collection strategies and analysis methods?
From a collection strategy perspective, this method requires a video camera, and likely more initial understanding of the topic and research participants in order to identify what site to explore, and who to research. I could see that informal interviewing could be necessary in order to understand what to study. In this sense, interviewing could be a distinct research method but it could also support the walking with video approach.
From an analytical standpoint, the walking with video method allows the researcher to actually feel the experience of the research participant and the surrounding space, which interviewing could not provide. For example…
“Towards the end of our walk David asked me (the researcher) if I had thought the garden was as big as it was. By thinking (in this instance, using my prior knowledge to imagine what it would be like to be emplaced in the garden), I had not been able to know how big the garden would feel once I was in it.”
The researcher’s methods prior to going to the garden was much more focused on reviewing plans, drawings and verbal discussions. By actually going to the garden, participating with the participant and observing through in-person and video, the researcher could see not just the participant’s reaction, but feel her own and observe others in the space as well. In addition, the researcher went to the garden during various phases (when it was undeveloped, developing and developed), which further allowed her to see and feel the progression of a garden that interviews in isolation would not provide that same insight. Thus, had she not gone to the garden, she wouldn’t have had gained this full experience or perhaps even gain the answers to some of her research questions.
From a collection strategy perspective, this method requires a video camera, and likely more initial understanding of the topic and research participants in order to identify what site to explore, and who to research. I could see that informal interviewing could be necessary in order to understand what to study. In this sense, interviewing could be a distinct research method but it could also support the walking with video approach.
From an analytical standpoint, the walking with video method allows the researcher to actually feel the experience of the research participant and the surrounding space, which interviewing could not provide. For example…
“Towards the end of our walk David asked me (the researcher) if I had thought the garden was as big as it was. By thinking (in this instance, using my prior knowledge to imagine what it would be like to be emplaced in the garden), I had not been able to know how big the garden would feel once I was in it.”
The researcher’s methods prior to going to the garden was much more focused on reviewing plans, drawings and verbal discussions. By actually going to the garden, participating with the participant and observing through in-person and video, the researcher could see not just the participant’s reaction, but feel her own and observe others in the space as well. In addition, the researcher went to the garden during various phases (when it was undeveloped, developing and developed), which further allowed her to see and feel the progression of a garden that interviews in isolation would not provide that same insight. Thus, had she not gone to the garden, she wouldn’t have had gained this full experience or perhaps even gain the answers to some of her research questions.
Comments
Post a Comment