Extending E-research: engaging with the visual in web 2.0 data
Katrina Pritchard and Rebecca Whiting
Birkbeck, University of London
k.pritchard@bbk.ac.uk
http://ageatwork.wordpress.com/
@ageatwork
@DrKPritchard
@DrRWhiting
(This paper is currently under development therefore please do not cite without permission)
Abstract
In this paper we set out both our experiences to date and our expectations of future empirical
endeavours exploring the visual in web 2.0 data. We aim to engage with the practical issues
of visual research in a web 2.0 context, whilst also addressing broader methodological issues.
Our focus is an investigation of visual data relating to the topic of age at work. We outline
our approach and discuss two distinct stages of our research: that involving our own analysis
and the subsequent piloting of photo elicitation and response techniques (specifically via
focus groups and electronic survey). We use these experiences to reflect on the benefits and
risks of these approaches, particularly in light of Easterby-Smith et al’s comment that already
“the range of types and forms of qualitative methods is, depending on your perspective,
exhilarating or exhausting” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008, p. 420). Our experience to date
suggests it is possible for it to be both.
Introduction: the visual and web 2.0
In discussing web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005, Fleischer, 2011) we are referring to the current
evolution of the internet which is dynamic, interactive and “socially orientated” (Fleischer,
2011, p. 538). In this respect, the web (or internet) can no longer be regarded simply as a
static repository of information. Within our research project exploring age at work we draw
data from blogs, twitter, YouTube, podcasts, webinars in addition to, what perhaps can now
be called, traditional websites. Commentators have noted that web 2.0 media are
intertextually fluid, often combining a variety of textual and visual forms (Allen, 2011,
Landow, 2006).
Certain web 2.0 media recreate print formats (such as newspapers), whilst new forms (such as
blogging and tweeting) have emerged and continue to evolve. The interactivity of both
individual media (via commenting on a journalistic text, for example) and between media (as
we like, recommend or re-tweet) creates a dynamic context (Fleischer, 2011, Landow, 2006).
Lewis suggests these are emergent genres, characterising on-line news media as “a theme1
based group of news objects held together graphically overlapping with other such groups
and undergoing progressive updating” (2003, p. 97).
Potter (1996) identified the importance of images and visual rhetoric, citing in particular the
work of Barthes (1977, 1981) on photography and contributions from semiotics by Hodge
and Kress (1988), Shapiro (1988) and Williamson (1978). He summarises this work as
providing “a major attack on the idea of photography as an innocent medium of factual
representation” (Potter, 1996, p. 10). More recently, Ashcraft (2007) talks of images slightly
differently referring to these as “larger, public discourses of occupational identity, manifest in
popular, trade, and even mundane conversational representations of the essence of a job and
those who perform it” (Ashcraft, 2007, p. 12-13). This highlights the relationship between
images (whether materially visual or not) and stereotypes of work and workers.
Bringing these ideas to our specific empirical context and based on our own experience in
working with web 2.0 media, Figure 1 (below) illustrates the discursive complexity of web
2.0, even on a relatively straight-forward on-line news media website.
Figure 1: Web 2.0 Example
(Downloaded from: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/11/11/Gen-Y-vs-Boomers-WorkplaceConflict-Heats-Up.aspx#page1 Original download: 22/11/11; Screenshot: 6/6/12; Picture credit: iStockphoto,
original image by Jacom Stephens)
Later, we will tell you a story about this particular image. For now, it serves to illustrate both
the application of the recognisable genre of newspaper article (here with its headline, image,
story construction) and key variations. The most notable variations apparent on this (size
limited) screenshot are the additional images of the sidebar; which feature advertising images
that are almost as prominent as the main article; and the toolbar which offers potential to
share (usually via a link) this article via a variety of social media. Hidden from view is a
2
further interactive element, whereby readers are offered the opportunity to voice (in text)
their opinions; both in respect to the article, respond to others’ comments or in fact raise any
other (non-offensive) matter via a moderated discussion board. Mautner suggests that the
combinations of such features should lead us to see that as a site of investigation web 2.0 “is
open, unstructured, and quintessentially anarchic” (Mautner, 2005, p. 817).
To date there has been a somewhat limited engagement with web 2.0 in organizational
studies (Pritchard and Whiting, 2012); both in respect to our own topic of age at work but
also more broadly. The few studies that have utilized the web for research (beyond a means
for advertising for participants or distributing surveys) have focused on particular forms, for
example, examining corporate websites as discursive artefacts (Pablo and Hardy, 2009,
Merilainen et al., 2009). We also note that researchers often discuss ‘material’ or ‘texts’
sourced from the internet (Spicer, 2005) but visual components of web 2.0 appear to date to
have been rather overlooked.
We suggest that web 2.0 is increasingly emerging as a significant site (or indeed, sight) of
debate for organizational issues. Thus we concur with Ashcraft who challenges “the
assumption that organizing necessarily occurs in organizations” (2007, p. 11) and propose
that as organizational researchers it is incumbent upon us to examine other spaces which
serve to organize work identities and relations (Pritchard, 2011). Indeed, all forms of media
should be considered as “as an important but still not very well-known legitimating arena for
organizational phenomena” (Vaara et al., 2006), with “media spectacle” one of the “novel
empirical fields in the ‘badlands’, wastelands and borderlands of organization studies” we are
urged to explore (O'Doherty et al., 2011, p. 314).
Against the relative neglect of web 2.0, there has been more attention on analysing the visual
in organizational life (Bell and Davison, 2012). Recently, a number of books have been
published exploring analysis of visual images in social science research (Reavey, 2011, Rose,
2012, Pink, 2012, Manghani, 2012, Mitchell, 2011, Harper, 2012) with new editions of
classic work in this field also available (Hall et al., 2013, Emmison et al., 2013). However,
when considered alongside the whole range of empirical endeavours in the context of the
study of work and organizations, the use of visual methodologies in still relatively
uncommon, with the field having a “blind spot” when it comes to the visual aspects of
organizational life (Strangleman, 2004, p 179). Yet a few key figures have engaged with
visual methodologies in the context of work and organizations (Warren, 2009, Warren and
Vince, 2012, Acevedo and Warren, 2012) with even the occasional special issue on the topic
(Davison et al., 2012, Schrat et al., 2012), highlighting the contribution such analysis can
bring to our understanding of organizational phenomena.
Moving to consider the our topic of age, it is notable that within the field of gerontology there
is a substantial literature that examines media images of older people (generically rather than
in a work context), particularly in relation to (generally, negative) stereotypes (see also, for
example, http://www.representing-ageing.com/, part of the cross-research council New
Dynamics of Ageing project). These stereotypes of older people have been found to be not
only negative but also it has been suggested that they are more negative than stereotypes of
race and gender (Nosek et al., 2002). In a study of portrayal of older people in the British
magazines, participants were asked to give their impressions, ascribe traits and rate
similarity-between-images (Williams et al., 2010). Other research has examined actor’s
portrayal of older people in adverts (Robinson et al., 2008, Williams et al., 2007, Roberts and
Zhou, 1997), in TV commercials (Miller et al., 2004) and in these settings across different
countries (Zhang et al., 2006). Typically these studies show how categories emerge from
3
previous findings on generally held stereotypes of older persons and contribute to a typology
of advertising portrayals of older people. Occasionally, stereotypes featured in the ageing and
communication literature are deliberately challenged for commercial effects (Williams et al.,
2007). These representations are however generally located in settings outside a work context
and Rozanova and colleagues (2006) found that media representations of older people
exceptionalized and differentiated them from younger people in terms of how they were
presented in relation to work and community roles. One of our aims therefore in this study is
specifically to examine images of age in relation to work (both terms being inclusively
defined) as occurring in the specific location of Web 2.0 and, in so doing, to combine
participant and researcher analysis of the same images.
Whilst there is little or no work that specifically examines visual images of age in
organizational settings, (discursive) research has looked at images of diversity (Swan, 2010,
Singh and Point, 2006) and gender (Benschop and Meihuizen, 2002). For example, Hancock
& Tyler (2007) explore a series of images they conceptualise as “cultural configurations that
organize and compel particular versions of gender” (p. 512), suggesting to us that an
examination of images of age can usefully enable investigations as to how ‘versions of age’
might be organized . Overall then, Rämö suggests that “today’s hyper-mediated society,
images are in higher circulation than words and print, and there is a shifting relationship
between word and image” (2011, p. 374). As highlighted with our example screen shot
above, the visual is an integral aspect of web 2.0 media. Further Bell and Davison suggest
that “given the ubiquity of the visual, together with its distinctive characteristics and power, it
is imperative for researchers to investigate the many organizational manifestations of the
visual and the methodological challenges that they raise” (Bell and Davison, 2012, p. 2).
They go on to note the paucity of web-based studies and highlight the need for researchers to
grapple with the emergence of new media. This is a key incentive for our own research.
Within what has been termed “an image-driven economy” (Hancock and Tyler, 2007), visual
research should be seen as imperative since “organizations use aesthetics to enhance their
products and services, and to create an identity that is immediately communicable to their
customers, employees and society at large” (Strati, 1999). Within our web 2.0 research
context, organizations can be viewed both traditionally (as in the example above, namely the
website of a media organization) or more broadly as a wide range of individuals and groups
engage in debates about age at work. These include campaign and lobby groups, job seekers,
employers, Government departments and agencies, charities, recruitment and management
consultants, academics, bloggers, law firms, professional bodies. Indeed in related analysis,
we identified 80 different organizational voices and over 200 individuals participating in
conversations related to age at work via web 2.0 media within a single week of data
collection (Pritchard and Whiting, 2012).
The term visual encompasses a huge range of media and forms (Rose, 2012) and our overall
dataset includes video, diagrams, cartoons, portrait photographs and stock images. Our focus
here however is photographs and, as explained further below, a particular form, the stock
image (Frosh, 2001). Our classification of photographs comes from an informed and
investigative approach, and we acknowledge that a casual observer may not see a distinction,
or be able to determine what is real (Rose, 2012). Indeed as photographs are a form direct
visual representation, a form we may engage with ourselves, they are often assumed to be
realistic, as physical objects are ‘captured’ or ‘taken’. Munir (2005) observes that, despite
the acceptance of manipulation, digital photography remains associated with “preserving”
scenes (Runde et al., 2009, p. 15). However, Guimond reminds us, using the words of the
American documentary photographer, Lewis Hine; (talking in 1909) we should be wary of
4
our “unbounded faith in the integrity of the photograph” (1991, p. 20). In this respect stock
images are perhaps worthy of particular interrogation and indeed it has been suggested that
these can be viewed as “cultural text[s]” (Milestone and Meyer, 2012). Frosh highlights that
despite their wide use across a range of media there has been an “alarming scholarly and
critical neglect” (2001, p. 626) of stock images across a range of fields.
Stock images are often explicitly constructed using models or actors to depict a scene which
may utilise props or staging (Ward, 2007). They are generally used to avoid the cost and
time implications of commissioning a photograph but also offer editors simple, visual,
shorthand. Organizations such as Getty and Alamy, act as a mediator between photographers
(both professional and amateur) and those seeking to use the images (van Dijck, 2008). In
order to maximise the saleability of the image it is suggested that they need to fit a broad
range of requirements and thus they may be generic and stereotypical (Ward, 2007). There
are therefore several stages or constructions of the image. Firstly the photographer’s own
ideas of what the image might represent, this may then be reviewed and repositioned (for
example by tagging the image with a variety of popular labels) by the stock image agency to
maximise sales. Thirdly, the individual purchasing the image does so with a particular
representation or use in mind. Therefore it is important to consider that “the purchased image
goes through a stage of recontextualization – combination with texts and other images and
graphic elements during which it is often substantially altered” (Frosh, 2001, p. 634). Finally
of course, the image is subject to our interpretation as we view this combination with our
media via web 2.0 media.
Returning to our promised story regarding the image presented in Figure 1, this offers a
useful example of these processes of recontextualization. This was an image we were keen to
include within our analysis and therefore we attempted to track down the source, by
contacting the media outlet, the stock image agency and, eventually, the credited
photographer. Following this investigation it was clear that the image as represented in
Figure 1 (illustrating a piece on inter-generational workplace conflict) had undergone a
considerable digital manipulation and was very different from the photograph bought from
the stock image agency. The original image highlighted political tensions between
republican and democrat candidates with a US electoral context and was set in a campaign
type scene rather than an office (accompanied by flags and banners). Moreover, the female
appeared to have been considerably retouched, and specifically we noted that her hair colour
and make-up had been changed to dramatically increase the perceived age differential
between the two combatants. In short, the woman appeared to have been made to look
significantly younger and the overall context of the fight had been relocated to an office.
This story serves to both highlight the discursive complexity of unpacking the visual in web
2.0 contexts and also the practical challenges faced by us as researchers when we try to
collect these materials for analysis. These challenges are further discussed as we move to
explain our research approach in more detail below.
Our research approach
Our wider e-research project involved mapping understandings of age at work using English
language web 2.0 data (Pritchard and Whiting, 2012). The term e-research encompasses
various internet-based approaches (Fielding et al., 2008) and a “wide range of activities”
(British Psychological Society, 2007, p. 1). Within this context, our investigation of visual
data took place in two distinct stages as outlined below on table 1.
Table 1: Stages of research
5
Stage 1:
Collect web 2.0 data utilising automated search tools over 150 days
Identify of usable photographs within the data set (120 images)
Researchers’ analysis of selected images (16 images, all stock photographs)
Stage 2:
Select images for Stage 2, including securing approval and rights (5 images)
Photo elicitation using key images
- Face to face via Focus groups (pilot completed)
- Electronically via Photo Response Survey (pilot completed)
Analysis of photo responses (by mode and comparison)
Below we now unpack these stages and reflect on the issues raised by and through our
approach.
Stage 1: collecting images and our own analysis
Our approach (Pritchard and Whiting, 2012) utilized internet tools (Google and Nexis,
twilerts and website change detection alerts) in a daily automated search process over 150
days from September 2011. This partially automated data collection can generate vast
quantities of material with, initially, little direct researcher intervention. However, the
researcher must then sift through the materials identified by the search tools and select that
which is directly relevant to the study. Here, each alert from each search tool was reviewed
by the two researchers and data captured for entry into NVivo. Text and images were copied
while links to video and audio were also stored. We collected approximately six relevant
web-based items and fifty relevant tweets per day. Additional material was collected via
snowballing from these sources (for example via following links). The web 2.0 sources
included online news articles and reader comments, websites, blogs and web fora, images
accompanying these texts, tweets, YouTube videos, podcasts and webinars.
From a range of visual data, we identified 120 usable photographs that were both saved
within their web 2.0 contexts and, where possible, also downloaded as a separate image file.
At this time we recorded as much identifying information as possible, including links,
sources, copyright information and dates of download. It can already be seen that we focused
on photographs and made some decisions in terms of whether they might become data at
some later stage. Of course, this is not an exact science and it is perfectly possible that our
process of selection meant that a number of potential images were overlooked. However,
ours is not a “big data” (Williford and Henry, 2012) approach aiming to capture or represent
the web in its entirety. Further, for practical reasons some images were excluded. For
example, where there was no identifying information that would enable us to track the
copyright of the image, where the image was of poor quality and or comprised portrait
images of journalists. After some further consideration of copyright issues we also excluded
what appeared to be commissioned images of other named individuals since these would be
difficult to track and obtain permission for use and would likely present further ethical issues
for our analysis. Such copyright and ethical considerations remain a factor in our on-going
research.
This initial data collection (and filtering process) resulted in a sample of 120 images by June
2012. At this point both researchers conducted an initial review of the images (both as a
photograph and in context with the headline). The aim of this stage was to review the range
of images collected and identify visual themes. This proceeded in parallel to our initial
analysis of textual data, so there was some interchange between the two aspects of our
6
analysis. Following our separate review, we met to discuss the images and initial
impressions. It was at this stage that we decided to initially focus our attention on a particular
type of photograph, the stock images. The next stage of the selection process was in part
driven by our broader focus of our research project on age at work. Thus we aimed to select
images portraying a range of ages and that encompassed some aspect of work. For example,
we excluded images of students in education (set in classrooms and the like) and of older
people pursuing leisure activities in retirement. The resulting sample size (16) was not set as
a target but emerged from this process of qualitative review. Each researcher completed the
process independently first, and then our selections were compared. Photographs identified
by both researchers were earmarked for analysis and we then debated our other selections
before making a joint decision on their inclusion or exclusion. This is of course a highly
subjective process and perhaps leaves us open to accusations of lack of “academic rigour”
(Rämö, 2011, p. 373), a challenge commonly highlighted in visual studies. No doubt it is
useful that we can at least highlight the involvement of two researchers in this process, and
the decision to complete some aspects of this review independently before conferring is
possibly due to our previous exposure to discussions of inter-rater reliability (Loretto and
Vickerstaff, 2013) as a potential means of defending some aspects of qualitative research
practice. However, we suggest that if this stage of the process is positioned as sampling;
rather than as analytic in nature; it can be compared to a process of snowball or purposive
sampling to select interview participants (Patton, 2002, Rozanova, 2010). Aside from the
need to robustly position our methodology in papers arising from this research, it is also
important to acknowledge that this collaborative process of selection was useful in prompting
discussion about the data and working through ideas of how visual analysis might inform our
wider research aims.
Having reviewed the literature regarding visual analysis and made use of the excellent
resources on the in-Visio website (see http://moodle.in-visio.org/), we used both Davison’s
(2010) categories (physical attributes, dress, physical artefacts, and interpersonal
representations) and Rose’s (2012) areas of investigation (subject positions, absences,
contradictions, similarities/differences with other images, persuasiveness, complexities) to
guide our first stage of analysis. The images were initially divided between the two
researchers who used these categories to frame their interpretation of the images and produce
a descriptive (textual) analytic account. These descriptions were then passed to the other
researcher who added, annotated and questioned the account to add further interpretative
depth. These debates included questioning each other’s interpretation and noting where
differences remained unresolved. These initial analyses (including points of disagreement)
were then presented at academic conferences as we sought to refine our understanding of the
images and reflect on the implications for understandings of age at work.
It was during the first of these conferences (in July 2012), that our ideas for stage 2 began to
take shape. Initially, including the images within our conference presentation seemed a
useful and obvious way to bring our research to life for the audience. During the actual
presentation itself, we invited comments and observations on both the image (shown in
isolation), the image in its web 2.0 context and on our analytic observations (presented in
summary form). At this point it became clear that not only were the images and their use in
web 2.0 media analytically interesting, but that peoples’ responses to the images could
provide a further source of data and allow us to move beyond our own analytical
interpretations.
7
Before moving on to explain how these ideas developed, we pause briefly to reflect on stage
1. We did not embark on our research project with a view of analysing stock images. Indeed
while we did always plan to collect visual data we had not necessarily anticipated this
becoming such a significant part of our research into understandings of age at work. Thus
our approach has evolved and developed over time. We have had to spend a significant
amount of time researching not just visual methods but the particular ethical and copyright
issues that this approach entails. Thus while the methodological issues are obviously
important, the method (or more practical aspects) are not to be underestimated.
Stage 2: securing image rights and piloting photo elicitation
Having experienced the debate that ensued when we showed the images at a conference, we
were now committed to developing a means by which we could deploy photo-elicitation
techniques within the next stage of our research.
Photo-elicitation techniques generally fall into two categories. Those in which the
participants themselves produce or select the images, and those utilising images which are
researcher supplied (Davison et al., 2012). In respect to the former, Pink (2006) highlights
that such approaches open up opportunities not just for researching the visual but for research
which methodologically incorporates visual practices (such as taking photographs). Ray &
Smith (2011) further comment that “photographic methods can be a means of inviting
organizational members back into the research limelight by recruiting their participation in
the collection and analysis of a medium that most are acquainted with and have an interest in
being involved in” (2011, p. 289). While we have not ruled out a third stage of our research
during which we would utilise participant generated images, in stage 2 our focus is photoelicitation utilising researcher supplied images.
Elicitation is a broader technique that can deploy a variety of media within a range of
research contexts (Crilly, 2006, Bagnoli, 2009). Harper (2002) is amongst those that suggest
that images provide the potential to open up new areas for discussion that are problematic
when utilising voice or text based prompts (such as interview questions). However, caution
is also noted. It should not be assumed that introducing an image enables a better participantresearcher interaction; rather the interaction is materially different. Davison (2012) argues
we need to pay attention to the image-in-use in such contexts while Bell and Davison (2012)
highlight the implications of moving towards “linguistic interpretations of the visual” (2012,
p. 8) when utilising photo-elicitation techniques. However we would note that in the book
and journal paper presentations of researcher-led visual analysis, it is nevertheless such
linguistic interpretations that are conveyed. Indeed the visual are often relegated to a rather
minor role in final publications, though our own engagement with copyright issues has left us
more appreciative of the practical challenges to the inclusion of photographs in print journals.
Having secured a broader understanding of photo-elicitation approaches we were now faced
with two challenges. Obtaining the appropriate permissions would enable us to use the
images both within the research context and, significantly, in publications and presentations
arising from our empirical research. This required direct engagement with the stock photo
agencies and some initial discussions with journal editors to discuss their views on utilising
images. As an aside this led to one interesting discussion when it was discovered that the
image-resolution requirements of a particular journal were rather more exacting than the
agency could supply, leading our contact at the stock image agency to suggest that if their
resolution was “good enough for Vogue” then we should be ok. Thus we partially entered
the web of relationships that is embedded within the practice of stock photography. We were
8
lucky to have a particularly helpful contact at one agency, and this in the end lead us to focus
in on images from this source since they were prepared to offer us a good deal in terms of
purchasing the image rights. Negotiating such issues remains (despite the notion of fair use
and free availability of images on the web) a particularly difficult issue for visual researchers.
We were also fortunate to have some funding available for support the purchase of these
images. We should however also note that the quality of the photographs sourced from the
agency is far superior to that which can be downloaded from the internet, thus enabling us to
both analyse and use the photographs more effectively. This alone might justify the
(relatively small) investment of purchasing the rights when images and/or the level of
analysis are detailed.
In this second stage of research, we are focusing on five stock photographs, reflecting a range
of ages and work contexts. Following our earlier experience of discussing photographs
during an academic conference presentation, we were immediately drawn to the idea of
applying photo-elicitation techniques in group contexts. Moreover, based on our broader eresearch approach we were intrigued to investigate means of using web 2.0 media as a
research tool, particularly since we had a well-established research project blog and twitter
account via which we could usefully contact participants. Both these aspects of this stage of
our research are described in more detail below.
To date we have run one pilot and three further group sessions with mixed audiences, using
the same approach and process in each. Each participant is provided with a black and white
(due to photocopying costs) print of the photographs whilst a colour image is also projected
onto a screen. The participant hand-outs are numbered and a statement of informed consent
is included (also projected). Participants may choose to participate in the group but not
submit their comments, if they so wish. Initially, participants are asked to spend a few
minutes looking at the images and are simply asked “what are your impressions of these
photos”. Then, participants are invited to share their views, working through the images one
at a time. After discussing each image, it is then also shown in its web 2.0 context and they
are invited to make any additional comments. One researcher facilitates the session, whilst
the other records the debate on a flipchart, discussions were not audio recorded. The
resulting materials from the groups are therefore the participants’ own analysis (noted on the
handouts) and the flipchart summaries of issues discussed.
In reviewing the options for utilising web 2.0 we investigated a variety of options which
would both ensure ethical practice was followed and provide a practical solution. Initial
ideas of posting the images directly on our blog were discounted. Rather we designed and
piloted a photo-response survey which tests a variety of formats for capturing responses.
Based on previous qualitative research experiences we are testing the survey with:
-
-
Twenty statements test (Rees and Nicholson, 1994) which was originally devised for
investigations into relationships between self-concept and role (reference removed for
review); adapted here to invite participants to offer twenty statements on their
interpretation of the image.
Free format response; in which participants are asked, as in the focus group, what are
your impressions of this photograph?
Prompted response; in which participants are asked specifically to comment on their
interpretation of the image using a simplified visual analysis categorisation
(appearance, dress, props and pose), additional space for any other comments is
provided.
9
-
-
Rated response; in which participants rate a number pre-defined statements about the
photograph in terms of the strength of their agreement or not with the statements.
These pre-defined statements were selected from the focus group data.
Narrative response; participants are asked to compose a short story which reflects
what they think might be happening to the characters in the image.
Participants see the image and then (as in the focus group) the image in its web 2.0 context
where they will be invited to make any additional comments. One drawback of the
construction of the survey is that it is not possible to trial the different prompts with each type
of image, since this would make the survey far too long. However the pilot survey included a
specific set of questions asking for feedback which will help us review the design criteria for
the full survey. The pilot was circulated to both an expert group (of colleagues), including
those experienced in visual research so that we can refine the approach and a novice group
(of students) to test the survey from a participants perspective. The final survey is now under
construction and will be circulated via web 2.0 media and we hope to facilitate distribution
via those who follow our research via our blog and twitter accounts.
Our aim in piloting these photo-elicitation and response approaches is to examine the extent
to which these provide further useful qualitative data to support our wider investigation in to
understandings of age at work. This broader research has focused primarily on web 2.0
contexts and we see the opportunity to now move forward and explore how participants
experience these materials (here with a focus on the visual).
Discussion
We have set out both our broader approach to exploring web 2.0 contexts as a site of research
investigation and, more specifically, explained how we have engaged with the visual in web
2.0 data. We have focused specifically on a particular type of visual material, the stock
photograph. We have set out our two stage approach which encompasses how the images
were initially selected and analysed and, in stage two, how we have developed and piloted
two different approaches based on photo-elicitation. The potential for further development of
the latter is both exciting and challenging. For example, we would like to be able to move to
a more realistic web 2.0 elicitation approach, in which rather than removing images from
their digital context or presenting static screenshots; we could work with participants as they
negotiated the web. Further, we are in discussion with other researchers who have utilised
participant-generated photographs in age-related research to explore the potential for research
investigations that juxtapose these images alongside our stock-photographs. At the same
time, we try not to get too carried away. Our photo-elicitation pilot (not to mention the
broader discursive work underway in respect to textual materials gathered via web 2.0) has
given us plenty to work with in the short term. As always we look forward to the opportunity
to sharing our experiences in person with the members of the Research Methods SIG at BAM
2013, full in the knowledge that the insights and feedback obtained will prove invaluable in
informing our future development and application of these ideas.
References:
ACEVEDO, B. & WARREN, S. 2012. Vision in organization studies. Culture and Organization, 18,
277-284.
10
ALLEN, G. 2011. Intertextuality, Abingdon, Routledge.
ASHCRAFT, K. L. 2007. Appreciating the 'work' of discourse: occupational identity and difference
as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse &
Communication, 1, 9-36.
BAGNOLI, A. 2009. Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based
methods. Qualitative Research, 9, 547-570.
BARTHES, R. 1977. Image, music, text, London, Flamingo.
BARTHES, R. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on photography, London, Cape.
BELL, E. & DAVISON, J. 2012. Visual Management Studies: Empirical and Theoretical
Approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, In Press.
BENSCHOP, Y. & MEIHUIZEN, H. E. 2002. Keeping up gendered appearances: representations of
gender in financial annual reports. Accounting Organizations and Society, 27, 611-636.
BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2007. Report of the Working Party on conducting research
on the Internet: Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online. Leicester:
British Psychological Society.
CRILLY, N. 2006. Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative
Research, 6, 341-366.
DAVISON, J. 2010. [In]visible [in]tangibles: Visual portraits of the business elite. Accounting
Organizations and Society, 35, 165-183.
DAVISON, J., MCLEAN, C. & WARREN, S. 2012. Exploring the visual in organizations and
management. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 7, 5-15.
EASTERBY-SMITH, M., GOLDEN-BIDDLE, K. & LOCKE, K. 2008. Working with pluralismdetermining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 419-429.
EMMISON, M., SMITH, P. & MAYALL, M. 2013. Researching the visual: Images, objects, contexts
and interactions in social and cultural inquiry, London, Sage.
FIELDING, N., LEE, R. M. & BLANK, G. 2008. The SAGE handbook of Internet of online research
methods, Los Angeles; London, Sage.
FLEISCHER, H. 2011. Towards a Phenomenological Understanding of Web 2.0 and Knowledge
Formation. Education Inquiry, 2, 535-549.
FROSH, P. 2001. Inside the image factory: stock photography and cultural production. M 2. Media,
Culture & Society,, 23, 625-646.
GUIMOND, J. 1991. American photography and the American dream, Chapel Hill, University of
North Carolina Press.
HALL, S., NIXON, S. & EVANS, J. 2013. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying
Practices, London, Sage.
HANCOCK, P. & TYLER, M. 2007. Un/doing gender and the aesthetics of organizational
performance. Gender Work and Organization, 14, 512-533.
HARPER, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13-26.
HARPER, D. 2012. Visual Sociology, Abingdon, Routledge.
HODGE, B. & KRESS, G. R. 1988. Social semiotics, Cambridge, Polity.
LANDOW, G. P. 2006. Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization,
Baltimore, Md.; London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
LEWIS, D. M. 2003. Online news: a new genre. New Media Language. London: Routledge, 95-104.
LORETTO, W. & VICKERSTAFF, S. 2013. The domestic and gendered context for retirement.
Human Relations, 66, 65-86.
MANGHANI, S. 2012. Image studies: Theory and practice, Abingdon, Routledge.
MAUTNER, G. 2005. Time to get wired: Using web-based corpora in critical discourse analysis.
Discourse & Society, 16, 809-828.
MERILAINEN, S., TIENARI, J., KATILA, S. & BENSCHOP, Y. 2009. Diversity Management
Versus Gender Equality: The Finnish Case. Canadian Journal of Administrative SciencesRevue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, 26, 230-243.
MILESTONE, K. & MEYER, A. 2012. Gender & Popular Cultuer, Cambridge, Polity Press.
MILLER, D. W., LEYELL, T. S. & MAZACHEK, J. 2004. Stereotypes of the elderly in US
television commercials from the 1950s to the 1990s. International Journal of Aging & Human
Development, 58, 315-340.
11
MITCHELL, C. 2011. Doing visual research, London, SAGE.
MUNIR, K. A. 2005. The social construction of events: A study of institutional change in the
photographic field. Organization Studies, 26, 93-112.
NOSEK, B. A., BANAJI, M. R. & GREENWALD, A. G. 2002. Harvesting implicit group attitudes
and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice,
6, 101-115.
O'DOHERTY, D., DE COCK, C., REHN, A. & ASHCRAFT, K. L. 2011. Special issue on new
sites/sights: Exploring the white spaces of organization. Organization Studies, 32, 313-315.
O'REILLY, T. 2005. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation
of software. An O'Reilly Radar Report. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
PABLO, Z. & HARDY, C. 2009. Merging, Masquerading and Morphing: Metaphors and the World
Wide Web. Organization Studies, 30, 821-843.
PATTON, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, London, SAGE.
PINK, S. 2006. The Future of Visual Anthropology: engaging the senses, London, Routledge.
PINK, S. 2012. Advances in visual methodology, Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage.
POTTER, J. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction, London, Sage
Publications.
PRITCHARD, K. 2011. From 'being there' to 'being...where?'. Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management, 6, 230-245.
PRITCHARD, K. & WHITING, R. 2012. Autopilot? A reflexive review of the piloting process in
qualitative e-research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 7, 338-353.
RÄMÖ, H. 2011. Visualizing the Phronetic Organization: The Case of Photographs in CSR Reports.
Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 371-387.
RAY, J. L. & SMITH, A. D. 2011. Using Photographs to Research Organizations: Evidence,
Considerations, and Application in a Field Study. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 288315.
REAVEY, P. 2011. Visual methods in psychology: Using and interpreting images in qualitative
research, Hove, Psychology Press; New York : Routledge.
REES, A. & NICHOLSON, N. 1994. The twenty statements test. In: CASSELL, C. & SYMON, G.
(eds.) Qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage.
ROBERTS, S. D. & ZHOU, N. 1997. The 50 and older characters in the advertisements of modern
maturity: Growing older, getting better? Journal of Applied Gerontology, 16, 208-220.
ROBINSON, T., GUSTAFSON, B. & POPOVICH, M. 2008. Perceptions of negative stereotypes of
older people in magazine advertisements: comparing the perceptions of older adults and
college students. Ageing & Society, 28, 233-251.
ROSE, G. 2012. Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials, London,
SAGE.
ROZANOVA, J. 2010. Discourse of successful aging in The Globe & Mail: Insights from critical
gerontology. Journal of Aging Studies, 24, 213-222.
ROZANOVA, J., NORTHCOTT, H. C. & MCDANIEL, S. A. 2006. Seniors and portrayals of intragenerational and inter-generational inequality in the Globe and Mail. Canadian Journal on
Aging-Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 25, 373-386.
RUNDE, J., JONES, M., MUNIR, K. A. & NIKOLYCHUK, L. 2009. On technological objects and
the adoption of technological product innovations: Rules, routines and the transition from
analogue photography to digital imaging. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33, 1-24.
SCHRAT, H., WARREN, S. & HOPFL, H. 2012. Guest editorial: visual narratives of organisation.
Visual Studies, 27, 1-3.
SHAPIRO, M. J. 1988. The politics of representation: Writing practices in biography, photography,
and policy analysis, Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin Press.
SINGH, V. & POINT, S. 2006. (Re)presentations of gender and ethnicity in diversity statements on
European company websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 363-379.
SPICER, A. 2005. The political process of inscribing a new technology. Human Relations, 58, 867890.
12
STRANGLEMAN, T. 2004. Ways of (not) seeing work: The visual as a blind spot in WES? Work,
Employment & Society, 18, 179-192.
STRATI, A. 1999. Organization and Aesthetics, London, Sage.
SWAN, E. 2010. Commodity diversity: Smiling faces as a strategy of containment. Organization, 17,
77-100.
VAARA, E., TIENARI, J. & LAURILA, J. 2006. Pulp and Paper Fiction: On the Discursive
Legitimation of Global Industrial Restructuring. Organization Studies. Organization Studies,
27, 789-810.
VAN DIJCK, J. 2008. Digital photography: communication, identity, memory. Visual
Communication, 7, 57-76.
WARD, C. G. 2007. Stock Images , Filler Content and the Ambiguous Corporate Message. Media
Culture Journal, 10(5) (Electronic Journal) [Online]. Available: http://www.journal.mediaculture.org.au/0710/04-ward.php [Accessed 3rd July 2012].
WARREN, S. 2009. Visual Methods in Organizational Research. In: BRYMAN, A. & BUCHANAN,
D. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage.
WARREN, S. & VINCE, R. 2012. Qualitative, Participatory Visual Methods. In: CASSELL, C. &
SYMONS, G. (eds.) The Practice of Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and
Current Challenges. London: Sage.
WILLIAMS, A., WADLEIGH, P. M. & YLAENNE, V. 2010. Images of older people in UK
magazine advertising: Toward a typology. International Journal of Aging & Human
Development, 71, 83-114.
WILLIAMS, A., YLANNE, V. & WADLEIGH, P. M. 2007. Selling the 'Elixir of Life': Images of the
elderly in an Olivio advertising campaign. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 1-21.
WILLIAMSON, J. 1978. Decoding advertisements: Ideology and meaning in advertising, London,
Boyars.
WILLIFORD, C. & HENRY, C. 2012. One Culture: Computationally intensive research in the
Humanities and Social Sciences: A report on the experiences of first respondents to the
Digging into Data Challenge. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information
Resources.
ZHANG, Y. B., HARWOOD, J., WILLIAMS, A., YLANNE-MCEWEN, V., WADLEIGH, P. M. &
THIMM, C. 2006. The portrayal of older adults in advertising - A cross-national review.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 264-282.
13