University of British Columbia
Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy
EDCP 510: Digital Video Ethnography: Culture, Representation, and Interpretation
Class: T 4:30-7:30
Professor Lisa W. Loutzenheiser
2303 Scarfe Office Phone: 822 5341
Email: loutzl@mail.ubc.ca
Office Hours: by appointment
Blog: http://www.blogs.ubc.ca/outofplace
Course Description
This course supports students in exploring video ethnography for education. "Education" is
defined broadly, and includes classrooms, communities, educational activism, museums and
galleries, and other public spaces. It will also provide a vehicle for discussing the implications of
using new tools and techniques when conducting ethnographic research. The course
introduces the theoretical and basic practical background required to gather, analyze and
represent video generated data.
Paying particular attention to positionalities and subjectivities (including race, gender,
sexualities and their intersections among others), we will give consideration to questions about
the place of video ethnography and exhibition in a variety of educational settings. We will raise
questions about and trouble the social, cultural, and political relations between video-makers
and their "subjects" and audiences; the relation between video production for education, and
the social constructions of meaning and knowledge, and the appropriateness of student
projects for research questions and intended audiences. Other topics will include visual culture
and educational video; notions of space; the politics and power of representation; ethics; and
audience/producer address and relations.
You will have the opportunity a bit about the basics of video production. We will use video
software called iMovie 9 (along with GarageBand, iPhoto and iTunes). Data analysis software
will include NVivo.
Readings
Readings available in a reading packet available from library
Haw, K & Hadfield, M. (2011). Video in social science research: Functions and forms. London:
Routledge.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J, Luff, P. (2010) Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction
in everyday life. London: Sage Publications
Working Assumptions
1
1. Depth is favored over breadth. Our discussions will be recursive; that is, we will revisit
many topics and ideas but likely will not cover all readings. However, you will have an
opportunity to read much more than we can discuss in the class.
2. Ideas not individuals are open to challenge. The nature of the course should produce a
diversity of ideas. To insure that multiple voices are heard, the course must foster a high
degree of security to voice opinions or state questions. As graduate students, you should
feel comfortable challenging the ideas and thinking of others. However, that challenge
cannot disparage the personhood of others.
3. Questions represent an opportunity to learn. Sometimes students feel that they should
not ask questions because they may “sound dumb.” On the contrary, questions can be an
indication of your engagement with the subject matter. I am usually far more interested
in questions than answers. Do not self-censor because your questions may lead to clearer
understandings for us all. We must rely on each other to increase our knowledge and
understandings.
4. Participants assume responsibility for their own learning and success. This is another way
of articulating a somewhat trite (but true) expression, “You get out of this what you put
into it.” More specifically, this working assumption means that students must make their
needs known. No one course can be all things to all students. Thus, it is incumbent upon
students to “mine” the course for experiences that suit their specific intellectual
purposes.
The structure of the class
Because this is a seminar and a workshop format, it may feel as if we have a limited amount of
time for many topics and ideas. Consequently, we will try to develop mutually supportive
working relationships that help us understand both theoretical and practical implications of
what we are learning. During most classes, we will work through an exercise of some variety to
apply the theories we are discussing. To maintain your responsibility to the other members of
the class please come prepared.
Accommodations
The University of British Columbia recognizes its moral and legal duty to provide academic
accommodation. The University must remove barriers and provide opportunities to students
with a disability, enabling them to access university services, programs, and facilities and to be
welcomed as participating members of the University community. The University's goal is to
ensure fair and consistent treatment of all students, including students with a disability, in
accordance with their distinct needs and in a manner consistent with academic principles.
The University will provide academic accommodation to students with disabilities in accordance
with the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 and the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act
1982(U.K.), 1982, c. 11. Provision of academic accommodation shall not lower the academic
standards of the University. Academic accommodation shall not remove the need for
evaluation and the need to meet essential learning outcomes. Students with a disability who
2
wish to have an academic accommodation should contact the Disability Resource Centre
without delay (see UBC Policy 73) and inform the instructor.
Evaluation
Participation Workshops, discussions and presentations (15%)
Project 1
Project 1a:
An introduction to a self on video (auditors must complete) (10%)
Project 1b:
Editing and a Digital Story of Self (auditors must complete (10%)
Project 2
Project 2a:
Observation or interview practice and analysis (30%)
Project 2b
Digital Storytelling, Video, research paper or methodological paper
(35%)
Academic Honesty
Students are encouraged to review university policies on attendance and assignments, as
detailed in Section V, “Academic Regulations,” of the 2014/2015 UBC Calendar. In particular,
please be aware of the definition of plagiarism presented in the Calendar: “a form of academic
misconduct in which an individual submits or presents the work of another person as his or her
own.” Evidence of this form of academic dishonesty in an assignment will result in a failure
without opportunity for revision. Regarding Academic Honesty and Standards, Academic
Freedom, please refer to: UBC Calendar 2014/2015 Policies and Regulations.
All work submitted by students (including, without limitation, essays, dissertations, theses,
examinations, tests, reports, presentations, problem sets, and tutorial assignments) may be
reviewed by the University for authenticity and originality. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, such review may include the use of software tools and third party services
including Internet-based services such as TurnItIn.com. By submitting work, students consent to
their work undergoing such review and being retained in a database for comparison with other
work submitted by students. The results of such review may be used in any University
investigation or disciplinary proceedings (see Student Discipline, p. 59).
3
Class schedule
Week 1
January 6
What is ethnography?
Who are you?
Introduction
Week 2
January 13
An Introduction to theory and fields
Readings:
Erickson F (2011) Uses of video in social research: a brief history. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology 14(3): 179–189.
Heath, et al (Chapters 1-2)
Eisenhart, M. (2002). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with.
Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16-27.
Due: Project 1
Materializing a self on video
Week 3
January 20
Epistemologies and social constructions
Readings:
Pink, S. (2001). More visualising, more methodologies: On video, reflexivity and qualitative
research, The Sociological Review, 49 (4), 586-599.
Rolon-Dow, R. (2011). Race(ing) stories: Digital storytelling as a tool for critical race scholarship.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-15. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2010.519975
Heath, et al, Chapters 3
Week 4
January 27
Address and Representations
Readings:
Gallagher, K., Wessels, A., & Ntelioglou, B. Y. (2013). Becoming a networked public: Digital
ethnography, youth and global research collectives. Ethnography and Education, 8(2),
177-193. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2013.792507
Romero, D., & Walker, D. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in representation: Engaging participative
youth. Ethnography and Education, 5(2), 209-227. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2010.493409
Haw, Chapter 7-8
Week 5
February 3 Data Collection
Readings:
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
Shrum, W., Duque, R., & Ynalvez, M. (2007). Lessons of the lower ninth: Methodology and
epistemology of video ethnography. Technology in Society, 29(2), 215-225. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.01.009
Recommended: Haw, Chapter 3
Due: Project 1b Editing
4
Week 6
February 10 Data collection II
Readings:
MacLure, M., Holmes, R., MacRae, C., & Jones, L. (2010). Animating classroom ethnography:
Overcoming video-fear. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5),
543 - 556.
Pearce, C., Arnold, M., Phillips, C., & Dwan, K. (2010). Methodological considerations of digital
video observation: Beyond conversation analysis. [Article]. International Journal of
Multiple Research Approaches, 4(2), 90-99. doi: 10.5172/mra.2010.4.2.090
Haw Chapter 4
February 17
Week 7
Readings:
Heath, Ch. 4
Reading Week – Please look at the tutorials for NVivo
February 24
Data analysis #1
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Chapters 6 (coding and memoing)
Dohan, D., & Sanchez-Jankowski, M. (1998). Using computers to analyze ethnographic field
data: Theoretical and practical considerations. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 477-498.
Recommended: Saldana, J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 1 (2-21)
Spiers, J. A. (2004). Tech tips: Using video management/ analysis technology in qualitative
research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). Article 5. Retrieved 08/1/2007
from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/spiersvideo.pdf
Week 8
March 3
Data analysis, part II
Readings:
Goldman, S., & McDermott, R. (2007). Staying the course with video analysis. In R. Goldman, R.
Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 101-114).
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dunn, J. (2010). Video in drama research: Formalising the role of collaborative conversations
within the analysis phase. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre
and Performance, 15(2), 193-208. doi: 10.1080/13569781003700086
Erickson, F. (2004). Demystifying data construction and analysis. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 35(4), 486-493.
5
Week 9
March 10
The Gaze
Readings:
hooks, b. (2003). The Oppositional gaze: Black female spectators (pp. 94-105). In A. Jones (eds.)
The Feminism and visual culture reader. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1974). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Panopticon (pp. 195-228).
Richards, C. (2013). “If you ever see this video, we're probably dead”—a boy's own heterotopia
(notes from an inner london playground). Journal of Children and Media, 7(3), 383-398.
doi: 10.1080/17482798.2012.755635
Week 10
March 17
Participatory Video with Children and Youth
Readings:
Blazek, M., & Hraňová, P. (2012). Emerging relationships and diverse motivations and benefits
in participatory video with young people. Children's Geographies, 10(2), 151-168. doi:
10.1080/14733285.2012.667917
Driver, S. (2007). Beyond "straight" interpretations: Researching queer youth digital video. In A.
Best (Ed.), Representing youth: Methodological dilemmas in critical youth studies (pp.
304-324). New York: New York University Press.
Lomax, H., Fink, J., Singh, N., & High, C. (2011). The politics of performance: Methodological
challenges of researching children’s experiences of childhood through the lens of
participatory video. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 231243. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.563622
Recommended: Eglinton, K. A. (2013). Between the personal and the professional: Ethical
challenges when using visual ethnography to understand young people’s use of popular visual
material culture. Young, 21(3), 253-271. doi: 10.1177/1103308813488793
Assignment 2A due
Week 11
March 24
How do we look, how do we “see”? 1
Readings:
Liegl, M., & Schindler, L. (2013). Media assemblages, ethnographic vis-ability and the enactment
of video in sociological research. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory,
14(3), 254-270. doi: 10.1080/1600910X.2013.863791
Riecken, T., Conibear, F., Michel, C., Lyall, J., Scott, T., Tanaka, M., et al. (2006). Resistance
through re-presenting culture: Aboriginal student filmmakers and a participatory action
research project on health and wellness. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1), 265-286.
6
Hayashi, A., & Tobin, J. (2012). Reframing a visual ethnography of a japanese preschool
classroom. Visual Anthropology Review, 28(1), 13-31. doi: 10.1111/j.15487458.2012.01108.x
Week 12
March 31
Power and Difference
Readings:
Poole, D. (2005). An excess of description: Ethnography, race, and visual technologies. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 34, 159-79.
Gonzalez, J. (2000). The appended subject: Race and identity as digital assemblage. In L.
Nakamura, B. Kolko & G. Rodman (Eds.), Race in cyberspace (pp. 27-50). New York:
Routledge.
Iseke, J., & Moore, S. (2011). Community-based indigenous digital storytelling with elders and
youth. [Case Study]. American Indian Culture & Research Journal, 35, 19-38.
Recommended: Minh-ha, T. T. (1991). When the moon waxes red: Representation, gender and
cultural politics. NY: Routledge Chapter 2: Totalizing Quest of Meaning (pp.29-50).
Week 13
April 7 How do we look, how do we “see”? 2
Readings:
Buchwald, D., Schantz-Laursen, B., & Delmar, C. (2009). Video diary data collection in research
with children: An alternative method. [Article]. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 8(1), 12-20.
Gibson, B. E. (2005). Co-producing video diaries: The presence of the "absent" researcher.
[Article]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4), 1-9.
Jones, R. L., Fonseca, J., De Martin Silva, L., Davies, G., Morgan, K., & Mesquita, I. (2014). The
promise and problems of video diaries: Building on current research. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2014.938687
Assignment 2B due
7
Projects
Project 1a (Materialize an idea of the self on video) (10%) - The purpose of this project is to
begin to work with and find your own solutions to the problem of materializing an idea on
camera. For this project you will produce a (no longer than) 2 to 3 minute video that introduces
yourself to the class in some manner. It is likely that many of you may choose metaphorical or
abstract representations, rather than a realist tale; this is encouraged. You are not expected (or
even allowed) to edit this project., beyond starting, rewinding and stopping the camera. Pay
particular attention to how it feels to use the camera including camera movement (zooming,
panning, tilting, hand held, etc), as well as the meanings you are creating. This project, as with
any video project, needs to take into consideration: design, pedagogy, conventions of
representation, power and the social construction of meaning, aesthetics, and audience
expectations and reading strategies. Your video will be shown in class. Due Week 2
Project 1b (Editing and a Digital Story of Self) (10%)– For this project you will produce a 1-2
minute edited video, building off the footage you shot for project 1 or something new. How do
you materialize and idea of self when editing is involved?. What is your goal in creating this
video, what does it mean to add music (if you are able), transitions, what is the timing and
spacing? What happens if you include still photos or other footage?
Editing is not unlike other decisions made during data collection and analysis. How do you
create associations and relationships between images in ways that suggest ideas and concepts?
Think about issues and relationships that utilise contrast, similarity, repetition, metaphor,
association, rhythm, pacing, causality, interruption, rupture, flow, continuity, and juxtaposition.
This project asks you to address how editing invites audience interaction and engagement
through the visual relationships you establish. You should consider what meanings you hope to
convey in your shot selection, ordering, length and transitions, as well as how different angle,
focus, distance, framing, composition, and shot length change the concept, and include a 400 to
500 double spaced paper with your project describing how you addressed issues of editing and
audience consideration in your project. Due week 5
Project 2a (methods practice, and analysis: observation or interview) (25%)
By Monday of week 5, students need to have chosen an assignment that will include
ethnographic methods utilizing video. Submit a brief (250-500 words) description of the
research question, the method chosen, the setting, and the ethical considerations. There are
serious ethical concerns about utilizing video and using video as part of your research process.
We will address these in class, but please note, no project can be approved where you will
engage with sensitive or vulnerable subjects. This course is designed to teach you the skills to
apply methods and methodologies; afterwards you may submit individual ethical reviews if you
wish to engage with populations such as cancer patients, incest survivors, adjudicated youth,
etc. The instructor must approve each setting for this assignment.
Specifics for this assignment will be handed out in class but must include both data collection
and evidence of analysis with NVivo. Due week 10
8
Project 2b you choose one of the options below: (30%)
a) produce a 5-8 minute educational video or 1-2 related digital stories
b) write a 3200-3500 word (about 15 pages) paper grappling directly with the methodological
issues encountered in generating, analyzing video ethnographic data. Your research papers
must include a lengthy and substantive piece on your own positionality and subjectivities, as
well as other methodological concerns
c) a project of your choice in consultation with the professor
If you choose the video option, submitted alongside it will be a 1000-1200 word paper
discussing some aspect of the production and the methodological concerns and implications
with academic literature to support your discussion.. Your video should be created for a specific
audience and fill a clear educational need (defined broadly). Please make a DVD copy of your
final project for me to keep. We will screen any video projects on the last night of class.
You will be asked to make a 7 minute presentation Week 13 on your project with data
examples. You will need data for the weeks we undertake data analysis
Due: Week 13
Class participation (15%) - You are expected to complete all course readings and come to class
prepared to discuss and ask questions about the readings, as well as respond to student
projects.. You will also be required (likely in pairs) to lead one 45 minute session on the
readings assigned for that day. This presentation should be active and interactive; that is, it
ought not be a summary of the readings, but an extension or query into the theoretical and
methodological issues. There is an expectation that you will use some type of media in your
presentation. If you wish to supplement the readings, you may; please hand out materials to
your classmates at least one class period ahead of time.
9