Video and Audio Recording

‘Audio and visual recording are essential in some studies where information is needed on the details of interaction’

(Foster, 1996:87).

Recording observations and taking notes are central to participant observation. Relying on memory is questionable, particularly over a period of weeks, in this case a semester, so detailed notes should be made either during or immediately after observation, a practise Taylor (2014) used in her research. Jorgensen (1990) reiterates how important it is that all data be recorded whether it is through a researcher’s written log, audio tapes or audio video equipment. Taylor (2014) states her appreciation of the advances in technology that allows researchers record and study more closely human communication, enabling researchers to ‘capture not just the spoken elements of natural conversation, but the postural and gestural components of that conversation thus facilitating…a thicker description of the communication taking place’ (Taylor, 2006:80). Pink (2012) also reflects

81 positively on the developments in digital media but cautions researchers to consider their positioning ‘within these complex social technological environmental contexts’ (pg. 12). During this research, all the class-based peer interactions (with the students’ permission) are videoed, giving me an audio visual permanent record of the events, that can be played, analysed and replayed to temper subjectivity (Dey,1993). These recordings are also available as an accurate and detailed verbal, non-verbal and visual account of the TCL interactions (Cotton et al, 2010) to support the research findings. Pink (2007) cautions that by ‘recording a process or activity, the video material is a ‘representation’ rather than a visual fact’ (pg. 103) and that the mere presence of a camera and a researcher ‘may have affected the reality recorded’ (pg. 110). She notes that, traditionally, the realist approach would view video as an ‘objective’ reality, in contrast to current ethnographic trends, that view video as ‘representation shaped by specific standpoints of its producers and viewers’ (Pink, 2007:116). This recognises the importance of participants’ age, gender, cultural and contextual factors and the influence of the researcher’s own prior experiences. While the benefits of videoing are acknowledged and appreciated, the problems and underlying issues that may arise must be considered.

Visual research that is recorded has a level of constructedness associated with it. The issue of participant reactivity particularly to the recording equipment must be acknowledged and Pink (2007) recognizes that while it is inappropriate to record people without their knowledge, once they are aware of the camera, ‘people in a video are always people in a video’ so ‘research footage is inevitably constructed’(pg. 98). Furthermore, there is a complexity in the relationship between researcher and informant and introducing a camera into that relationship adds another level to this complexity. Pink (2007) notes that ‘ethnographic video makers need to be aware of how the camera and video footage become an element of the play between themselves and informants, and how these are interwoven into discourse and practices in the research context’ (pg.99). Therefore, if not

82 introduced in a suitable manner, the camera may alter participant behaviour (Cotton et al, 2010: Foster, 1996).

In this context it is important to understand that in my normal role as lecturer, the video camera is part of my normal practice and that all these students had been recorded by me previously in other modules, so my use of video would not be an unusual occurrence to these participants. To minimise the intrusive presence of the camera, I made a decision to have it set up and running in the classroom, prior to the arrival of the participants each week. In conjunction, I explained to the participants that the purpose of the camera was to help me remember what happened during the sessions and, as a video diary may, enable me to subsequently portray an authentic record of the interactions. However these interactions or knowledge, according to Pink (2007), are ‘produced in conversation and negotiation between informants and researcher, rather than existing as an objective reality that may be recorded and taken home’ (pg. 98). So as researcher I needed to be aware that these recordings did not exist as observable facts but may have multiple layers of situated context that need to be considered in analysis. The benefit in the context of this research, as previously discussed, was my positionality as an insider participant observer, so there was, from my perspective as researcher, some shared understandings of their experiences in context.

I have considered the challenge and meaning of informed consent when recording (Rapley, 2007). The participants were given a consent form to read and sign (See Appendix 1, 2 and 3) which details what the research is about and assured them of anonymity and confidentially in relation to the research study. I had the expertise to record and download the classroom sessions, which means that no outsider presence was required to monitor the camera, keeping the environment relatively unchanged for the participants, helping to minimise potential behaviour impacts discussed above (Cotton et al, 2010). I also explained to the participants that the

83 recordings would be viewed by no one except me, and that these recordings would be kept in a safe place and destroyed when the research was completed (Rapley, 2007).

Reliability is an issue in observation, however the recorded visual diary could be interpreted and reinterpreted through multiple viewings and this may increase the reliability of analysis (Marshall and Drummond, 2006). The benefit of being able to review the interactions allowed me ‘to see elusive aspects, especially of social interactions’ (Gillham, 2008; 78).

Combining insider participant observation and videoing gave this research a visual focus. Understanding the issues and benefits associated with this visual focus, discussed above, allowed me to appreciate what modern digital technology has contributed to research, most notably the possibility of multiple viewings. However it also clarified the importance of the visual ethnographic approach that relies on the skills of the researcher - not the technology - to question, probe and interpret in a reflexive way the dynamics, relationships, and cultural contexts of the research site.