Photographic Fieldnotes

A way to perceive a field

&

a contribution to thick description ?Kim Rasmussen – Roskilde University

Can photograpic fieldnotes contribute to thick description of a field?

• What is a photograpic fieldnote?

• What is the difference between a written fieldnote and a photograpic fieldnote?

• Methodologies in a project about childrens everydaylife

• Examples of photograpic fieldnotes from the project • Do photographic fieldnotes contribute to ”thick description”?

First: 4 Examples of photograpic fieldnotes They are from a study of the everydaylife of 4 children (mental retarded):

In the form presented here ,they are rather a ”thin description” than a ”thick description”

Some theoretical reflection about fieldnoteswhat is the difference between written and photographic fieldnotes?

• WRITTEN FIELDNOTES:

• They are keywords / koded signs

• They are perceptions transformed to written keywords

• They are not identical with the field – but word-symbols which represent a

sense of the living world

• They represent an angel embedded into my first interpretation,

a frame, a focus – but in an abstract not-visual form

• They represent a condensed meaning

• PHOTOGRAPIC FIELDNOTES:

• They are visual koded signs / and sometimes ”decisive moments” (Cartier-Bresson)

• They are perceptions - ”shot” and transformed to visual representations

• They are not identical with the field – but a mimetic transformation from the material world

• They represent a visual angel, a frame, a focus – in a form which

look alike the material world

• They represent a construction of light/shadow and encoding meaning

More reflection about fieldnotes

• The proces before and behind fieldnotes is mysterius!

• What is involved in the proces when you are transforming a living field to fieldnotes?

• - the whole body is involved• - our body is directed against something• - our senses and emotions are involved• - an expression has done an impression • - we are encoding a sign (word, photo…) which later is decoded • - words, sentences, photos… capture and depict informations and inscriptions of social life and social discourse

• What is the benefit of fieldnotes?

• - a help to our memory• - a help to elicitate narratives• - a help to keep details as well as context in mind• - can later be a help to communicate to a public• - photos can contribute to our descriptions

A few words about the methodologies behind the project about childrens everydaylife

LATEST PROJECT: Everydaylife of children from a minority (Down Syndrom)EMPIRICAL METHODS:

Following and observing each of 4 children during a week - from early morning to night - from home to preschool /school /other social arenas and back Written and photograpic fieldnotesTHE AIM: To get close to the childrens everydaylife To make thick description close to childrens actions and everydaylife To describe the children as social actor – not as ”victims”

• Ideas and inspirations from:• Former projects: Inviting children to participate, Giving cameras

to children and encouraged them to make photos of what is importent to them, afterwards making photoelicitated interviews

• Ontology: New sociology of childhood

• Chldren as social actors • Empirical studies:

Children as informants and ”experts” about their own life• Earlier studies and projects: Invitation to create photographic pictures – photo-elicitatet

interviews

Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from a kindergarten for children with special needs - interaction and playing in the couch

Photograpich fieldnotes and descriptions from school & club - watching the others from the distance

Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from the bus: a space for symbolic creativity cultural reproduction (music)

& meditative action (inner life)

Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from school and leisuretime activities

- different pracsis at different social arenas

Do photographic fieldnotescontribute to ”thick description”?

• ”Thick description” - has to do with interpretating culture (Clifford Gertz)

- aim: to produce a rich and detailed description (Denzin)

- cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete

- paradox: the more deeply it goes the less complete it is (even when photograpic fieldnotes are integreted)

- it´s a way to work and you need to learn it (Ehn & Löfgren)

- 1.question: Is it possible to integrate written text and visual ”text”?

- 2.question: Does a written description become

”thicker” if a photo is integrated?

• Do Photograpic fieldnotes make a description thicker?

- ”yes” - and - ”no”

- yes – because a photo can show a lot concrete details, which would be difficult or impossible to write about

- yes – if a photo is well integrated in the written text – and not loose connected (illustrasion)

- no – because it is not every photo that possess qualities and informations enough

Conclusion: It is the complementarity and the intertekstual play between photo and text/words that matters