photographs and still imagesVisual media in educational research |
CHAPTER 27 |
We are surrounded by visual data. How researchers can use them is introduced in this chapter, which addresses a core of issues in the planning and conduct of data collection using visual media of different types. The chapter raises a series of issues concerning:
photographs and still images
video and moving images
artefacts
ethical practices in visual research
This chapter should also be read in conjunction with Chapter 32, on the analysis of visual data.
Educational researchers can draw on a host of visual media in their research. These include, but are not limited to: film, video, photographs, television, advertisements, pictures, artefacts, objects of fine art, memorabilia, moving images, still images, media images, maps, drawings and sketches, illustrations, graphical representations, cartoons, everyday objects and deliberately non-commonplace, and so on. In short, anything we see, watch or look at counts as a visual image; we are surrounded by visual images, and these can be used in educational research. They are the commonplace stuff of ethnographic and anthropological educational research (witness, for example, the attention given to artefacts and visual images in studying organizational culture, and the messages about the organization that are conveyed in such images, discussed later in this chapter). Prosser and Loxley (2008) identify four main kinds of visual data: found data; researcher-created data; respondent-created data; and ‘representations’. These will be addressed in this chapter.
Using visual media concerns the production of the image, the image itself, and the audiences of the image. Visual media are not neutral; they give messages, deliberately or not, and we interpret them in many different ways. They have their own forms and effects (e.g. compositions and technical properties) and these have an effect on the viewer. They are constructions of social events and perspectives, of power and power relations, of social relations and social difference. More than that, we look at them in different ways, i.e. we bring our own values, biographies, cultures and background to bear on images (Rose, 2007: 11). Images, then, cannot be viewed outside the social and cultural contexts (Banks, 1995: 2) of the production of the image to the observing and interpretation of the image, or outside the consideration of who are the audiences, intended or otherwise, of the image. An essential feature of an image is its audience and the way in which the audience views and ‘reads’ the image (Fiske, 1995). As Berger (1972) made clear, we have ‘ways of seeing’.
Further, images are made, kept and displayed in different places, from museums, cinemas and galleries to each person’s home, each of which confers its own required social behaviours and audience reactions (as Bourdieu and Darbel (1991) indicated: middle-class, educated visitors to art galleries stand in quiet contemplation of paintings). Some visual media have texts, others do not. An image is the product of certain technologies (oil paintings, video production, photographic materials, computer software), certain compositional features (e.g. visual form, material form, presentational form, structure, colour (e.g. hue, saturation, lightness/darkness), texture, abstraction, expressive content, spatial arrangement, symbolism, etc.), and certain social contexts (cf. Rose, 2007: 26). Some images balance colour and content harmoniously; others scream at us. Some are close up, some are distant or wide-angle. Some shots are deliberately taken from an elevated position, a low position, a side position, a frontal position and are posed; others are snapshots taken as the opportunity arises. Some are in focus; others are not. Some are geometrically structured (e.g. with perspective); others are free of geometric form. Some images are meticulously planned; others are fleeting snapshots taken on the spur of the moment. Some are part of a series or a collection; some stand alone. Some are part of a recognizable genre; others are not. Some are made by amateurs; others by professionals. Some are deliberately designed to give messages; others are not. Some are reflections of culture and society; others are in the vanguard of social and cultural change. Some are part of normal living (e.g. food); others are deliberate constructions that are out of the ordinary (the oil painting). Some are faded and fuzzy (the ‘materiality’ of the image (Rose, 2007: 234)); others are crisp and sharp. As Rose (2007: 26) remarks, visual images are never innocent; they are wrapped up in many layers of meaning and interpretation. They are not only ‘reproductions of reality’ (Flick, 2009: 240) but, rather, as ‘presentations of reality’, themselves, are then interpreted by viewers. All of this renders images difficult to interpret, and, indeed, exposes them to multiple interpretations.
Nowadays huge proportions of the population can take still and moving images, not only with conventional and video cameras but with both of these on a single cell phone. Cameras can present an immediate, comprehensive and holistic image of situations, objects, people, events, lifestyles, contexts, conditions and so on, that happen very quickly or suddenly (maybe too quickly or with too many details or with too great a level of complexity for conventional observational recording to be able to catch). Such images are easy to transport, and enable the researcher to review them repeatedly (particularly useful for fleeting, short-lived and ephemeral moments) and, indeed, to have their reviews checked by a third party. Further, such images can be taken non-intrusively, reducing observer effects and reactivity (cf. Denzin, 1989: 203; Flick, 2009: 241).
It may be the researcher who takes the image, or, indeed, the researched, e.g. the researcher asks participants to take images, maybe even providing them with the camera so that they can decide what they consider to be important to be kept as a still or moving image (Flick, 2009: 242). Indeed research that uses images may be both collaborative and participatory in involving participants as partners in the creation, production and discussion of images, both still and moving, though, of course, setting up a concealed camera is far from collaborative (Banks, 1995: 3). Further, as online communication increases, so the ability to share images has become part of everyday life for many people. Indeed Banks (1995: 1) argues that the dichotomy between the researcher and participants, the observed and the observer, has started to collapse.
It may be that the researcher provides the already-taken images (and, for example, uses them as a starting point for discussion), or asks the participants to bring images that they possess and which they have or have not taken themselves (e.g. family photographs), and which can be used, for example, in interviews, as starting points for interviews or as main elements of interviews (the ‘photo-elicitation interview’ (Harper, 2000: 725)). Here consideration has to be given to the taking of the image and the derivation of data from the image (cf. Denzin, 1989: 210).
In considering visual images, Denzin (1989: 213–14) indicates that whilst cameras report what they see and what really happens (rather than the selective observation of the human observer), nevertheless images are selective, in that the image maker has already decided what to include or not to include (Becker, 1986: 241–2), what to focus on and what not to focus on, where to point the camera and where not to point the camera. Images also create their own representational and symbolic forms and they are time-bound – they catch a particular moment (or several). Given this, it is perhaps wiser to regard visual images as telling a story – a discourse – rather than being a singular objective reality. Indeed it is commonplace to have written text – a commentary or analysis – accompanying the image, and this text, too, tells a selective story or has a selective focus.
Visual data catch and store a wealth of data in a single image or video sequence and, like other forms of observational data, they are selective in their focus and contents (e.g. deriving from the researcher’s agenda, interests, research questions, etc.). This presents issues of data overload, selectivity and manageability. Whilst this may present problems in the stage of data analysis, it is not unusual for visual data to be part of a range of different types of data (e.g. written, aural, oral, observational) in a research project. Rather than standing on their own, visual data are one element in triangulated data and, as will be seen in Chapter 32, can be subjected to analytical techniques used with other kinds of data, as well as having their own methods of analysis.
In contemplating images the researcher has to consider the extent to which they are natural, contrived/arranged/posed or staged. In this respect there is an argument, perhaps, for covert research and/or a fixed camera as it leaves the natural situation undisturbed.
Photographs have a central place in educational research. They can be taken by the researcher or the researched, or they can be acquired or viewed by the researcher (e.g. historical photographs). They carry meanings that words alone, be they spoken or written, cannot. They convey real life, flesh and blood (witness Sutcliffe’s nineteenth-century photographs of the fishing port of Whitby in the UK and everyday lives that he photographed, or the photographic work of Forsyth in the poor districts of twentieth-century Newcastle upon Tyne in the UK). Photographs evoke meanings and reflections as well as information and factual data. They catch the texture, the mood, the atmosphere, the ‘feel’ of real life and different places, emotions and flesh-and-blood drama. They are both emic and etic. They carry documentary and interpretive meaning, either posed or natural. They can support and supplement other sources of data and text, or they can stand alone. They are less time-consuming to study than film footage or video materials. Indeed they are highly time-efficient and researcher-efficient, as they can convey far more in a single image than many pages of text (‘a picture paints a thousand words’).
In using photographs, researchers can take photographs and ask the participants to comment on them, or, indeed, the researcher can ask participants either to take their own photographs (and the researcher might supply the camera) or to bring along to an interview (e.g. individual or group) one or more photographs that have meaning to them, to discuss them, or to provide a commentary on them. Such interviews or textual material can then be subject to the normal methods of data analysis introduced in this book, e.g. analysis of transcripts, field notes, software packages for textual analysis (e.g. ATLAS.ti, see Chapter 30), or coding, content analysis, grounded theory approaches, constant comparison of images and codes, looking for patterns and genre, and moving towards generalization where appropriate.
In the photo-elicitation technique, the photograph, or set of photographs, or sequence of photographs, is used to invoke, prompt and promote discussion, reflections, comments, observations and memories (Banks, 2007: 65). The interview or meeting between the researcher and participant(s) can start with photographs, what they show, who took them, when, where, what is the story behind them, and so on. Indeed using photographs in an interview can overcome any awkward silences or any need to maintain direct eye contact in an interview (Banks, 2007: 66), as this can be a little intimidating for some participants (e.g. children), not least because of the potential power and status differentials between the researcher and participants. Further, having a focus on a photograph or different photographs can offset any feelings that the interview is some kind of ‘test’ or ‘grilling’ for the participants (p. 65), particularly if the photograph comes from, or has been taken by, the participant(s). Having a common/shared focus in the photograph introduces a ‘neutral’ third party (the photograph) into the interview (p. 66).
Whilst the researcher can strive to have high quality photographs and reproduction, this is not always possible: old photographs fade over time; they can become damaged and fuzzy. On the one hand this may impede the interpretation of the photograph; on the other it may give added authenticity or poignancy to the photograph.
In deciding which images to use, the researcher can ask the participants to select images from their own or researcher-provided images, or the images may be selected on the basis of sampling techniques, e.g. random stratified sampling of images, representative sampling, convenience sampling, probability and non-probability sampling from a given population and so on. Strict sampling may not be possible if the still images are in very short supply (e.g. only one or two images are available). Nonetheless, as with other forms of data and participants, the selection of which images to use is subject to specification of criteria; the selection may be made on objective grounds (e.g. researcher-specified criteria or those which derive from the research questions), or subjectively from the participants themselves (e.g. their preferences or selections). The researcher should specify and justify the selection made.
Taking and viewing moving images (e.g. through film and nowadays, pre-eminently through video), are part of the everyday lives of everyday people, be they members of a family, the public, researchers, security and surveillance services or others. Video material catches the non-verbal data that audio recordings cannot, which may be particularly useful, for example in detailed case study data collection (e.g. of children at work, at play, interacting with each other and with adults, for example using a fixed camera). Video material is live, and is a superb medium for recording evolving situations and interactions, details that the observer may miss, and non-verbal matters (e.g. facial expressions, aggressive behaviour) (e.g. Greig and Taylor, 1999: 66–7). It allows for repeated viewing and checking, though this exacts its price in terms of the time required to watch and re-watch the video.
Flick (2009: 249) reports the use of video materials for catching: (a) natural social situations; (b) contrived situations, e.g. experimental conditions and situations, events and activities as recorded by the participants themselves and/or the researcher; (c) posed situations (such as video diaries); (d) special events; or (e) commissioned materials (for instance a DVD of a celebration of commemorative activity). As with photographs, the researcher has to be aware of the selective bias inherent in moving images, i.e. the images recorded are a function of the focus and location of the camera, as well as the editing of the material. Hence the researcher must consider not only the images themselves and where, how, why, for whom, how and under what conditions they were produced, but also the interpretations that he or she (or indeed others) make or may make of the moving images, and how these interpretations are influenced by the interpreters’ own backgrounds, values and purposes, i.e. the issue of reflexivity.
Moving images are powerful in a range of methodologies of educational research, from experimental research to ethnography. They can catch both the everyday routines and practices of participants and also special events. They exact their price: on the one hand they are rich in detail, and on the other hand this raises problems of how to analyse complex and detailed, often superfluous, multimedia data, in ways that do justice to the different media (sound and vision) both separately and together. On the one hand the data are rich but, on the other, they are also selective, depending on the focus and angle of the camera, whether it is a fixed camera (the ‘eye in the classroom’: see Chapter 23) or a moving camera that is moved round the location and focused by a moving operator, a wide-angle lens or a lens with close-up focus, and, indeed, when and for how long the camera is taking the moving images. On the one hand they are rich in detail and on the other hand this presents issues of how to conduct and write up an analysis of the data. Flick (2009: 250) also draws attention to the important legal and ethical matters of permission, data protection, privacy, covert research (on the public and on identified persons) and permission to film (see the discussion below on the ethics of taking and using visual data).
A fixed camera in a classroom is not neutral; it has its field and focus predetermined. A wide-angle lens might catch gross behaviours but miss important detail – an eye movement, a facial expression, a small hand movement, a finger gesture. A fixed camera may be less intrusive, as it does not need the presence of an operator and, indeed, may be located in a ceiling-level corner of the classroom. However, people move in and out of the field and focus of a fixed camera. Sometimes the video camera might be supplemented by a microphone situated on the table(s) at which children/participants are seated.
Whereas having a moving camera that is operated by a person in situ, whilst it may catch close-up detail, is highly intrusive and artificial. In taking moving images, consideration will need to be given to the location, height, visibility and intrusiveness of the camera, the field of focus, the lighting in the area to be filmed and so on. Given their selectivity, researchers often use them in conjunction with other kinds of data, as part of triangulation. Indeed Flick (2009: 252) advocates the use of video material as part of a wider database and methods rather than being stand-alone. Here data from moving images can be used retrospectively, as points of discussion (e.g. in subsequent interviews), to ask for video participants to reflect on the material, to corroborate data from other sources, and to exemplify and illustrate themes, issues and events.
Useful sources for using moving and still images in research can be found in: Heath and Hindmarsh (2002); Flick et al. (2004); Knoblauch et al. (2006); Banks (2007); Pink (2007); Rose (2007); Konecki (2009), and on www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/visualising_ethnography/. For guidelines on conducting video research more specifically in education we refer readers to:
http://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf
http://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research.html
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nmm09video.pdf
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/481/1/0606_researching_visual_images.pdf
As with still images, in deciding which images to use, the criteria for selection (i.e. sampling criteria) should demonstrate fitness for purpose, fairness and defensibility. Moving images may focus on, for example, critical incidents, turning points, key events, representative behaviours, extreme examples and so on. The criteria for the choice of video clips must be justified. As with still images, the moving image clips may be selected by the researcher or the participants, and, as with still images, strict sampling may not be possible if the moving images are in very short supply (e.g. only one or two image clips are available). The researcher should specify and justify the selection made.
As with other visual data, objects/artefacts can convey messages, even if those messages may be unclear. Artefacts include, for example, objects in interior design and equipment (Higgins and McAllaster, 2004), desks, tables, chairs, textbooks, exercise books, equipment, ornaments, display materials, clothing, pictures, maps, notice boards, lesson plans, smart boards, athletics equipment, science materials, etc. They include children’s toys, reading materials, DVDs, clothes, etc., and, indeed, these give indications of gender stereotyping in young children and how such stereotyping occurs and how boys and girls are inducted into differently gendered worlds (e.g. Francis, 2010).
They have been shown to be useful in educational research (e.g. Boston, 2008; Francis, 2010), and, indeed, have been widely used in ethnographic, anthropological and historical research.
Artefacts have been widely used in studies of organizational culture (e.g. Schein, 1992). For example, dress codes, architecture, status symbols, signs, furniture, office areas, space, technology, mission statements and physical premises (Buch and Wetzel, 2001). Indeed Schein (1992) considers artefacts to be one of the three main levels and manifestations of organizational culture. Artefacts are the observable level of organizational culture (the other two levels being values and deep-seated norms); they are the outward manifestations of culture, for example executive rooms, dress codes, level of technology utilized (and where it is utilized), the physical layout of work spaces, the objects provided or observed in the workplace. All may be visible indicators of culture, but they are difficult to interpret; artefacts may suggest what a group is doing, but not why.
For example, consider a dull, dark, sparsely fitted classroom with no real amenities or decoration, with a few dried pot plants in a corner, and no surplus ornaments or displays. Contrast this with the brightly lit, interesting, multi-equipped classroom with notices, displays, samples of students’ work and the latest interactive whiteboard in use. The objects can make a point here very tellingly, but what is that point? Is it that:
some classrooms are dull, dispiriting places whilst others are energizing and interesting;
some schools don’t care about the teaching room whilst others take pains to present a stimulating environment;
some schools are financially poor whilst others are rich;
some classrooms exude a focus on learning from the teacher whilst others emphasize learning from the environment;
some classrooms do not care about students’ emotions whilst others are concerned to make the environment a happy place;
some classrooms are very old and off-putting whilst others are new and engaging?
Inferring a total picture from the artefacts alone may be dangerous as they may signify very different or discrepant realities; hence it may be wise for the researcher to use artefacts alongside other sources of data.
Or take the example of the school in which the principal’s office is private, separated from the main part of the school, large, beautifully carpeted, airy and spacious, with trophies, pictures, gifts, a huge working desk and an ergonomically designed chair, maybe a glass cabinet or two, works of art, a photograph of the family and of a meeting with an important dignitary, an up-to-date computer and colour printer, and a personal bathroom. Contrast this with the working space of the staff, who each have a small cubicle as part of a large room which has been sectioned off into workspaces for a dozen or more staff, with eye-level partitions, like a typing pool, a small chair and desk, no room to put anything personal, with workstations squashed into an egg-crate arrangement and with no personal space, no superfluous ornaments, not a picture in sight, bare walls except for notices, shared equipment and piles of books in each cubicle waiting to be marked. The messages – the not-so-hidden curriculum – of power, status, care and respect for people and humanity are very clear.
Or take the example of a staff room in the school, which may be untidy, with piles of books strewn around in different places, unwashed cups all over the room, notices peeling off the notice boards, cushions crumpled up on chairs, boxes of sports equipment lying in the corners, box files piled up alongside tables, comfortable chairs in very short supply and pieces of computer equipment cluttering up several tables. What can the researcher infer from this scene: that staff are extremely casual and careless or that they are extremely busy? Very different interpretations can be made of the same scene and artefacts.
As with other visual materials, artefacts can give researchers messages. The irony is that artefacts, like other visual objects, are easy to observe but difficult to interpret, and there are multiple interpretations (e.g. the pyramids of Egypt are easy to observe but it is difficult to understand what they mean). In other cases artefacts may be easier to interpret, e.g. the images presented in children’s books may indicate sex role or ethnic stereotyping, or may portray positive images of some groups and negative images of others.
Artefacts can be seen, heard, smelt, touched, felt, even tasted and heard, so the researcher can brings to bear a multi-sensory analysis. They can be used by the researcher to stimulate discussion (see the comments above about the use of photographs), to glimpse into the past or, indeed, the present, to reconstruct or help to imagine a scene, to remind people and bring back memories. They can be observed in situ (and the location and placing of the object in a spatial context itself will carry meaning, e.g. in a home, a museum, at the back of a room, in a dark corner, in a prominent position, etc.). As with still and moving images, the artefact may be provided by the researcher or by the participants.
The researcher can examine artefacts on their own or in combination. For instance, in the example of the messages about the organizational culture of the principal’s and staff’s office areas, a single object may not say very much, but taken together the objects can make a persuasive case. Objects may also be grouped into categories, for example, ornaments, books, furniture, space; each category can be examined on its own and/or in combination (akin to the different kinds of coding exercise in grounded theory, where individual codes are combined into categories).
In looking at artefacts, the researcher can consider what was the purpose of the production and location of the artefact, what it was used for and by whom, who produced it, when was it made, what materials have been used in its making, what was its actual and/or symbolic purpose or function, how has it been preserved and in what condition, and what value it has to the provider or user. This has particular significance in historical, anthropological, ethnographic and archaeological research in educational and social science.
In some kinds of research (e.g. on child abuse) artefacts (e.g. dolls with lifelike features or sexual organs) can be used to encourage children to speak out about their experiences, displacing the highly sensitive personal threat or embarrassment onto the doll in question. Indeed Greig and Taylor (1999: 64) advocate the use of familiar artefacts with children – dolls, puppets, drawings, pictures – as this not only sets them at their ease but helps them to make concrete their ideas. This technique is particularly useful with young children, where dolls or puppets can have a series of facial expressions (happy, sad, angry, afraid) and where non-verbal postures can be manipulated on puppets (e.g. dolls, manikins, glove puppets) to enable the researcher to investigate emotions in young children (Greig and Taylor, 1999: 120–2). Greig and Taylor indicate how puppets can be used to research situations of conflict in young children. For example the researcher can ask what puppets A and B want, how they feel, why they are fighting, who is winning, whether the fight is justified, what each puppet should do, what the child would do in a similar situation, why puppet A or B was wrong, how the situation could end, and how the situation could be resolved (p. 122).
How researchers use artefacts depends on their research questions. Similarly, just as one uses sampling procedures to decide, for example, which people to approach to be involved in the research, so one has to consider the criteria to be used for deciding the sampling and selection of artefacts (cf. Lodico et al., 2010: 164). As with still and moving images, in deciding which artefacts to use, the criteria for selection (i.e. sampling criteria) should demonstrate fitness for purpose, fairness and defensibility. This operates in two ways: researcher-or participant-provided artefacts, or researcher observation of existing artefacts (e.g. the objects in a classroom, staff room, principal’s office and so on). The researcher should specify and justify the selection made for the artefacts included, and, to be faithful to the multiple interpretation that can be made of artefacts, the researcher should consider – and provide – alternative interpretations of the artefacts where appropriate.
Taking visual images is subject to the same ethical concerns and requirements as other forms of educational research, and we refer readers to Chapter 5 in connection with this. In particular, the issue of informed consent may prove difficult in the case of historical images, images of the general public or deliberately covert research. It is important to consider the indiscriminate taking of photographic or visual images of children without their consent and that of their teacher, the school, parents, helpers, guardians and staff. Permission concerns not only the site of the image itself (e.g. the taking of the photograph, filming in public places), but permission for reproduction (e.g. from individuals, from institutions), indicating the uses to which the image will be put, and, indeed, for altering the image in some way. In the case of public places (and Prosser et al. (2008: 6) argue that what constitutes a public place is unclear), permission may need to be sought from the official bodies or parties responsible for that public place as well as individuals (e.g. the informed consent of people in the street or in a building). Not only are there issues of legally and illegally taking images (e.g. of military establishments) or storing images, there is the issue of preferred and non-preferred sites for taking pictures (Prosser et al., 2008: 6), such as police stations, hospitals, schools, leisure facilities, surgeries, even rail stations, airports and libraries.
Further, the issues of identification, anonymization and obscuring of individuals and places relate not only to the ethical sphere but to matters of legal regulation on data protection. (On the other hand some participants may deliberately wish to be identified (Prosser et al., 2008: 11)).
Prosser et al. (2008) contend that ‘visual methods, and the data they produce, challenge some of the ethical practices associated with word and number based research, in particular around informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, and dissemination strategies’ (p. 2), and they note that ethics in visual research are less well developed than in numerical and text-based research. They give an example of ‘informed consent’ (pp. 12–14), a cornerstone of much educational research, indicating seven challenges that visual researchers face in gaining informed consent:
it may not always be appropriate to gain informed consent (e.g. in covert research or surveillance work);
what ‘informed’ and ‘consent’ mean may be different in different cultures or with different groups (e.g. children);
it is not always clear who is actually in a position to give the consent sought (e.g. in the case of children or teachers);
it may not be practically possible to gain the consent of those who feature in visual images (e.g. in public places), for instance in the case of photo-journalism;
it may be difficult to gain the consent of those featured in a visual image if the provider of the image (e.g. a participant) has not gained that consent;
it is important to ensure that participants know to what they are giving their consent, e.g. to the taking of the image, to the reproduction of that image (and where);
it is not always clear what to do with ‘found images’, where the provenance of the image is unknown, or with images which were not originally produced for the purposes used in the research (see the analysis of the photograph in Chapter 32).
Prosser et al. (2008: 15) indicate that anonymity and confidentiality may be highly problematic in visual images, as the whole purpose of the image lies in the person, place or institution in question, without disguise. The authors discuss ways of anonymizing images (e.g. blurring of identifying features, using pseudonyms, taking the image showing only the back of the person, or with shaded, back-lit lighting), and Clark (2006) provides detailed guidance on anonymization.
Whilst Clark (2006) and Prosser et al. (2008) regard collaborative research (between researcher and participants) as one way of addressing complex ethical issues, this does not cover all situations, and researchers need to consider the ethical principles set out in Chapter 5.
A statement on ethical practice in visual research can be found from the British Sociological Association (2006) on: www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php. This includes statements on: professional integrity; legal considerations (including data protection, copyright and libel laws); ownership of images; images of illegal activities; morally questionable practices; beneficence and non-maleficence; non-breaching of trust; informed consent; relations with and responsibilities towards research participants; sensitivity to local cultures; procedures for sharing images; covert research; researching vulnerable groups; anonymity, privacy and confidentiality; dangers of intrusion into private worlds and lives; working with children and images of children; internet-based research; relations with and responsibilities towards sponsors and/or funders; and clarification of rights to publish.
The UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (2008) has produced a comprehensive analysis of ethical issues in visual research, available on: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-011.pdf. This includes material on frameworks, professional guidance, regulation and legal rights and duties for visual researchers. It covers: ethics; issues of consent; researcher-generated and respondent-generated images; anonymizing and obscuring visual data; photoelicitation and informed consent; anonymity and confidentiality; photographs and films that identify individuals; images of place and how to anonymize these; the construction and consumption of images; and guidelines for practice. We strongly advise researchers to consider carefully the contents of these ethical guidelines, as they indicate the very careful boundaries within which researchers with visual data must work. We also refer readers to ethical issues concerning visual research, discussed in:
http://in-visio.org/events/seeingisbelieving/the-ethics-of-visual-research-methods/
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/480/1/0706_anonymising_ research_data.pdf
We also refer readers to Clark (2006), Wiles et al. (2008), Prosser et al. (2008) and Skåreus (2009).
Companion Website The companion website to the book includes PowerPoint slides for this chapter, which list the structure of the chapter and then provide a summary of the key points in each of its sections. This resource can be found online at www.routledge.com/textbooks/cohen7e.