The use of video

Video might seem to get round the issue of the process of selection which is self-evident in still photographs. Certainly continuous filming of a sequence of events does demon­strate the chronological relationship as well as providing more options for the abstraction of specific elements. But what is put in front of the camera is still a matter for choice; and editing down carries that process further – hence the common complaint of politicians that they have been quo­ted or shown ‘out of context’, perhaps with some justice. But there it is a matter of journalistic priorities where the imperative is to ‘get a story’ which grabs attention rather than the plainer and more balanced priority of a researcher to present a valid and representative account.

The almost continuous character of video recording does leave many interpretive options open. Of these perhaps the repeated re-running of sequences is the most important, making it possible to see elusive aspects, especially of social interactions, which one might miss on a single take. In the days when video was an exciting new toy for researchers, expensive and cumbersome as it was, I was working in a university department of psychology where there was much interest in the early stages of interactive communication between mothers and their babies. So fleeting were some aspects of this interaction, that it was only apparent from the repeated viewing and analysis of the same video sequences.

In ethnography something similar is possible, not least the more detailed reading of narrative sequences from the same stretch of recording. I am particularly aware of the value this would have in the street beggar study, especially in the area of ‘donor’ behaviour.

Source: Gillham Bill (2008), Observation Techniques: Structured to Unstructured, Continuum; Illustrated edition.