Videorecording

Videorecording is a qualitative research method that involves capturing moving images, with or without sound, to study the visual details of interaction and [Page 917]behavior. Video research is becoming more commonplace, in part because of the availability of easy-to-use, relatively inexpensive technologies that can be readily manipulated by researchers or study participants with a minimum of training. It has the advantage of offering a permanent source of complex data that can be reviewed repeatedly. Despite its advantages, video-recording presents some unique practical, analytical, and ethical challenges to qualitative researchers.

There are two distinct approaches to videorecording in qualitative research: researcher-generated and participant-generated recordings. In researcher-generated recording, the researcher chooses the subject and content of the video. Projects that use researcher-generated recordings are often concerned with capturing situated social activity in a natural setting such as a classroom, health care environment, or community space. In participant-generated recording, research participants either directly control the camera or make the primary choices of what is to be filmed. For example, “video diaries” may be used to illuminate participants' identities or lifeworlds. “Photo-voice” is another technique whereby participants created visual images that outline their stories for the purpose of emancipatory public education. Researcher- and participant-generated video records can also be combined in a single study according to what types of data best address the study purposes.

Videorecording has the ability to capture the complexity and minutiae of social interaction and behavior that would not be possible with observation alone. Video records provide a dense source of data that includes the fine details of conduct, talk, interaction, and comportment as well as the features of place, bodily adornment, and material objects. Permanence provides an advantage over observation by allowing repeated cycles of analysis in which the researcher can attend to different information over time. This allows scrutiny of different aspects of the data at different times and in different ways (e.g., freeze frame, slow motion) and permits repeated analysis by multiple reviewers. Furthermore, videorecordings can be reviewed by study participants to elicit their responses, producing an additional source of data to increase the scope of interpretation of the study phenomenon.

Although videorecording offers a source of rich and complex data, it should be borne in mind that the video record is not a “direct” representation of the object of study. The camera converts and flattens images, and choices are made about what lies in and outside the frame. There is no sense of the social context beyond what is recorded. If videorecording is the only method used, there is often no opportunity to question participants or test emerging theories as a participant in the activity. To address these issues, a combination of video and other techniques is often fruitful.

The influence of the camera on the phenomenon being researched is a subject of ongoing debate. On the one hand, it is assumed that the method has little impact on what people do or say; on the other hand, it is asserted that the camera has a distorting effect on the social “reality” under investigation. A third position suggests that both viewpoints are problematic and that any attempt to separate the research process from the data comes at the expense of exploring how the process constitutes the data. Thus, as with other forms of data generated within a research project, how persons present themselves for the camera can be viewed as reality-constructing, meaning-making occasions that provide a resource for analysis.

...