Examining the Role of Collaborative Documentary in

g.
Critical Ethnography.

tin
ee
lM
ua
Authors

nn
tA
Natasha Slutskaya, Brunel U., Natasha.Slutskaya@brunel.ac.uk

en
Annilee Game, U. of East Anglia, a.game@uea.ac.uk

em
ag
an
fM
yo
em
ad
Ac
15
20
he
rt
fo
ted
ep
cc
a
84
47
#1
ion
iss
bm
Su
 14784

Examining the Use of Collaborative Documentary

in Critical Ethnography: Potentialities and Challenges

ABSTRACT

Despite growing interest in ethnographic studies in organizational research, the use of video-

based methods in ethnographic studies, more particularly collaborative ethnographic

documentaries is still rare. Organizational research could benefit from the inclusion of

collaborative ethnographic documentaries a) to enable the participation of ‘difficult to

research’ groups and those who traditionally may be reluctant to take part in research b) to

assist in dissemination of findings to wider audiences and c) to empower participants by

initiating engagement of multiple sides and voices. To increase understanding of this under-

explored method, the authors first review the available literature, and consider strengths,

limitations and ethical concerns in comparison with other video-based research methods.

Using data collected during recent research on working class men doing ‘dirty work’, the

authors then illustrate the use of collaborative ethnographic documentary as a means of

capturing concealed, embodied and elusive dimensions of ‘dirty work’; elaborating and

particularizing participants’ narrative accounts; and offering voice to participants. It is

concluded that collaborative ethnographic documentaries facilitate greater trust and

communication between researchers and participants, triggering a richer exploration of

participants’ experiences, and in turn helping to foreground participants’ accounts and capture

hitherto ‘hidden’ aspects of their jobs.

KEYWORDS: ethnographic documentary, critical ethnography, participatory research

1
 14784

Ethnography is traditionally described as both a fieldwork method and an approach to

representation of data (Cambell & Lassiter, 2015). It aims at understanding human experience

(Cunliffe, 2009) and involves the observation of, and participation in, the activities of

particular groups in order to gain new insights into groups’ embodied and discursive

practices, rituals, routines, interactions, verbal expressions, non-verbal behaviours and

artefacts (Neyland, 2008). As Van Maanen argues, the purpose of organizational ethnography

is to explore and expose the ways in which people in particular organizational settings come

to understand, account for, take action, and otherwise manage their daily interactions (Van

Maanen, 1988).

While organizational ethnography dates back to the early 20th century (Cunliffe,

2009), interest has been steadily growing (see the work of Barley, 1986; Kunda, 1992; Orr,

1996; Watson, 2001). In a comprehensive account of organizational ethnographies, Cunliffe

(2009) presents four key aspects of ethnographic research: its tendency to study people in

their naturally occurring settings, its emphasis on sociality and shared meaning making, its

propensity to pay attention to detail and register micro- level interactions, and its focus on

reflexivity. A number of scholars highlighted the capacity of the approach to offer a ‘rich and

thick’ description as a result of combining of different methods including participant

observation, field notes, interviews, visual recordings of embodied interactions, shadowing

(Cunliffe, 2009; Czarniawska, 2007).

The relevance of ethnographic research has been recognised in different areas of

organizational research, for example, organizational behaviour (Bergman, 2003), strategy

(Whittington, 2004) and accounting research (Dey, 2002). Ethnographic projects have

engaged with the issues related to organizational culture, strategic practice and change

(Neyland, 2008). The development of ethnographic studies has been driven by the aspiration

2
 14784

to collect as much varied data as possible in order to register and document respondents’

spoken and unspoken interactions and practices – interactions and practices that are not

always revealed in respondents’ narratives or interview responses. For example, Weeks

(2004) offers a unique example of an ethnographic study by providing a detailed analysis of

organizational complaining – a feature of organizational life that is often present in

organizational settings, however, unspoken of by organizational members and as a result

often neglected by researchers.

Less attention in organizational research has been paid to critical ethnography. Dey

(2002) invites researchers to consider transforming ethnography from a more passive,

reflective research instrument into a more active methodology, in which the ethnographic

experience is not just used to inform a new level of understanding but also exploited to

inform and mobilize new practices and policies. According to Dey (2002), critical

ethnography has the potential to develop more empirically grounded critical insights and

unveil the deficiencies and limitations of existing organizational practices. Researchers’

interest in critical ethnography can be also triggered, according to Madison (2012), by

encounters with the lack of recognition afforded to some groups’ effort, unfavourable

working conditions or unfair negative evaluations attached to members of a particular group.

Critical ethnography can then be used to attend to cases of unfairness or injustice within a

particular lived domain (Madison, 2012) and can function as an open platform where

different voices and stakeholders are represented equally. Critical ethnography might become

increasingly important as a result of a call for a new form of governance that looks beneath

surface appearances, disrupts the status quo, and unsettles both neutrality and taken for

granted assumptions, in order to move from ‘what it is’ to ‘what could be’ (Madison, 2012).

The use of critical ethnography, however, has raised a number of concerns (Dey, 2002).

The existing literature has listed a range of challenges and pressures related to doing critical

3
 14784

ethnography research (Madison, 2012, Noblit et al, 2004). The central tension of this

approach as Madison (2012) puts it is ‘positionality’ of both researchers and participants.

Madison (2012) stresses that ‘positionality’ is different from subjectivity in the sense that it

calls attention to how our positions fashion and are fashioned by an encounter with and

among others – an encounter in which there is ‘a meeting of multiple sides’ that produces

new viable meanings, inspires new approaches to problem solving and generates new

solutions (Madison, 2012). For critical ethnography to be valuable, multiple voices should

carry forward diverse meanings and experiences that might be in opposition to existing

discourses and practices. In this paper we therefore seek to explore how video-based

methods and, in particular collaborative ethnographic documentary can be applied as a way

of offering voice to multiple subjects, especially to subjects that might lack ‘status-generated’

access to discursive resources. The vulnerability of a low status position, may silence

participants or intensify their struggles for legitimate discursive resources in order to resist

potential devaluation or dismissal. This in turn, may lead to an unwillingness to enter a

productive dialogue and to express personal concerns. There is also very limited literature in

the field of organization studies exploring the potential use of documentaries as a way of

establishing a more democratic, collaborative and mutually beneficial research relationship,

as well as enhancing the social impact of research projects.

The aim of this article is therefore to explore how the use of collaborative ethnographic

documentary can facilitate the production of data in the context of researched groups whose

members might be less willing to recount their experiences and engage in more critical

reflections of their work experiences. More specifically, we seek to illustrate how the use of

a collaborative ethnographic documentary can help generate richer ethnographic data by

changing the nature of the encounter between the researcher and participants through

participant empowerment.

4
 14784

The first section of this paper reviews existing literature to examine the potentialities and

challenges of video-based research, highlighting the opportunities afforded by collaborative

ethnographic documentaries. Using data collected during a recent research project on

experiences of doing ‘dirty work’, we then illustrate the possible use of collaborative

ethnographic documentary as a means of capturing and foregrounding concealed and under-

explored, physical and material dimensions of ‘dirty work’; elaborating and particularizing

participants’ narrative accounts; and offering voice to participants in order to enable change.

In the concluding section, we discuss the main contributions of collaborative ethnographic

documentary to organizational research as identified through our field work, namely:

revealing the contradictory and inconsistent nature of interview findings, documenting the

material aspect of work experiences, and capturing ‘elusive phenomena’.

The Use of Video in Organizational and Management Research

The development of affordable, portable digital film technology and editing software has led

to increasing use of video-based studies of work practice in sociology, humanities, education,

health studies, consumer research and, to a lesser extent, organization and management

studies (Clarke, 2011; Hindmarsh & Tutt, 2012; Spencer, 2011). Video-based methods

commonly form part of a wider ethnographic research design involving extended immersion

in a social context, observation, interviews and examination of documents (Bryman & Bell,

2011). Such approaches in the field of organization studies entail unpacking ‘the artful

interactional practices that underpin the accomplishment of work’ (Hindmarsh & Tutt, 2012,

p. 59). Typically, research designs have focused on the study of situated work practices using

naturalistic video recordings of organizational environments (Hindmarsh & Heath, 2007), as

in Clarke’s (2011) video ethnography of entrepreneurs’ strategic impression management and

Llewellyn and Bowen’s (2008) research documenting the sales techniques of ‘Big Issue’

5
 14784

street vendors. Video has also been used in research to investigate the production of different

spaces, in particular aesthetic spaces and sensory structures (MacDougall, 2005).

Less attention, particularly in organization and management studies, has been paid to the

potential of ethnographic documentaries – i.e., ethnographic video data that is edited to

produce a short film – both as a research tool and as a way of disseminating findings. While

ethnographic documentary was once the sole preserve of anthropologists (e.g. Mead, 2003),

recent advances in technology and new theoretical developments (e.g. interest in sensory,

affective and embodied aspects of work) have widened the range of themes and contexts

deemed suitable for being documented in films. Scholars from non-management disciplines

have long debated the key requirements for making ethnographic documentary. Heider

(1976) suggests that the most satisfactory ethnographic documentaries are those portraying

whole people in whole acts (Heider, 1976), being filmed in well-established contexts, and

resulting in the production of informative film documents with some fidelity to real-world

events (Loizos, 1993). Advocating the need for realism (or authenticity), ethnographic

documentaries, according to Loizos (1993), should attempt to attend to the totality of human

experiences by showing the social world as it is. The source of the persuasiveness of

ethnographic documentaries lies in the capacity of the camera and sound recording equipment

to capture a representation of things as they appear to the eye and ear in everyday life

(Nichols, 1991). The sound of the subjects’ voices in ethnographic documentaries adds an

extra level of authenticity and realism (Mead, 2003). Below we examine issues relating to

data collection, analysis and ethics in the use of video methods, highlighting in particular the

implications for ethnographic documentaries in organizational and management research.

Modes of Video-Data Collection

6
 14784

Debates related to video-data collection focus on two main areas: the technical and creative

aspects of video use, and the role and positioning of videos within research (Haw & Hadfield,

2011). In this section we focus on the latter. Different approaches to data collection reflect

the role of the researcher and the nature of their relationship to participants (Heath,

Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010), as well as the significance of the data to the analysis. Hence,

video data can be collected in many different ways, distinguished by the degree to which the

material is selected and filmed by researchers, participants, professional film-makers, some

combination of these, or indeed none them. For example, video-data can be generated using

CCTV (closed circuit television) without the researcher’s involvement – an approach

particularly useful when the presence of the researcher is socially or physically impossible

(Martens, 2012). CCTV can operate 24hours a day allowing continuous observation.

However, given the association of CCTV technology with surveillance it raises significant

ethical questions related to unequal power relations and intrusion of privacy. Researchers can

also study archival / extant video data, including a plethora of ‘fly on the wall’ TV

documentaries set in a wide range of organizational contexts. This might be helpful in

understanding historical processes and changes over time but is limited by the potential lack

of information about how and why the original film-maker selected and framed the images

(Bell & Davison, 2013). Image making is never a neutral process (Pink, 2001). In the

remainder of this section, and summarised in Table 1, we outline three key approaches to

developing new video images with the involvement of researchers and/or participants and

film-makers (researcher-led video ethnography, participatory video ethnography and

collaborative ethnographic documentary).

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

In researcher-led video ethnography, data is generated by researchers observing

7
 14784

participants in their social context, guided by initial research questions and objectives.

Researchers carefully pre-select organizational settings to generate the data they are seeking

to capture (see Clarke, 2011). While this approach potentially offers data that is a rich,

authentic representation of the social, cultural and embodied context of work practice and

experience (Spencer, 2011), of particular concern is the extent to which the presence of a

researcher might affect interactions and behavior (i.e. participant ‘reactivity’), and how

researchers’ pre-existing understandings might influence the framing and selection of visual

data (Banks, 2012). To circumvent these difficulties participatory video ethnographic designs

can be adopted. Here researchers explicitly involve participants in the research process,

inviting them to generate video data by filming events or organizational phenomena they

witness that are salient to them (see Kindon, 2003). This ‘participant-led’ approach has great

potential to represent participants’ stories in a way that more closely reflects their lived

experience (Spencer, 2011). It is an effective way of accessing and articulating the views of

traditionally less advantaged or relatively powerless groups (Parr, 2007). It also reduces the

power imbalance between the researcher and researched, enabling a way of looking ‘which

does not perpetuate hierarchical power relations and create voyeuristic, distanced and

disembodied claims to knowledge’ (Kindon, 2003, p. 142). However, shortcomings of this

approach include participants perhaps lacking necessary technical skills, and being selective

in what they film. It is therefore important that in planning participatory video research, time

and budget are allowed to adequately train and resource participants. It is also important to

develop trusting relationships with participants in order to understand the motivations behind

their choices and framing of video material.

In light of the limitations of the above methods, Banks (2012) asserts that the dominant

trend is towards using the camera to create ethnographic films co-produced with participants.

Researchers and participants may also collaborate with professional film-makers to record

8
 14784

participants in their social context (e.g. Parr, 2007). We label this approach collaborative

ethnographic documentary to denote the role of multiple parties in jointly planning, filming

and editing a condensed representation of particular social and organizational phenomena.

This approach retains the benefits of both researcher-led and participatory methods but also

offers distinct strengths of its own. Foremost among them is that the higher degree of

collaboration required serves to establish much closer relationships between researchers,

film-makers and participants (Kindon, 2003). This enables a more trusting, transparent and

ultimately more ethical process that, in turn, enhances confidence in the authenticity of the

data (Parr, 2007). The collaborative ethnographic documentary is made by editing several

hours of video (with input from participants and technical assistance from the film-maker) to

produce a film with a coherent visual narrative, encapsulating the essence of participants’

lived experiences (Parr, 2007). While the ‘uncut’ video material can be retained for

conventional ethnographic analysis alongside other data sources (Spencer, 2011), the

documentary film has multiple additional uses, including: as an elicitation tool for further

data based on participants’ responses to their film; as a means of assessing ‘trustworthiness’

or validity (Spencer, 2011) of the findings in the eyes of participants; as a stimulus for

change, via dissemination to organizational or institutional leaders (Kindon, 2003; Parr,

2007); and as a means of more easily disseminating the research findings to wider / non-

traditional audiences (Kindon, 2003) to increase the social impact of the research.

However, there are several potential challenges to realizing the advantages of

collaborative ethnographic documentary. In practical terms, the services of professional film-

producer (e.g. a free-lance individual) may be prohibitively expensive. A great deal of time

and interpersonal skill are needed in order to develop trust and a sense of shared ownership

with participants, to negotiate roles, and to co-construct a shared understanding among all

parties of the aims of filming (Parr, 2007). Without careful attention to these issues to arrive

9
 14784

at a ‘transparent and negotiated approach’ (Spencer, 2011, p.59), there is a risk of ‘losing’

meaning or misrepresenting / over-riding participants’ realities through insensitive filming or

editing. Finally, if the documentary is to be a vehicle for transformation, researchers need to

be aware of the need to commit to the ‘long haul’ – planning to maintain relationships with

participants and organizations well beyond the fieldwork / filming stage (Kindon, 2003).

Approaches to Video-Data Analysis

Video data can be used to illustrate, revealing observations largely generated through

fieldwork or, in contrast, it can be treated as the principal form of data on which insights and

findings are based. Video, including films, is known for its ability to capture and depict

‘reality’ in greater detail and to provide an additional and novel form of data that can be

closely and repetitively examined (Haw & Hadfield, 2011; Sandercock & Attili, 2010). The

portrayal of lived experiences – embodied interactions, talk, visible conduct, body language,

use of tools, objects, and artefacts – in real time resists, at least temporarily, reduction of the

data to categories or codes (Heath, Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010) and thus preserves the original

record for repeated scrutiny. Unlike other forms of social scientific data, there are

opportunities for ‘time out’ - to play back, to re-frame, to re-focus and re-evaluate. Video

methods allow for multiple takes on the data – to explore different issues on different

occasions, or to consider the same issue from multiple standpoints (Heath, Hindmarsh &

Luff, 2010). As a project evolves, different aspects of a study can draw researchers’ attention.

Video data offers an opportunity to return to the original material in order to verify, clarify or

develop findings further (Pink, 2007).

As with the analysis of conventional, language based qualitative data, choice of video

data analysis method is driven by the research questions and the researcher’s theoretical and

epistemological perspective. Scholars have borrowed from various disciplines to analyse

10
 14784

films. Banks (2012) provides examples of scholars applying content analysis in order to

identify a number of patterns, themes or latent meanings (i.e., repeated sequences of shots

with similar content) that function as a means of delivering particular messages to the

audience (see, for example, Iedema’s (2001) study of failings in the Australian hospital

system). Scholars, like Iedema, rely on compiling descriptive shot lists in order to build a

convincing weight of evidence. Clarke (2011), in her researcher-led, video-ethnographic

study of entrepreneurs’ impression management, examined video footage of entrepreneurs’

interactions, alongside interview transcripts, to develop detailed descriptive case studies;

similarities and differences within and between cases were then analysed in order to develop

theory. Hindmarsh and Tutt (2012) advocate drawing on guiding principles of conversation

analysis to examine and understand video data. According to these scholars, ‘each action is

shaped by its immediate context which, in turn, shapes the setting in which subsequent

actions emerge’ (Heritage, 1984 cited Pink (2012), p.59). This principle leads to a particular

treatment of evidence where researchers are expected to attend to the ways in which

participants themselves treat conduct in situ, rather than trying to abstract actions from their

immediate sequential context. This approach endorses the meticulous transcription and

analysis of micro-components of social action (Banks, 2012).

Ethical Considerations

The core ethical issues associated with video-based research - as with all visual research -

concern consent, confidentiality and anonymity (Wiles et al. 2008) driven by the need to

protect the dignity, privacy and well-being of research participants (Wiles et al, 2010). In

video-based research, these considerations are particularly salient given that video images can

more easily jeopardize participants’ and organizations’ anonymity (Harper, 2005; Warren,

2009) and lead to exposure of sensitive areas of individual lives and business organizations

11
 14784

(Ray & Smith, 2011). Indeed, employees in organizations might worry about their views

being exposed to management (Ray & Smith, 2011). Participants can also become very

distressed by how their voice / image is edited and presented (Parr, 2007). There is also the

possibility that researchers / film-makers might intrude on, and interrupt, the daily activities

of participants, and impose on the film (via framing and editing) their preconceived views

about those who are the subject of the film (Spencer, 2011).

In light of these issues, obtaining informed consent from participants is of paramount

importance. Express agreement is needed on the making and use of images – the latter

covering both the use of video material for the research, and how the images will be utilised

for publication and dissemination (Ray & Smith, 2011; Wiles et al. 2008). In ethnographic

documentary making it is important to ensure that both types of consent are obtained at two

points in the process: before filming, and before showing/disseminating the material. The

discussion should include which audiences the participants are happy for the material to be

shown to. Providing detailed explanations of the research process, the goals of academic

publications, and the nature of dissemination outlets can also help to establish credibility and

trust with participants (Ray & Smith, 2011). Overall, in collaborative ethnographic film

making, ethical problems should be reduced because the relationship between researcher and

participants is inherently closer, and the researcher / film maker is not the sole editor of the

final film (Parr, 2007). Indeed, collaborative documentary making enables the kind of

trusting, collaborative relationships, and empowerment of participants to represent

themselves, that is increasingly advocated in all ethical visual research (Pink, 2007; Spencer,

2011; Wiles et al., 2008). As Spencer (2011, p.65) notes: ‘a collaborative and transparent

approach should be encouraged in the mutual interest of integrity and honesty and in

presenting a valid representation of social reality.’

To summarise, the potential of collaborative ethnographic documentaries has been

12
 14784

largely over-looked. Based on our review, we suggest that the collaborative ethnographic

documentary offers a way of conducting and disseminating research that is potentially more

empowering, ethical and representative of participants’ voice and lived experiences than other

video-based methods. To further illustrate the potential benefits for researchers and

participants, we include in the next section an example of using collaborative ethnographic

documentary in our own research.

Lessons from a Collaborative Ethnographic Documentary

In this section we draw on a recent research project on working class men doing ‘dirty work’

(tasks and roles seen as disgusting, ’distasteful’, degrading or otherwise tainted in key

respects) (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Our research examined the meanings workers attach to

the manifestations of dirt embedded in occupational practices, and the implications of

proximity to dirt for feelings of dignity and self-worth. The occupations of street cleaning,

refuse collection and recycling working, and graffiti removal were used as potential contexts

within which to examine these meanings. In this paper we seek to highlight how collaborative

ethnographic documentary can: surface hidden meanings by establishing a dialogue between

a researcher and participants and by engaging multiple sides ; reveal non-verbal interactions

and practices; and capture what we describe as ‘elusive phenomena’. In addition, we explore

how dissemination of the research findings in order to draw attention to particular (less

rewarding) aspects of work experience can be facilitated through the use of collaborative

ethnographic documentary. The research project focused on physical taint (through

involvement with waste, debris and the removal of stain), social taint (attached to dealing

with dirt and ‘cleaning up after others’), and moral taint (linked to the low-status of the

occupation). The anticipated stigma associated with ‘dirty work’ (Hughes, 1958), and

sensitive issues related to acknowledging and coping with this stigma, may increase non-

13
 14784

participation and evasive responses in traditional research due to individuals expecting

negative assessment or judgment – a problem which can reduce the interpretative power of

the data collected (Saunders & Thornhill, 2011). However, the same issues that participants

might feel are embarrassing, threatening or incriminating are often crucial to a fuller

understanding of participants’ experiences (Jehn & Jonsen, 2010).

Our intended research design was grounded in an ethnographically based participant

observation, with photographic representation (researcher-only photographs) which would be

followed by photo-elicitation interviews (see Figure 1). As Tyler (2012) argues, ethnography

can help bring into focus the various ways in which dirty work may be experienced.

Participant observation allowed direct experience of daily routines involved in the type of

work studied, opening up a fuller articulation of the habitual and mundane practices that

might otherwise have gone unexplored. Field notes were taken during breaks in work

routines and then written up more systematically at the end of each working day. The

planned approach was to analyse the photographs, the transcripts and the field notes together

to identify common comments and themes that could contribute to our understanding of the

lived meanings that participants attach to their work and lives.

However, the research process evolved differently from what was originally intended.

During the first 28 interviews (37 in total) the researchers were confronted with participants’

confusion regarding the researchers’ interest in their views, and their conviction in their own

lack of particular competencies – competencies that they felt they might have been expected

to have. A common reaction was ‘I don’t know much. It is no good asking me.’ And, ‘Nobody

asks me questions’ was an explanation that typically followed. Most participants apparently

felt neither capable nor authorized to speak; they also doubted that what they could say might

be of interest to anybody. In addition, participants revealed their awareness of their status

subordination (a refuse collector described how a woman ‘clicked her fingers’ in a command

14
 14784

for attention) and the expectation to remain silent and avoid any confrontation with the

public. There was a belief that their voices were not going to be heard even if they shared

their views and opinions via the research. This belief manifested itself in the nature and

quality of data collected – participants’ answers were often brief and disengaged, and

controversies registered by the researchers in the field notes were not subsequently vocalised

by the participants. Respondents were often particularly reticent when conversations turned

to more personal subjects. In short, the interview data failed to convey the intensity of the

lived experiences and the phenomenology of a social situation (Hassard & Holiday, 1998).

No doubt, some of the difficulties were inadvertently produced as a result of the perceived

social differences between researchers and participants.

This confrontation with participants’ frustration and disillusionment raised two issues:

concerns regarding the quality and richness of the interview data, and the question of

reciprocity. Sandercock & Attili (2010) warn that researchers can act as ‘plunderers’ of the

stories of ‘others’ – often those with little power - for personal as well as academic

advancement and without any accompanying sense of reciprocity. Geertz (1988) also raises

the unhealthy self-absorption of some academic writing and research activities, and the lack

of interest in more practical implications of research findings. Consequently, the researchers

decided to explore the potential benefits of using a more ‘proactive forum for dialogue’

(Oliffe & Bottorff, 2007) to offer participants a more independent voice. This led to an

evolution of the research design (see Figure 1) which we elaborate below.

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

Denzin (2003), discussing the multimedia ethnographic approach, highlights the

importance of establishing a co-learning environment whereby researchers and participants

15
 14784

jointly explore emerging research paths that might inform further research (Sandercock &

Attili, 2010). Based on this, all Phase 1 interviews were transcribed and subject to detailed

thematic analysis using qualitative analysis software. This entailed search across the data set

to find repeated configurations of meaning or ‘patterns of experience’ (Taylor & Bogdan,

1984; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Next, the researchers returned to the participants to discuss the

findings and possible ways of disseminating them. The findings comprised 12 broad

‘themes’ informed largely by the initial interview topic guide, which included: work routines;

satisfaction from work; dissatisfaction/challenges; recognition; change, encounters with the

public, and relations at work. The themes were presented briefly to the participants. Then,

participants were consulted over whether they would be interested in participating in making

a documentary, and whether they could assist in choosing the main issues to be the focus of

the film. At this point, the researchers’ main rationale for suggesting the documentary was

dissemination-focused – a documentary could reach a wider audience in a more convincing

way than standard grant reports or academic publications (Parr, 2007). However, it became

clear that participants were much more interested and engaged in a film production project

than they had been in the prior ‘traditional’ research project.

In line with the literature review above, a collaborative ethnographic documentary

approach (employing the technical assistance of a freelance film-maker) was considered as a

more democratic way of establishing a collaborative and equal relationship between

researchers and participants (Parr, 2007). In this vein, therefore, we decided to include

participants in the whole process of film making - in the planning, programming, in the

filming itself and in the editing of the film. The film’s themes were discussed in detail with

participants before filming began, and decisions on what was included were made

collaboratively. Extended dialogue was centred on the following questions: What did

participants hope to get out of the documentary? What themes would they select for the film?

16
 14784

What did the researchers intend to get out of filming? What control would participants have

over how the documentary is used? How would participants be involved throughout

production and post-production? The purpose of the discussion was to co-create both a

process and an outcome that delivered shared benefits and enhanced reciprocity in the

research relationship (Sandercock & Attili, 2010). The priority areas identified by participants

were work routines and challenges associated with changes in regulations, at work and in

communities; and recognition and encounters with the public. Overall, the collaborative

processes involved in the film project facilitated the development of trust by creating the

sense that the researchers were seeking to represent participants’ views, and willing to

publicise them.

The main uncertainty related to producing the ethnographic documentary was how to

make the documentary as authentic as possible, minimizing participant reactivity and

avoiding privileging the researchers’ voice. We decided that the film-maker and researchers

would adopt a ‘stand by’ position, or a way of looking ‘alongside’ rather than ‘at’ the

participants (Kindon, 2003). Specifically, the researchers’ goal was to convey the

phenomenology of a social situation; to film people as they operate in their everyday life.

The researchers were aware that their voices would inevitably be present and interfere (Rose,

2012) with those of participants, both implicitly in the way that editing was performed, and

explicitly in any voice-over narration. However, to minimize the presence of their voices the

researchers decided to omit the voice-over narration and keep only participants’ voices. The

researchers wanted participants to tell their own story in their own words. Five days of

filming took place; participants were filmed and interviewed at work. Context was provided

by filming participants’ working environment, and by trying to capture a wide range of tasks

performed during the day. The film-maker prompted conversation with participants using the

questions prioritised in advance by participants during pre-production discussions and the

17
 14784

planning stage.

Once filming was completed, the researchers started work on the next stage, examining

the video material, using it to expand the findings of the Phase 1 interviews, and making

decisions on the content of the final version of the film. One of the most powerful features of

using video data is that the video material can be revisited as many times as it takes to get a

better grasp of the data (Derry et al, 2010). The researchers combined the verbal and non-

verbal data and the field notes. Merging the visual and the verbal material gave researchers

the opportunity to ‘sharpen the focus’ of the research (Spencer, 2011), raising new questions

and registering new, previously unnoticed aspects of work routines and engagement with the

public. Overall, revisiting the data numerous times and juxtaposing Phase 1 and Phase 2 data

sets, made salient the idea that video data analysis is a ‘recursive cyclical process’ (Engle et

al, 2007).

In order to engage participants further in collaborative practice, and to acquire additional

consent, a first rough cut of the documentary was shown to participants. The researchers

asked participants to express their views regarding what needed to remain in the film, what

could be removed, and which segment(s) of video data they found most relevant. The

segments chosen by the participants were targeted for more detailed transcription and coding

later. Further interviews with individual participants, based on frames from the video, were

also conducted at this time in order to address newly emerged questions. Overall,

collaboratively exploring and scrutinizing the dimensions of the video material resulted in

multiple analyses and impacted decisions on the final format of the film. The new coding of

video data revealed themes which were omitted in the Phase 1 verbal interviews. Moreover,

the co-constructed interpretations helped researchers to resist a more patronising position,

which might be otherwise adopted by researchers, and achieve a more balanced relationship

between researchers and participants (Kindon, 2003).

18
 14784

It must be acknowledged, however, that the relationship between researchers and

participants is unlikely ever to be completely symmetrical, even when regular discussions

take place. There are power positions that cannot be ignored or blurred; rather they need to

be recognised through a responsible ethical practice that is rooted in what Iris Young

describes as ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’ (Young, 1997). Who is speaking, who is spoken of,

and who listens are results, as well as acts, of power struggle (Alcoff, 1995). Ethnographic

filmmaking might be easily read as advocating for someone else, or ‘speaking for others’.

While there is no way to change the ‘outside-ness’ of most researchers and filmmakers, what

does need to be reflected upon, at the start as well as throughout a project, is who is speaking,

who is spoken of, and who is listening. Below we briefly outline some of our findings. First

we provide examples of some of the more nuanced insights that are facilitated by the use of

collaborative ethnographic documentary; then we present novel ways of disseminating the

data.

Revealing Data Inconsistencies and the Material Aspects of Work Experience

The film provided an opportunity to document the material and physical aspects of workers’

experiences. The film offers a different angle on the demands of the job, stressing its

embodied nature – the physicality, sensations and affectivity that constitute the work

experience. The camera, when it does not focus on the subject itself, shows the surroundings

that workers encounter daily, highlighting the darkness of the early hours, the size of the bins,

the cramped space in the truck, the piles of rubbish that are about to be shifted, and the

constant need to manoeuvre and to avoid obstacles. The long shots at the beginning of the

film, and the camera tracking the movement of the vehicles and the workers, generate a fuller

picture of the working conditions, including revealing spatial and temporal aspects of

practices involved.

19
 14784

Unexpectedly, what is shown in the film challenges the Phase 1 interview material. In

the interviews, physical abilities are valorised within the norms and values of masculinity,

helping to give meanings to work through dignity and respect. The taint and stigma related to

the performance of dirty and degrading tasks get potentially defused and neutralised through

a display of physical strengths and endurance.

‘It keeps you fit and uses your whole body as well, your legs running…’

‘…we’ve got young lads that work on here and they can burn anybody out…they are really,

really good. Really fast…’

In the preceding quotes, participants drew pride from the ease with which demanding

physical tasks were performed given experience and an appropriate, tough physique.

However, the time-image in the film - while reflecting what is being discussed verbally - does

not abandon the body.

INSERT PICTURE 1 ABOUT HERE

The image in the film forces us to think of what is concealed from thought and the

discussion. There is some incongruence between what we see and what we hear – the

participant in the frame attesting to the pleasure of being outside and physical work, looks

beaten by the conditions, hunched, exhausted and fatigued. The image invited us to revisit

the interview material drawing our attention to the fact that the participants’ answer to the

question on what they would do after work was consistently ‘sit down’. Notably, showing the

film to participants later triggered further discussion related to physical tiredness – a

discussion which was avoided during the initial (Phase 1) interview stage.

‘…after been working… I was a bit shattered so I was coming home from work and I was a bit

tired. I was getting like a little hour or two hour snooze and then obviously getting up, having

something to eat and … go to bed really. Not really too much really…’

20
 14784

The quote above portrays a life that is impacted and compressed by physical exhaustion

that is difficult to escape and that hinders the possibility of engaging in wider varieties of

enjoyable activities. The documentary does not allow the process of rationalisation to take

over and replace the lived experiences; juxtaposing the image and the monologue reveal the

data inconsistencies which arguably might be related to the pressures of normative

expectations, and the need to adhere to identity-affirming norms.

Not only does film capture the presence of the body; it also registers its movement

through space and time and its encounters with things and persons, attending to complex

dynamics of interactions between material objects and people. The scenes in the film draw

researchers’ attention to the importance of materiality in understanding the participants’ work

experiences – the size of the vehicle, the difficulties of manoeuvring it through the residential

streets of London, the awkwardness of moving the bins (bumping them down), the

unevenness of road surfaces, and rushing crowds. The film very clearly demonstrates the

frustrations of the big city – dealing with narrow roads, heavy traffic, disrespectful drivers,

unlawful parking, and impatient pedestrians. Although the interview material in Phase 1

provided an extensive discussion on the road traffic, the public’s impatience and the lack of

consideration from the public, it failed to reveal the intensity of frustration the participants

experienced during these daily encounters.

Later the film redirects attention from the discussion on the trials of traffic to the

obstacles and difficulties of moving – bringing bins from drives to the vehicle with all the

‘swings and roundabout’, ‘bumping them down’, putting them on the vehicle and then returning them

back. A different unexpected angle unfolds while watching how the bins are shifted across

the street – a discussion related to injuries.

‘Yeah, I mean basically it swings and roundabouts. …it kills the wrists because basically each

bloke is going to move possibly 700 bins in a day … from probably the front of the

drive…you’ve got to get the bin from the drive to the vehicle, usually you know, round some

21
 14784

things.’

The bins, according to participants were introduced as a means of avoiding back injuries

often related to carrying heavy weight.

‘So it’s not the cure all for, yeah, yeah, for injuries yeah…Wheelie bins, they’re not

particularly, they seem better but they also have other considerations… repetitive strain injury’

Not only do moving visual images add credibility, extra depth and richness to already

existing interview data by showing, rather than describing, the material nature of practices

and interactions, the intensity of emotions experienced on sites and the detrimental effect that

the job can have on the body, but they also reveal the more ambiguous and contentious

aspects of the participants’ experiences. The anticipated stigma associated with the work

participants do, and sensitive issues related to acknowledging and coping with this stigma,

often dictate the need to adhere to norms as guides for their narratives – the clearer the

prescription of a given norm, the easier it is to follow the norm to sustain the consistency of

individual stories (Fujii, 2004). The film exposed the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the

narratives by juxtaposing the visual and the verbal and therefore provided access to more

individualised and unique stories.

Enabling Scrutiny of Elusive Phenomena

During this project, the film facilitated capturing an elusive phenomenon – a phenomenon

that is so momentary and transitory that it often remains unnoticed or indefinable.

Unsurprisingly, the film contains anticipated polite exchanges with the public – an old lady

saying thank you to a refuse collector, a gentlemen remarking on the weather while picking

up his mail. However, despite these encounters what draws researchers’ attention is a

startling lack of eye contact between the general public and the workers (the participants).

The film offers new insights into the particular modes of encounter that renders some groups

22
 14784

invisible. The eye contact is often understood as a process of building or transgressing

boundaries between people, it can function as an invitation to engage, an acknowledgement

of one’s presence or as a sign of politeness; the refusal of eye contact might indicate

exclusion from the ritualised exchange of glances, signalling devaluation or embarrassment.

This observation prompted by the film provoked a more detailed and frank conversation

regarding public attitudes in Phase 2 of the research process. The participants acknowledged

changes in society and reduced respect for the work they do:

‘…some people, they’ll thank you for all what you’re doing… it’s mainly like the oldest people

you know, they’re the ones that’ll come and say, “thank you very much”…‘…the younger

generation just don’t give a monkeys…’

The discussion on changes later led to the conversation on how disrespect can manifest itself

in daily interactions – lack of patience, tolerance, or eye contact. One of the participants

remarked on the public ignoring a pile of rubbish, walking through it, ‘dragging it all up the

road’, another participant expressed his frustration with drivers who lacked any consideration

for street cleaners’ work.

‘Sometimes you leave rubbish on the kerb, quite a big pile of rubbish and a car come along

and park on top of it and he will look at you or she will look at you knowing that they done it

but, you know… Well I try to say something but then they start arguing with you ‘I always park

here. This is my parking space, it’s outside my house’, so I say to them ‘Well if you let me clean

it out it’ll be nice and clean outside your house’.

The way in which the workers were routinely ignored by the residents highlighted the

disregard for their effort that led to workers’ personal experiences of invisibility and

unfairness.

‘Some people look down to you a bit, yeah. I mean we’ve got the local MP up there, …, he just

looks through me (laughs)…He just sort of like just looks at me and just walks past, you know

don’t matter that I’m there, you know’

23
 14784

The participants’ readiness to reflect upon these troubling feelings was arguably generated by

the prompts provided by the film as well as the discussion in Phase 2 of the process. The

scenes from the film functioned as a form of endorsement of their individual experiences

authorising them to reflect upon their feelings, to verbalise their concerns, to express and

articulate more intensified and distilled emotions such as those around disrespect, unfairness

and inequality.

The discussion which took place after the screening of the film highlighted the struggles

that were concerned mostly with subjective experiences of injustice and disrespect, and with

the feelings of invisibility and inconsequentiality of workers’ concerns. The film also

demonstrated that the lack of respect could be felt as intensely during embodied encounters as

it could be experienced during verbal exchanges.

Appealing to the Public through Dissemination

The increased competition for jobs and the participants’ relatively weak labour market

positioning often forced them to accept unwarranted disrespect. Fear that voicing their

discontent might jeopardise their employment rendered them less willing to engage in verbal

retaliation or discussions related to their frustration with the public attitude. Often

management policies aimed at improving the quality of service and enhancing customer

satisfaction were perceived by participants as the reluctance of management to support

workers’ interests. A documentary format, however, was welcomed by participants as it

presented visual evidence of public unwillingness to cooperate and understand the demands

of the job - evidence that validated participants’ concerns, substantiated their complaints and

authorised them to speak on the subject.

As soon as filming was completed agreement was reached with participants regarding

who should be present at the screening of the film. Participants gave their consent for the

24
 14784

film to be shown to all three potential audiences – academic, public and management. To

date the film has been shown to the management of the company where the filming took

place. The result of the discussion related to the outcomes of the film was surprising. The

managers, unexpectedly, agreed that the workers’ concerns were valid; they also

acknowledged the difficulties of dealing with the negative public attitude:

‘I think it’s very difficult to actually explain to them (workers) why people are like that. And I

mean you can only do so much can’t you?’

Managers also recognised that more could be done to change the attitude:

‘And I think the other thing is we (managers) should go out and mix with the public…actually

go out and front out what we’re doing. I think that’s very valuable… going to public meetings,

alright you got pilloried by a few people but you need to tell them the truth about the service,

you need to tell them the truth about what you can do for the money that you’ve got and alright

you’ve got to take the flack and just accept that it’s not, it could be about you, but accept that

it’s more about a system that you’re in and what the system is allowing you to do and they don’t

understand that and they can’t can they? So they quite value that, when you tell them straight…,

you know when you tell them straight a lot of people will respond appropriately to that.’

Emmel and Clark (2011) suggest that video-based methods offer a more democratic way

of establishing collaborative and mutually beneficial research relationship as a result of the

centrality afforded to the plurality of actors’ perspectives. The video evidence and the

dialogue with management triggered by the film, resulted in management intention to widen

their participation in public debates in order to educate the public regarding the demands of

the job, to challenge its attitude and to better manage its expectations. The film, in other

words, empowered workers by offering the opportunity for a wide range of organizational

members to tell their stories in their own words (Ray & Smith, 2011; Spencer, 2011). Using

collaborative ethnographic documentary allowed researchers to address the question of

reciprocity and strengthen the practical implications of the research findings.

25
 14784

CONCLUSION

The aim of this article was to illustrate how the use of a collaborative ethnographic

documentary can enable the production of rich data in the context of researched groups

whose members may be less willing to recount their experiences. Our research demonstrated

the utility of collaborative ethnographic documentary as an investigative tool (capturing a

detailed representation of a material and physical experience or social phenomena (Heath,

Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010), a reflective tool (creating a reference point for the participants’

self-reflections (Haw & Hadfield, 2011)) and as a participatory tool (offering voice to

participants in order to express their concerns). By incorporating a documentary into the

project, we aimed to generate a more polyphonic ethnographic narrative in which different

voices were represented, and the power balance between researchers and participants was

altered, enabling more equal collaboration and enhancing reciprocity (Parr, 2007).

In the study film, images exerted their own power and agency possibly independent of

(Pink, 2003), or contradictory to, narrative accounts, thus serving as an auxiliary investigative

tool. Previous studies highlighted the capacity of images to enrich narrative accounts, and to

add an extra level of authenticity of findings (Dant, 2004). The present study has

demonstrated how, by targeting participants’ comportment and by emphasizing the material

nature of work-related experiences and interactions, a collaborative ethnographic

documentary approach assists in disrupting the dominant narratives, querying the adherence

to limited discursive resources available to low status groups to battle the potential of

negative evaluations, and revealing the sensitivities that might lie beneath commitment to

particular normative standards. The reliance on verbal data only may lead to masking the

often problematic qualities and experiences of the material and distracting attention from

material conditions and physical constraints. In this respect, neglect of the material (the

26
 14784

matter, the smell, the fatigue, disgust, subordinating embodied encounters and disruptions to

the material practices involved) may support a distorted and over-optimistic view of such

work experiences.

The study also illustrates how an ethnographic documentary can enhance our

understanding of every day practice by recording an elusive phenomenon – a phenomenon

that is so momentary and transitory that it often remains unnoticed or indefinable. This

capacity of the camera to seize the overlooked functioned as a trigger for participants to

engage with negative sentiments and troubling experiences. In this context, collaborative

video-based methodologies are potentially beneficial for both researchers and participants,

not just in the sense of providing them with a voice but also as a tool to enhance reflexivity

and to surface hidden dimensions and themes.

Emphasis on esteem enhancing strategies - how workers discursively and ideologically

seek to derive dignity and pride – may well serve to mask the often problematic qualities and

experiences of the material in this context, leading to an understatement of their significance

and distracting attention from material conditions and constraints. In this respect, neglect of

the material (the matter, the smell, the fatigue, disgust, subordinating embodied encounters

and disruptions to the material practices involved) may support a distorted and over-

optimistic view of such work. The focus on positive outcomes and on ideologies that position

the work in preferred terms, common in social constructionist accounts, is to ignore the ways

in which the lived experience of the material, often painfully encountered in this context,

disrupts positive framing and how symbolic attributions are accordingly undermined.

Finally, the intent of the project was to use the film production and distribution as a

means of empowering the participants. The film exposed and validated participants’ concerns

and encouraged a more fruitful dialogue between workers and management. The role of the

visual in representing and disseminating findings is recognised in organizational and

27
 14784

management research though currently less attention has been paid to this aspect (Meyer,

Höllerer, Jancsary, & van Leeuwen, 2013). Video-based methods can enable us to reconsider

the ways in which we present the findings of management research, not only to academics but

to practitioners and policy makers.

Our collaborative ethnographic documentary method had some limitations. First,

because the services of a professional film-maker were needed to shoot the video footage and

assist in technical aspects of film production, the number of hours spent filming was limited

by cost and availability of the film-maker. Consequently, the researchers were unable to

interview all participants who had been included in Phase 1 of the research. Second, the

researchers were unable to include all of the filmed interviews in the final, edited

documentary. Some of the video material was an important part of the wider ethnographic

research and sense-making, but not central to the film narrative. The issue of inevitable

selectivity during the editing process was addressed with participants in advance. The

researchers explained to interviewees that, no matter how long or short the interview with

them, there could be no guarantee that their interview, or any segment of it, would be

included in the film. Related to this, while no-one declined to be interviewed for the

documentary, the filming process occasionally adversely affected the interview process.

Some participants became extremely shy or stiff in the presence of the camera, and were

edited from the final cut on grounds of quality.

Overall, using a collaborative ethnographic documentary approach in the critical

ethnography has highlighted the power of this tool to trigger a more vigorous and wide-

ranging exploration of participants’ experiences, to facilitate communication between two

groups that do not share taken-for-granted cultural backgrounds (Harper, 2002), to help

foreground participants’ accounts, and to capture less recognised aspects of their job. It also

allowed the wider audience to share the experiences of the group, to become more sensitive

28
 14784

to the complexity of participants’ narratives and to the cultural and social assumptions that

formed these narratives. In this study, the use of ethnographic documentary resulted in more

transparent and informed research accounts (Cunliffe, 2003) where multiple voices carried

forward diverse meanings and experiences that might be in opposition to existing discourses,

practices and understandings.

29
 14784

REFERENCES

Alcoff, L. 1995. The Problem of Speaking for Others in J. Roof and R. Wiegman (Eds.), Who
Can Speak: Authority and Critical Identity: 97-120. Illinois: University of Illinois
Press.

Ashforth, B. & Kreiner, G., 1999. “How can you do it?" Dirty work and the challenge of
constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24: 413-434.

Bergman, M. 2003. “The broad and narrow in ethnography on organizations”. Forum

Qualitative Social Research. 4 (1):http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-
03/1-03tagung-bergman-e.pdf.

Barley, S.R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 31:78-108.

Banks, M. 2012. True to Life: Authenticity and the Photographic Image. In T. Fillitz, &
A.Saris, (Eds.), Debating authenticity: Concepts of modernity in anthropological
perspective: 160-172. New York: Berghahn Books.

Bell, E., & Davison, J. 2013. Visual management studies: Empirical and theoretical
approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15: 167-184.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3: 77-101.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2011. Business research methods. (3 rd ed.). Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press.

Campbell, E. & Lassiter, L.E. 2015. Doing ethnography today: Theories, Methods,
Exercises. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell

Clarke, J. 2011. Revitalizing entrepreneurship: How visual symbols are used in

entrepreneurial performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1365-1391.

Cunliffe, A. 2003. Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities.

Human Relations, 56:983-1003.

Cunliffe, A. 2009. Retelling Tales of the field in search of organizational ethnography 20

years on. Organizational Research Methods, 0:1-16.

Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

30
 14784

Dant, T. 2004. Recording the habitus. In Pole, C. (Ed.), Seeing is believing? Approaches to
visual research: 41-60. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Denzin, N. 2003. Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture.
London: Sage.

Dey, C. 2002. The use of critical ethnography as an active research tool. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15:106-121.

Derry. S., Pea B,R., Barron B., Engle C. R, Erickson, D. F., Goldmane, R., Hall, F.R.,
Koschmann, G.T., Lemke H.J., Sherini, M., & Sherini, B., 2010. Conducting video
research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and
ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19: 3-53.

Emmel, N. & Clark, A. 2011. Learning to Use Visual Methodologies in Our Research: A
Dialogue Between Two Researchers, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12:
http://www.qualitative-research.net.

Engle, R., Conan, T.F. & Green O.J. 2007. Progressive refinement of hypothesis in video-
supported research. In R. Goldman, Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.). Video
Research in the Learning Sciences: 239-254. New York: Routledge.

Fujii, L. 2010. Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence.
Journal of Peace Research, 47: 231-241.

Fujii, L. 2004. Transforming the moral landscape: The diffusion of a genocidal norm in
Rwanda. Journal of Genocide Research, 6: 99-114.

Geertz, C. 1988. The anthropologist as author. Stanford, California: Stanford University

Press.

Hassard, J. & Holiday, R. 1998. Work and organizations in popular culture. London: Sage.

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P. 2010. Video in qualitative research: Analysing social
interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles: Sage.

Harper, D. 2005. What is new visually? In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Harper, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: a case for photo-elicitation. Visual Studies, 17: 1-26.

Heider, K. 1976. Ethnographic film. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hindmarsh, J. & Heath, C. 2007. Video-Based Studies of Work Practice. Sociology Compass

31
 14784

1: 156–173.

Hindmarsh, J. & Tutt, D. 2012. Video in analytic practice. In S. Pink (Ed.) Advances in
visual methodology: 57-72. London: Sage.

Hughes, E. 1958. Men and their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Iedema, R. 2001. Analysing film and television: A social semiotic account of hospital: An
unhealthy business. In L. Van, & C. Jewitt, (Eds.). Handbook of visual analysis: 183-
205. London: SAGE.

Jehn, K. & Jonsen, K. 2010. A multi-method approach to the study of sensitive organizational
issues. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4: 313-341.

Kindon, S. 2003. Participatory video in geographic research: a feminist practice of looking.

Area, 35, 142-153.
Kunda, G.1992. Engineering Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Llewellyn, N. & Burrows, R. 2008. Streetwise sales and the social order of city streets.
British Journal of Sociology, 59: 561-583.

Loizos, P. 1993. Innovation in ethnographic film: from innocence to self-consciousness.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Madison, S. 2012. Critical Ethnography: Methods, Ethics, and Performance. Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.

MacDougall, D. 2006. The corporeal image: Film, ethnography, and the senses. Princeton,
N.J: Princeton University Press.

Martens, L. 2012. The politics and practices of looking: CCTV video and domestic kitchen
practices. In S.Pink (Ed.), Advances in visual methodology: 39-57. London: Sage.

Mead, M. 2003. Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. In P. Hockings (Ed.),

Principles of visual anthropology: 3-13. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meyer, R., Höllerer, M., Jancsary, D. & van Leeuwen, T. 2013. The visual dimension in
organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current
developments, and promising avenues. The Academy of Management Annals, 7:
489-555.

Neyland, D. 2008. Organizational ethnography. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore: Sage Publications.

32
 14784

Nichols, B. 1991. Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Noblit, G., Flores, S., & Murillo, E. (Eds). 2004. Postcritical ethnography: an introduction.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Oliffe, J. & Bottorff, J. 2007. Further than the eye can see? Photo-elicitation and research
with men. Qualitative Health Research, 17: 850–858.

Orr, J. 1996. Talking about the machines: an ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY:
ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

Parr, H. 2007. Collaborative film-making as process, method and text in mental health
research. Cultural Geographies, 14: 114-138.

Pink, S. 2001. More visualising, more methodologies on video, reflexivity and qualitative
research. The Sociological Review, 49: 586-599.

Pink, S. 2003. Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: re-situating visual anthropology.

Visual Studies, 18: 179-192.

Pink, S. 2007. Walking with video. Visual Studies, 22: 240-252.

Ray, J. & Smith, A. 2011. Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence,

considerations and application in a field. Organizational Research Methods, DOI:
10.1177/1094428111431110.

Rose, G. 2012. Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials.

London: Sage.

Sandercock, L. & Attili, G. 2010. Digital ethnography as planning praxis: An experiment with
film as social research, community engagement and policy dialogue. Planning
Theory and Practice, 11: 23-45.

Saunders, M. & Thornhill, A. 2011. Researching sensitive Issues without sensitising: Using a
concurrent mixed methods design to research trust and distrust. International Journal
of Multiple Research Approaches, 5: 334-350.

Spencer, S. 2011. Visual research methods in the social sciences. Oxon; New York, NY:
Routledge.

Taylor, S. & Bodgan, R., 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search
for meanings. New York: Wiley.

33
 14784

Tyler, M. 2012. Clamour Girls, Macho Men and Everything in between: Un/going Gender
and Dirty Work in Soho's Sex Shops. In R. Simpson, N. Slutskaya, P. Lewis & H.
Hopfl, (Eds.), Doing Dirty Work: Concepts and Identities: 65-91. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.

Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Watson, T.J. 2001. In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial
work. London: Routledge.

Warren, S. 2009. Visual Methods in Organizational Research. In A. Bryman & D. Buchanan

(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Research Methods: 566-582. Sage: London.

Weeks, J. 2004. Unpopular Culture: The Ritual of Complain in a British Bank. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.

Whittington, R. 2004. “Strategy after modernism: recovering practice”. European

Management Review, 1: 62-68

Wiles, R., Prosser, J., Bagnoli, A. et al. 2008. Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual
research. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, October.

Wiles, R., Coffey, A., Robinson, J. & Prosser, J. 2010. Ethical regulation and visual
methods: Making visual research impossible or developing good practice. ESRC
National Centre for Research Methods, January.

Young, I. 1997. Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

34

Approach
Researcher-led video ethnography
Participatory video ethnography
Collaborative ethnographic
documentary
TABLE 1
Comparison of Video Ethnographic Approaches
Description
Researcher observes and films
participants in their social context
guided by academic research
questions (see Clarke, 2011;
Llewellyn & Burrows, 2008)
Following briefing and training with
researcher, participants decide
what to film and make video(s)
themselves. May be individual
(e.g. video diaries) or group-based
(see Kindon, 2003)
Researcher, participants (and
professional film-maker)
collaborate to record participants
in their social context. Hours of
ethnographic video material (for
use in analysis) collaboratively
edited to produce short
documentary representing key
findings in participants’ voice
(see Parr, 2007)
35
Strengths
Richness and authenticity of data
Revealing the previously hidden /
mundane
Capturing social and cultural context,
in time and space, and the
embodied nature of work
Efficient method for collecting large
volumes of data
Empowers participants
Reduces researcher-researched
hierarchical power imbalance
Facilitates representation of
participants and their lives as they
wish to be perceived and
understood
Combines above benefits and:
Establishes closer collaboration and
development of trust - more
ethical and transparent process
Documentary has multiple uses:
*tool for further analysis
*assessing ‘trustworthiness’ /
validity of data (Spencer, 2011)
via participant feedback
*easy dissemination to wider /
non-traditional audiences
*stimulus for change
14784
Concerns
Participant reactivity may affect
quality / authenticity of data
Privileges researcher versus
participants’ voice
Potentially reproduces hierarchical
power relations in research
Higher training and equipment costs
Time consuming training and co-
ordination of data collection
Research design needs to incorporate
means of understanding
participant motivations for
selectivity
Skill and commitment needed to
develop shared ownership and co-
constructed understanding of film
aims among all collaborators
Time consuming to negotiate roles in
relation to planning, filming,
editing
Cost of professional film-maker
services necessitates significant
funding
Risk of ‘losing’ meaning in the edit
 14784

FIGURE 1. Evolution of a Collaborative Ethnographic Documentary Research Design.

Observation Themes fed back

Photo-elicitation to participants;
interviews consultation
regarding next
Researcher steps
photographs

Collaborative
Recursive thematic documentary
analysis of Phase 1 production
interviews, and Phase
2 video and follow-up
interviews
Initial participant
screening and
follow-up
interviews

Phase 1 ‘planned’ design

Phase 2 ‘emergent’ design

Dissemination

36
 14784

PICTURE 1

Picture 1

37