Advertisement

My Mom Said You Can’t Use My Face, But My Voice Is Alright”: Children As Active Agents in Research Utilizing Video Data

  • Nicholas E. Husbye
Chapter
Part of the Educating the Young Child book series (EDYC, volume 17)

Abstract

Video data is a construction of a social reality shared by both the researcher and the participants. In research, how might the process of constructing this social reality contribute both to inquiry as well as positioning children in agentic ways? Drawing upon video data from a 4 week ethnographic case study of children’s’ processes while making film, this chapter seeks to explore the ways the young filmmakers engaged in a variety of strategies with research cameras, particularly in the ways they went to great lengths to avoid the cameras, were highly selective in what elements of themselves they allowed to be captured on the research cameras, and actively cultivated their presence in the data set. Such engagement strengthened the project by supporting the articulation of the boundaries of the context of the video data in addition to supporting data navigation.

References

  1. Banaji, S. (2009). Creativity: Exploring rhetorics and realities. In R. Willet, M. Robinson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Play creativity and digital cultures (pp. 147–165). New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, B. (2007). Video as a tool to advance understanding of learning and development in peer, family, and other informal learning contexts. In B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 159–187). New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Blikstad-Balas, M. (2017). Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: Contextualization, magnification, and representation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(5), 511–523.  https://doi.org/10.1080/174372X.2016.1181162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood education. New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Flewitt, R. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(1), 25–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357206060917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forman, G. (1999). Instant video revisiting: The video camera as “Tool of the mind” for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 1(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Gallagher, M. (2008). “Power is not an evil”: Rethinking power in participatory methods. Children’s Geographies, 6(2), 137–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280801963045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galloway, J., & Sheridan, S. M. (1994). Implementing scientific practices through case studies: Examples using home-school interventions and consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 32(4), 385–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper, D. (2001). Wednesday-night bowling: Reflections on cultures of a rural working class. In C. Knowles & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the social landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination (pp. 93–114). New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analyzing social interaction in everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hood, S., Kelley, P., & Mayall, B. (1996). Children as research subjects. Children and Society, 10(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. L. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Husbye, N. E., & Rust, J. (2013). Considering design: The challenges of assessing multimodal texts. In R. E. Ferdig & K. E. Pytash (Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 135–149). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  15. Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research (NCRM working paper). National Center for Research Methods. Retrieved November 13, 2017, from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/
  16. Lemke, J. (2007). Video epistemology in-and-outside the box: Traversing attentional spaces. In B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 39–51). New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2012). Some “Technical challenges” of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research, 12(3), 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pink, S. (2003). Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: Re-situating visual anthropology. Visual Studies, 18(2), 179–192.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14752860310001632029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prosser, J. (2000). The moral maze of image ethics. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 116–132). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Stasz, C. (1979). The early history of visual sociology. In J. Wagner (Ed.), Images of information: Still photography in the social sciences (pp. 119–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Yin, R. K. (1982). Studying phenomenon and context across sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(1), 84–100.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000276482026001007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas E. Husbye
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations