Working with Pictures: Discussion and Further Reading

Textual forms of data often take precedence over images when people conduct and analyze research (Prosser, 1998). Images can be useful in research because they have a tremendous, if illusive, power to represent, and can be more (or differently) accessible to those for whom textual representations are difficult or impossible to access. John Berger claims that ‘Seeing comes before words.’ (Berger, et al, 1972, p-7) and we might add that we see before we write. Images can be used (and collected) in research and considered in similar ways as other forms of data, such as speech and text. However, whatever similarities images may have with other forms of data, they also have their peculiarities and differences.

‘We are, of course, surrounded by different sorts of visual technologies – photography, film, video, digital graphics, television, acrylics for example – and the images they show us – tv programmes, advertisements, snapshots, public sculpture, movies, surveillance video footage, newspaper pictures, paintings. All these different sorts of technologies and images offer views of the world; they render the world in visual terms. But this rendering, even by photographs, is never innocent. These images are never transparent windows on to the world. They interpret the world; they display it in very particular ways.’ (Rose, 2001, p-6)

As Rose suggests, we produce and consume all sorts of visual imagery. Some of the primary ways in which we attempt to construct and represent our world are through visual means. These images are ubiquitous and represent (often contradictory) versions of the world, whether or not we are aware of them. In this sense they can form part of an interpretive and constructivist research paradigm (see Working with pictures – where to start) and be used in research as both subjects of inquiry and a means of representation.

In terms of research, images are used in most disciplines, and can be incorporated in and considered under a broad range of epistemologies and theoretical perspectives. To simplify things a bit before we complicate them further, we will think about one type of imagery, photography, and consider its use in qualitative, social research.

Since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century photography has often been used in research, particularly anthropological research with the intention of providing literal representations, as a form of 'visual truth' (Edwards, 1997; Banks, 1995). As with any type of research it is impossible to separate the epistemological and methodological from the political and consequently the use of photographs from the nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries has been dominated by positivist (see A beginner's guide to qualitative/interpretive research) notions of objective 'truth'. For example, early anthropologists' photographs of African tribes were often intended to be records of artefact(s) and representations of the 'exotic' and the 'primitive'. Although often posited as being objective and 'scientific' records, a more critical and subtle understanding of these early anthropological photographs and the contexts around their construction and interpretation suggests that they were created and interpreted subjectively. However, these images tended to be used to objectify their subjects (as well as their customs and possessions) and provide a justification (sometimes retrospective) for their colonization. As with other data, photographs which have claimed an 'objective' portrayal of 'reality' have been used to justify (and obscure) imperialist agendas.

It has been, perhaps, easier to make claims for the objectivity of photographs as opposed to other forms of research data because of the way in which they seem to be literal representations of what they depict. However the notion of photographs as being somehow objective has been challenged for as long as photography has been in existence. This is not only because photographs can be manipulated (that is they can be staged, faked, changed), but because the photographer inevitably has an influence over what is visible (and left out) of a photograph as well as in the appearance of what is visible. The photographer’s influence on the photograph is manifested through subjective choices that are made in terms of position, angle, lens, lighting etc. (Sontag, 1979; Winston, 1998).

Essentially, photographic images are about representation; not only is a photograph an object in and of itself, but it also represents the thing or things it depicts (and sometimes what is absent from its depiction) (Barthes, 1981). Although in some research circles, the notion of photographic ‘truth’ is still taken for granted, increasingly, the production and consideration of photographs is considered a subjective endeavour and, as such, open to interpretation. This is no different from how we might consider other, textual forms of representation such as interview transcripts. However with photographs as opposed to text, it can be more difficult to distinguish between the representation and what is being represented. These sorts of considerations of the meaning(s) of images can be explored in various ways, including using discourse analysis and semiological (semiology concerns the study of meaning) approaches (Worth, 1977), (Ruby, 1981).

Whatever approach one takes in considering photographs, there remains a tension between photographs providing fixed evidence of something and being multiply interpretable. It is perhaps a peculiarity of photographic images that they can seem to embrace the paradoxes and contradictions inherent in representation. That is, photographs can seem to be both literal and metaphorical at the same time. Nevertheless, it is difficult to get away from the notion that photographs provide ‘proof’ of something, because indeed they can. Photographs can seem to carry an embedded authority and validity that is perhaps more difficult to challenge than someone’s speech or text. As a simple example, it would be easier to challenge my verbal (or textual) claim that I shook hands with the Queen, than to challenge a photograph of me shaking the Queen’s hand. The support which often props up claims for a photograph’s validity and ‘truth’ is built on a false understanding of photography as being more a ‘natural’ chemical (or electrical in the current digital age) process than a ‘human’ one, and therefore somehow free of human bias and subjectivity (Barthes, 1981; Flusser, 2000). There are further complexities inherent in the consideration of a photograph’s meaning(s).

As with other forms of research data, context is important and knowledge of the context related to the production of a photograph can be essential to a consideration of a photograph’s meaning. Having said that, perhaps more than in any other form of representation used in research, the photographer and his/her intentions behind a particular photograph are often left out of the consideration of that photograph’s meaning(s). This form of separation, the loss (sometimes intentional) of the context behind the photograph, puts the interpretation of a photograph’s meaning squarely in the hands of the observer. This is not always a negative thing, as a photograph stripped from its context does not necessarily have any less power (it sometimes has more) to provoke or stimulate thought and interpretation than a photograph with its context ‘intact’ or apparent. However, what this also opens up are multiple possible uses and abuses of a photograph. Susan Sontag describes the case of a photograph of children killed in the Balkans. This was used by both Serbs and Croats as propaganda. Sontag says about this image ‘Alter the caption and the children’s deaths could be used and reused.’ (Sontag, 2003, p.9).

The meaning(s) a photograph might have and the ways in which that photograph is interpreted can shift over time and between different people. This can be true for the photographer as much as for other observers. The potential fluidity of a photograph’s meaning(s) can be used to challenge fixed meanings and limited interpretations.

Although debate about photography in qualitative inquiry has moved on somewhat from questions of subjectivity and objectivity, these debates are never entirely resolved. Pink criticises recent ‘how-to manuals’ on visual image research as being stuck within an unreflexively realist paradigm, they ‘…propose problematically prescriptive frameworks that aim to distance, objectify and generalize, and therefore detract from the very qualities and potentials that the ambiguity and expressivity of visual images offers ethnography.’ (Pink, 2001, p.3).

An understanding that photographs are not necessarily more ‘true’ or valid than other forms of data is an important aspect of thinking about photographs critically.

It may be helpful to consider some of the ways in which photographs are used in qualitative research. Following is a brief description of a few of these methods:

• Photographs can and tend to be used for descriptive purposes in qualitative research. This type of ethnographic photography is often linked up with text and other forms of qualitative data.
• Photographs can be a means of stimulating discussion, a process sometimes known as photo elicitation. In photo elicitation, the photograph itself is often of secondary interest to the researcher and becomes more a means of provocation than of particular interest as data in and of itself. This fits in with an interpretive understanding in which whatever is being considered is only really interesting to the researcher in relation to people’s interpretations of it. Photo elicitation has strong links to and in some sense has arisen from within the field of psychoanalysis (Rose, 2001). Douglas Harper discusses the benefits of using photo elicitation in qualitative research:

“…I believe photo elicitation mines deeper shafts into a different part of human consciousness than do words-alone interviews. It is partly due to how remembering is enlarged by photographs and partly due to the particular quality of the photograph itself. Photographs appear to capture the impossible; a person gone; an event past. That extraordinary sense of seeming to retrieve something that has disappeared belongs alone to photographs and it leads to deep and interesting talk.” (Harper, 2002, p.22-23).

• The taking of photographs has often been the remit of the researcher rather than those researched. A more participatory approach makes not only the consideration of a photograph, but the production of that photograph, a shared responsibility between researchers and researched. This fits in with a partnership approach to research in which traditional boundaries between researchers and research subjects are blurred. One method of participatory photography which incorporates this philosophy is sometimes referred to as ‘PhotoVoice’, participatory photography, or photo-evaluation. See Photovoice video and transcript. This involves giving cameras (and some instruction in photographic technique) to those groups and individuals whose perspectives are often left out of research (such as children, or adults with learning disabilities) as a means of expressing their perspectives, or their ‘voices’. The resulting photographs are often combined with the photographers’ words to form visual presentations. In this way, audiences can see both the photographs and an account of the intentions of the photograph (see Useful websites). ‘Photovoice involves community members’ taking pictures, telling stories, and informing policy makers about issues of concern at the grassroots level.’ (Wang, 2000).

References:
Banks, M. (1995) 'Visual Research Methods'. Social Research Update . Issue 11. University of Surrey .

Barthes, R. (1981) Camera Lucida . New York : Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Berger, J., Blomberg, S., Fox, C., Dibb, M., Hollis, R. (1972) Ways of Seeing . London : BBC and Penguin Books.

Edwards, E. (1997) 'Beyond the Boundary: a consideration of the expressive in photography and anthropology'. In Banks, M. and Morphy, H. (Eds.) Rethinking Visual Anthropology . New Haven : Yale University Press.

Flusser, V. (2000) Towards a Philosophy of Photography . London : Reaktion Books.

Harper, D. (2002) 'Talking about Pictures: a case for photo elicitation'. Visual Studies 17(1).

Pink, S. (2001) Doing Visual Ethnography . London : Sage.

Prosser, J. (1998) 'The Status of Image-based Research'. In Prosser, J. (Ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers . London : RoutledgeFalmer.

Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies . London : Sage.

Ruby, J. (1981) 'Seeing Through Pictures: The Anthropology of Photography' CameraLucida: The Journal of Photographic Criticism (Spring): 19-32.

Sontag, S. (2003) Regarding the Pain of Others . New York : Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Sontag, (1977) On Photography . New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Winston, B. (1998) ''The Camera Never Lies': The Partiality of Photographic Evidence'. In Prosser, J. (Ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers . London : RoutledgeFalmer.

Wang, CC., Cash, JL., and Powers, LS. (2000). 'Who Knows the Streets as Well as the Homeless?: Promoting Personal and Community Action Through Photovoice'. Health Promotion Practice, 1 (1): 81-89, 2000.

Worth, S. (1977) 'Toward an Ethnographic Semiotic' (This Paper delivered to introduce conference on "Utilisation de L'ethnologie par le cinéma/Utilisation du Cinéma par L'ethnologie," Paris, UNESCO, February 1977)