multimedia ethnography

The following text was originally published as a paper presentation for the International InSEA Congress ‘Interdisciplinary Dialogues in Arts Education’, Viseu, Portugal, 1-5 March, 2006, and it will be eventually replaced by an updated version. Note that many of the web links in the list of sources are outdated and do not work anymore.

Tarja Kankkunen:

Doing ‘multimedia ethnography’ about gender construction in the context of school art education

The concept ‘gender play’ (Barrie Thorne 1993) contains the idea that construction of gender, either in or outside school, is not a one-way act of adults socialising children into boys and girls, but a process of unfolding divisions and boundaries alternately strengthening and being challenged. It is a process in which children themselves actively and more or less playfully or seriously partake.

Moving in the area of art educational research with a feminist, sociological, cultural studies approach, the study focuses on ‘gender play’ in the everyday context of school art education. It brings to view, describes and interprets the dimensions and ways of constructing difference and how gender meanings are attached to interaction, picture making and the students’ works.

The data was collected and analysed using ethnographic and qualitative, interpretive methods. The main data of the study is based on a period of participant observation in the fall of 1996 during an obligatory 7th grade art course with eleven girl students, seven boy students and their art teacher.

One area and resource utilised in the study has been experimentation in the production of interactive multimedia as a way of writing ethnography and a possible tool for (artistic) research. The written research report is published on a CD-ROM together with an interactive ‘multimedia ethnography’ combining the text and excerpts of image, sound and video data. The presentation at hand focuses on this dimension of the study, on the analysing, interpreting and processing the multi-medium data and how all this intertwined into ‘multimedia writing’.


Mementos and souvenirs

Ethnographic data is like mementos and souvenirs of a journey – it helps to recover and recollect even the less outstanding experiences that would otherwise be forgotten. Through data, the ‘field’ continues in a way, so much so that new observations are still possible.[1] It is difficult to participate, take notes and observe with all senses. I ended up ‘engraving’ my observations also by audio recording, taking video and photographs – observation notes of their own kind.

The data of my study was collected the way ethnographic data typically is: little by little, without a consistent logic.[2] My main data consists of written observation notes, research diaries and personal diaries, audio tapes (35 h) from the lessons and interviews, as well as some video tapes (3 h 45 minutes) from the lessons, photographs of the classroom and reproductions of 220 student works (plus a few sketches and rejects I rescued from the dust bin). In addition, there were the postcards I used in the student interviews to learn something about their aesthetic values and concepts of art, and the answers (10) to the letter I sent art teachers to find a research class. I also included pictures made by my children and myself in my childhood and some photographs I took when visiting the teacher.

A screen shot from one of the views on the multimedia, composed to present my childrens picture making and artwork

Webs of significance

According to the semiotic concept of culture, people, with their conceptual and material acts, build the webs of significance that culture consist of and rely on them. Because of these collectively built structures of meanings, we can communicate with and understand each other. The cultural ‘self’ is formed in the activities and patterns that one takes part in. As culture is a public system, its institutions, social activities, behaviours and processes can be described in an understandable way (i.e. in thick description). The ethnographer transforms social discourse into descriptions, in order to come back to it for interpretation. The cultural forms also become articulated in various artefacts and objects that have significance in human life.[3]

The system of signs and symbols that enables us to understand culture is multi-sensory and consists of many media. Therefore, even the ethnographer needs to use many senses for living in and understanding culture. Despite this, only a small amount of what is, for instance, visually available has found its place in the traditional ethnographic reports.[4] The multi-sensory, complex experience of the field is first turned into words in a notebook, then into other words through analytic methods and theories.[5] Sound, motion, event, sensation is described in literal writing. Even the ethnographic report is most often a literal text. Priority of spoken and written language has become a self-evident practicality in understanding and communicating culture.[6] But clearly, it should be possible for the ethnographer to use audio-visual technologies to gather data, to make analyses and presentations of the culture that is perceived with many senses.

The use and analysis of images and objects, and the visual culture at large, are discussed in art theories, art history, psychology of perception, semiotics, sociology and cultural studies. They are also discussed and developed under the areas of visual sociology, visual anthropology and visual ethnography. In their practices, images are studied as cultural products, used for making notes and aids of memory, illustrations in the report or as a tool for the ethnographic narrative.[7]

Semiotics is a study of culture as systems of signs and symbols, how these are produced and used, and what their effects are in human actions and consciousness. There are different branches and focus areas of semiotics. In the semiotic study of visual culture, objects, spaces and images are read as signs that presumably communicate something to their readers and have some symbolic or practical function in the culture.[8] A sociological application of semiotics is the analysis of discourses. People leave traces in the society through their actions, such as the everyday speech the ethnographer has ‘archived’ into a text. By studying these traces as signs, people’s meaningful actions can be studied scientifically regardless of their intentions. A meaningful action can only be interpreted if it exists in a language of some kind, a discourse, which can take any of the representational forms in a culture from speech and writing to image, dance and music.[9]

While discourses are constructed in social practices, they also construct the social reality.[10] Davies & Harre (1990) refer, with the expression ‘discursive practice’, to all the ways people actively produce social and psychological realities. Discourses can develop round a specific subject like gender and they can compete with each other or create incompatible versions of reality. Our understanding and experience of our social identity, social world and our place in it is discursively formed. This is why, for instance, expressing and understanding girls’ experiences of their gender, race, class, and social identity can only happen through the categories available to them in the discourse.[11] Discourse analysis focuses on the ways language constructs, limits and guides how people conceptualise themselves and the world.[12] Speech has power and consequences. The constant creation and recreation of the relations, subjects and objects in the social world is the material effect of ideologies. Ideology is about presenting the world in a certain way followed from certain interests. We are not aware of the ways we speak or the ideologies speech carries, unless it is consciously scrutinised.[13]

I do not really use discourse analysis as a method in my study, but it made me pay attention to the forms and subtleties of language use of the people I studied. I became more aware of the ideologies and values carried by, and consequences of, theirs as well as my own speech, which, I realised, I would have to analyse as well. The speech of one person might carry several discourses supporting ideologies that were contradictory. Meaning making happens also non-verbally, and non-verbal acts can therefore be analysed as meaningful parts of discourses.[14] Most of the data I collected can be seen as traces of social actions, concretisations of systems of meaning, verbal, visual, spatial, gestural, lived texts.[15] For me as an art teacher, and because of my multimedia data, referring with language and discourse to anything verbal, visual, auditive that becomes meaningful to the reader was appropriate.[16] When looking for predominant texts, narratives or discourses you can also ask what are the lived or visual texts and narratives that have power to position us, and what could they be replaced with.[17]

Looking at students’ image making in a context

In the school context student work has typically been categorised as ‘school art’ rather than art per se.[18] Children’s image making has often been studied as something separate from art in art pedagogical research, with the aim of analysing or measuring the mental or cognitive state or aesthetic development of the child, without considering the context or the process they were created in. A more recent trend in art educational research has been to extend the focus to the socio-cultural context and its’ impact on children’s picture making.[19] A child’s picture making, speech and other actions can be viewed as taking place in a particular cultural position, receiving content from the substance offered by her/his own world of meanings, the cultural structures and the social situation at hand, and partaking in the reproduction of cultural meanings. The suggested connections between children’s visual expression and their personality or their socio-cultural context should therefore be examined also by observing the processes where pictures are made, and by listening to their makers.[20]

A view from the multimedia, recontructed from video stills where I am discussing the student's work with her during an interview

I was not looking for psychological or cognitive explanations behind the students’ image making and images. I also shifted my attention from the differences between girls’ and boys’ expression towards the social relations and contexts, and focused on the meaning of gender in the everyday processes of art lessons in school. I had the student works present while interviewing them during the lessons to stimulate conversation, and to hear their own interpretations of them.[21] When I studied the works, I tried to take into account the context they were made in, including the students’ comments and interpretations, to grasp some of their cultural meanings. I also looked at them as cultural texts, where, among other things, gender is constructed, and which contain samples of men’s and women’s positions and representations in our culture. To some extent, they contain imprints of what happened during the lessons and can, therefore, also give (even pedagogical) starting points for approaching the visual and other cultural activities of the children and young.

Discourses also appear in visual and material forms affecting the world closest to us, our body. The reality of our corporal dimension is experienced and interpreted through cultural meanings. The discourses of art education can become a part of how we experience ourselves and use our body, our speech and gestures, the way we hold the paintbrush or the pencil.[22] Likewise, the gender discourses can be traced down to the craft and styles of boys’ and girls’ picture making, to the aesthetic values they express, and the way they represent gender in their images. To reach these discourses you have to examine not just the images but also how they were made and what kind of talk was involved. What discourses of art get space when the teacher presents art to the class or draws on the blackboard? What does the art world look like through the images viewed?

Data processing as thinking and finding

Computers have served ethnographic research mostly in the organising and the preliminary data analysis. I used the computer for information searches, communication, developing ideas, manipulating data and analysing it, and finally, building a multimedia presentation. I transliterated all the field notes, all the interviews with reasonable accuracy and a major part of the audio recordings of the lessons into digital form. I also digitised all the visual data and the audiotapes. I did not transliterate the videotapes, but made some notes about them as I viewed them.

With the aid of digital technology I found ‘second level’ visual data such as video stills, magazine photographs and illustrations, elements and objects of the classroom ‘inside’ the videos, student works and images of the classroom. The video material in particular became a rich source of excerpts, stills and elements for the multimedia. The audio tapes also revealed more than just talk and that even sounds have a kind of visuality; the ‘noise’ actually consists of racket, silent chatter, singing, laughter, knocking and clanking, cheering etc. These subtle kinds of sounds can easily be left unexamined when the focus is on talk or the more impressive sound phenomena.[23]

Treating the digitised material and selecting it for the multimedia required examining it very closely for long periods of time, and it yielded surprises, new discoveries and viewpoints each time. Through videos and video-stills, I could analyse the situations more accurately and see more than I notices on the spot. Examining the panoramas, student works, notes and tapes side by side made me reflect on the meaning production that happened, and could have happened, around the different themes of the lessons. It made me notice new things that are significant from the gender perspective, such as the way classroom can function as a frame of or an introduction to an art world with certain kind of imagery and aesthetic values (see also English 1988). In addition, I learned very concretely that it is not completely in my power what the camera catches; you cannot foresee what those in front of the lens will do.

An episode with students on the multimedia, reconstructed from video stills

In qualitative analysis the data works as a starting point and tool for thinking, inspiring emotions, feeding curiosity and imagination in interpretation.[24] Aiming to build my analyses and interpretations from the data I resorted to ‘hermeneutic hanging around’ with it, repeatedly returning to the recordings to check and complete the transliterations, to find sounds and visual excerpts and write little analyses. Spending time with images, videos and the rest inspired intertextual ideas, connotations and chains of thought that were useful for analysis, and some of which I developed further for the multimedia. My experience from the field, my own memories as a teacher and a student, and the literature I was reading also came into play.

Delamont and Atkinson (1995, vi, 205) find eclecticism and pragmatism most useful in ethnography: ethnographers should be paradigm unfaithful and build their tools, techniques and theories on what best helps them understand the social world.  I looked for and found support for the analysis and interpretation in the approaches of discourse analysis, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, semiotics, sociology of art and feminist art theory, and even some psychoanalytical and structural anthropology.[25]

I tried to focus both on things that seemed very familiar or insignificant and on things that immediately inspired my curiosity and thinking. I selected objects for analysis equally based on interest, thematic significance, occurrence or scope. I studied art lessons as one of the social scenes in school, but lifting out gender meanings and construction that were connected to art educational issues such as image making, visual culture and media, art and aesthetics.

Multimedia writing as research

The research process was characterised by repetition and intertwining of tasks, such as selection of material, digitising and other data manipulation, analysis, program design, writing and interpretation. Programming, which I did myself, also became a part of multimedia writing and the research process as a whole. This circling of processes I call multimedia writing. It started quite early, deepened the reflexive dimension of the research process and through trial and error caused innovation and deep learning. In many ways it resembled painting with a touch of adventure, surprise, a lot of enjoyment and often pain as well, and everything going on at the same time.

My experience supports the idea of writing as an integral part of the research process. Working with image, sound and video material made me stop and look at it very closely. Looking closer made it seem less familiar thus creating the distance that enabled me to see more dimensions and meanings in it than I had expected. The fact that ideas only find form when they are written down holds for multimedia writing as well. Processing the material gave me ideas for the content and solutions for the visualisation, structure and dramaturgy of both the multimedia presentation and the literal text. It also inspired interpretation and the search for literal sources and references.

The idea of approaching the focus of study via many different methods and different kinds of data can be seen as triangulation of a kind, but my intention was not to prove the truth and reliability of my descriptions and interpretations.[26] Words do not seem to be able to depict all that happens in the classroom: the nonverbal, the drama, the tone and feel of it all. The multimedia data benefited my research by supporting interpretation, inspiring writing in many media and perhaps producing the lively, many-faceted thick description necessary for understanding cultural phenomenon.[27]

Interactive multimedia ethnography

Computer multimedia has been seen as a part of visual anthropology and named variously as anthropological multimedia, ethnographic hypermedia or multimedia, hypermedia ethnography, virtual ethnography or cyber-sociology. It has been a cause of optimism in recent years both as a tool for new kind of texts and learning experience, and as a qualitative research tool, possibly offering some solutions to the crisis of ethnographic representation postmodernism has claimed.[28] It is expected to bring new perspective to ethnography as a product and a process, to deepen and widen ethnographic knowledge through the synthesis of visual, auditive and verbal levels of meaning, and shorten the distance between visual and written ethnography.[29]

Dicks and Mason (1998) suggest that hypermedia will make it possible to integrate different types of data and organise it in non-linear way.  The ideal of non-linearity founds, partly, on theories of nonlinear nature of human thinking.[30] However, there are also narrative theories suggesting that we have a tendency to organise our non-linear experience into linear form[31] – as if to counteract it. Banks (1994) finds linearity important for ethnography in particular. My aim was to develop rhetoric of visual, auditive and filmic instead of a hyper-rhetoric of links.

If ethnography were thick description of a culture (i.e. participant observation of it in order to understand it) and written text (i.e. ethnographer’s subjective interpretation of it)[32], then (via analogy) multimedia ethnography would be thick multimedia description, multimedia observation and a multimedia text. As a product, it is an interactive ethnography written in many media.  I combined data and my interpretations of it into a narrative consisting of small episodic views to the dimensions of gender construction in the students’ picture making. This way I hoped to be able to present the data and ideas in a more generous way than text alone.[33] The multimedia narrative is interactive to the extent that the content is chosen according to the reader’s interest, associations and use of time. The non-linearity of interactive multimedia is the possibility for each reader to choose and linger or pass at will.

It could be inspiring and motivating for the readers – at least for a while – if a lot of the data was offered for them to analyse and make (even in writing) their own interpretations. But there should also be interpretation and contextualising by the researcher. In my multimedia, the selection of the data is my own.  I included most of the student work, however, for the reader to study virtually and take a closer look, just as I was able to do, but I emphasised some of them by using them as part of the dramaturgy elsewhere.

Dinosaurs from student works enlarged and integrated to the classroom view

Audio-visual structure and dramaturgy

Because I spent a lot of time working with multimedia material, images and sounds ended up gaining space and multiple roles in the text. I borrowed the elements needed for the visual look, navigation and the story telling from the data, too, trying to separate them dramaturgically from the data excerpts. The issues of anonymity, the scope and the quality of the data effected how and what findings I present. Having promised to keep people anonymous I changed names and cut them out if mentioned, manipulated faces and voices, chose excerpts where gestures, poses, groupings and situations showed but where people could not be recognized. I had to select and edit the data for limitations of space and because manipulating some of the data (such as videos) would have required too much work.

In fact the interfaces of the final product are completely audio-visual as opposed to the many almost completely text-based interfaces that I have seen. The presentation starts from the researchers desk symbolising the author and the processes of designing, analysing and writing in research. From there it links to a revolving scene, where you can find links to my children’s and my own chilhood imagery, to the student interviews and to the ‘art classroom’. The ‘art classroom’ consists of three panoramas, which I built from the classroom photographs taken after the course. Together they form the metaphors of the ‘stage’ or ‘field’ of the study, and separately stand as metaphors of the teacher’s, students’ and researcher’s ‘viewpoints’, but also function as content dividers. The triple panorama is not a copy of the classroom, but a description, interpretation and a metaphorical representative of it. It helps understanding some of the actions and the meanings given to the classroom space by the people acting in it. The revolving panoramas do not follow the logic of an all-engulfing sweeping look (criticised by some feminist theoreticians), because they act as an interface that you have to interact with in order to find what is behind it. When the elements of the classroom are studied with the cursor, hidden links to other spaces, to the research text, to sound, video or image excerpts can be found and activated. Connected to familiar everyday objects these links can deepen the cultural understanding of these objects by lifting them from anonymity to the focus of attention.[34]

A view on the multimedia composed of stills from a video shot by a student, showing how the clay mugs recently made by the students inspired the boys to perform a beer drinking gesture

The short visual and auditive exerpts correspond the literal exerpts in a traditional ethnographic text. They are not proofs or paradigmatic examples, but tones and glimpses of motion, talk and people in a certain space, giving the feel of everyday life in its own context. They exemplify the way we are images and living texts to each other, too, momentary but effective impressions. Sometimes they simply lift out some detail from the flow of events. The video stills are not generalisations, but more like citations of the events during the lessons.[35] They make it possible to stop at and study the passing episodes, gestures and movements and to find gender displays in much the same way as Goffman, who analysed advertising pictures and found, in their fixed poses and gestures, ideas and expectations of gender relations and tasks. I found Goffman’s (1976) idea of gender display to resemble Butler’s (1993) ideas of gender as performance or Heinämaa’s (1996) idea of gender appearing in gesture and style. The way the teacher held a girl student’s hand in one video excerpt seemed to belong to the same discourse as her speech about the differing treatment of boys and girls. I picked stills of peoples’ situations and being on the art classes and brought these to be viewed as displays.

A video excerpt on the multimedia pops up when the mouse moves over the clay mugs on the teacher's desk

An image can force you to take in its meaning at once without giving a chance to analyse and deconstruct it[36]. And even though it does not convey the objective truth, it seems to do just that accurately and directly.[37] In contemporary cultural theories, the objectivity or transparency of photographs is problematised and the camera seen as a tool for constructing culture. The ethnographer is challenged to use technology reflexively in a way that does not lead the viewer to wrongly trust the truth of the image.[38] Picture manipulation problematises the credibility of a photograph and breaks the fallacy that the camera never lies.[39]

Therefore, the images, videos and sounds on the multimedia do not necessarily convey to others what I saw in them. Their task is not to directly mediate the events from the field to the reader any more than simply illustrate the text. Connected to different characters, objects or spaces in the classroom they work as audio-visual interpretations of my field experiences. You can interpret images with images as I did to the imitation of Tizian’s Venus painting on top of the cupboard.[40] Images can work on their own, giving unexpected and new ideas, and the viewer can find other interpretations of the image more valid or interesting than mine. But interpretation is necessary in some form and at least to some extent, when presenting visual data which is essentially open and ambiguous and cannot speak for itself.[41]

Individual or collective research

There was and still is many more reference points to be found and discourses to be opened from the classroom panoramas, more episodes and examples to be lifted out from the audio and video data. In addition to the research report there is about 100 pages of lingo programming, 200 textual elements, more than 800 manipulated pictures and visual elements, and about 130 audio or video excerpts. Even so, from the mounds of ideas I developed during the process only some traces and examples reached the final product. This gives some idea of the huge amount of work involved in creating multimedia which, ironically, is difficult to judge from the outcome.

Nevertheless I no longer believe that making a multimedia presentation is, by definition, too complex to be realized single handed and requires as much time and resources as making a feature film. Of course, working digitally requires many kinds of technical resources and skills, but the hardware and software are getting user-friendlier every day. Providing the aim is not set too high in technical quality or complexity, it can be a good tool for a smaller scale report or a monograph for someone who prefers working alone. However, it seems obvious that a collective process, by bringing together and contrasting differing views, would add to the theoretical and methodological strength of the research. Such a collective project would also work against the notorious ‘lone researcher’ paradigm.

As the dichotomy between the researcher and the researched breaks, a new kind of visual document is entering qualitative sociological research: a collectively produced representation where those researched can take part in the portrayal of themselves and their culture. Banks suggests that one of the founding principles of visual anthropology would be shared authority.[42] The challenge for the ethnographer would be finding ways of sharing authority with those studied.[43] The videos taken by the students show a possible way of sharing authority in the ethnographic research, a way for students taking part in telling about themselves and each other. They allow momentary glances to their practices, social forms, relations and attitudes to one-another. The differences between the shots taken by the students and me show how differently they reacted to their classmates than the researcher behind the camera. These, and other differences between the video material shot by us, reveal the non-objectivity of it and thereby emphasize the constructed nature of the video image.[44] Images are constructed according to the cultural forms of the community using them, and visual meanings are produced under the same conditions as other meanings in the culture. Therefore, whatever the camera caught in the students’ hands tells something about the way they give meaning to things.[45]

Multimedia ethnography and artistic research

Gender became significant in the classroom as differences in styles of being and doing, aesthetic values, subject matter and craft of the student artwork. It became an issue when the teacher was setting tasks or giving instructions, or when the representations of men and women in the magazine pictures entered the classroom conversations. Representations of men and women appeared in the classroom textuality, and were produced in the student artwork. Gender was also constructed through gesture and repetition, by performing gender. Difference and gender boundaries were constructed in action, speech and picture making, encounters and conversations, but they were also often challenged and crossed. An art teacher who is aware of the subtle ways difference is produced could guide students to analyse them critically in visual culture and the media. Instead of the predominant styles and values, the art teacher could consciously point to, and encourage, other possible styles, aesthetics, subject matter and craft, and thus support multiple ways of being a girl and being a boy.

Instead of looking for generalisations, the typical, or ‘final truths’ I tried to interpret and understand meanings arising from the data and the ways the young people in my study give meaning to their own reality. Thus the results of my study are descriptions and interpretations that can deepen the reader’s insight and understanding of the phenomena studied. From the semiotic concept of culture, it follows that the ethnographic claims are, in essence, disputable.[46] I am not suggesting that what I found or saw in the art classes I participant-observed are particularly common or exceptional. Nevertheless, because social reality and practices largely rely on shared cultural forms and meanings, even the depiction of only one case can bring out something common in a particular form of culture.

Working with many media enabled me not only to look at the everyday practices in the art lessons in new ways to myself, but made me pay attention to more dimensions of gender construction than I would have done otherwise. It also made me wonder if the ‘art’ in the artistic research could mean integrating new media in the research process in such a way that it allows a researcher with a background in art to exploit that background in her/his research methodology.

Interactive multimedia allows for the possibility of emphasising the image and the nonverbal in ethnography, thereby increasing both the openness and the fictiveness of the story. This openness for multiple interpretations can contain political potential.[47] The post-structural critique of science has brought out the triple crisis of representation, legitimation and practice in ethnographic research. Lather points out that validity has more or less meant the authority of the researcher to tell the truth, which rests on the belief that the researcher or science is able to tell truths. She suggests that validity and objectivity should be abandoned as criteria and new criteria adopted from outside science. Thus, the value of a text could be that it makes you think about the ways power and ideologies construct people through discourses. Its validity could be in its ability to emancipate and empower the society studied. Instead of reproducing and supporting the old structures by simply representing them in its descriptions, the text could aim at both deconstructing and reconstructing reality. Possible ways of legitimation could be using irony in the text to break down authorities; presenting different discourses side by side in the same text to shake the knowledge-power of the researcher; a non-linear text with several central speakers; and a text with an imagined multiple feminine authority against a single domineering male voice.[48]

The possibility of artistic research has fuelled the discourse of art educational research, dealing with issues of interdisciplinarity, theoretical and methodological eclecticism, and the creative and experimental qualities associated with art.  Postmodern views have inspired art educationalists who find art ideological resemblance in them that can be useful in teaching and research and have potential for philosophic renewal. Qualitative research paradigms that pay attention to the context, to the nuances of students’ artistic activity, to making the researcher visible, and to creative ways of writing have been seen particularly useful for the pedagogical research.[49]

Trying the boundaries of research methodology with new forms of writing and doing research is risky, but the risk should be worth taking if it widens the possibilities and makes visible new creative ways of doing research.[50] Although multimedia was actually only a tool and not a focus of my study, I consider the multimedia presentation an outcome of experimental research and as a learning process. It also opens up new views and takes part in the discourse of the nature and forms of artistic research and reporting, which has been going on since the eighties in the Finnish context.[51] With my example, I hope to encourage others to experiment with multimedia and to widen the options for ethnographic presentation from written text to more media. While it hardly offers a solution for the ‘crisis’ of ethnographic representation, it could be a fitting and enjoyable way of doing and writing research for some researchers, alone or collectively. By offering various ways of expression, it enabled me to allow ‘my kind’ of expressive desires in me to produce different kind of writing.[52] Maybe such a pragmatic aesthetic methodology that integrates artistic expression into the research process would serve other art educator-researchers, and through them artistic methodology, too.

Student work integrated in the classroom view on the multimedia


Aapola, Sinikka 1999a. Murrosikä ja sukupuoli. Julkiset ja yksityiset ikämäärittelyt. Helsinki: SKS.

Aronsson, Karin 1997. Barns världar – Barns Bilder. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Bahtin, Mihail 1996 (1986). Speech Genres & Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ball, Michael 1998. Remarks on Visual Competence as an Integral Part of Ethnographic Fieldwork Practice: The Visual Availability of Culture. In Jon Posser (ed.): Image-based Research, A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Bristol: Falmer Press. 131-147.

Ball, Mike & Smith, Greg 2001. Technologies of Realism? Ethnographic Uses of Photography and Film. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (eds.): Handbook of Ethnography. London: Thousand Oaks, 302-338

Banks, Marcus 1994. Interactive Multimedia and anthropology – a sceptical view. University of Oxford, June 1994. (15.3.2003). (Cited with the permission of the author.)

Banks, Marcus 1995. Visual research methods. Social Research Update. (7.1.1999).

Barthes, Roland 1977. Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press.

Barthes, Roland 1994a (1957). Mytologioita. Tampere: Gaudeamus.

Barthes, Roland 1994b (1988). The Semiotic Challenge. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Barthes, Roland 1998 (1980). Camera Lucida. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bruner, Jerome 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harward University Press.

Burnett, Ron 1990. The eyes don’t have it: video images and ethnography. Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, 3, 2, (7.4.2004)

Butler, Judith 1993. Bodies that Matter. On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” . New York: Routledge.

Coffey, Amanda & Atkinson, Paul 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Complementary Research Strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Davies, Bronwyn & Harre, Rom 1990. Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43-63. (26.4.2004)

Davies, Bronwyn. 1991 (1989). Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Denzin, Norman K. 1997.  Interpretive Ethnography. Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Dicks, Bella & Mason, Bruce 1998. Hypermedia and Ethnography: Reflections on the Construction of a Research Approach. Sociological Research Online, 3, 3, (6.3.2003)

Dicks, Bella & Mason, Bruce 1999. The Production of Hypermedia Ethnography. & (26.3.2004)

Efland, Arthur 1992. Curriculum Problems at Century’s End: Art Education and Postmodernism. In Liisa Piironen (ed.): Power of Images. Insea 1992, 114-120.

Eisner, Elliot W. 1992. Art Education and the Emergence of New Paradigms for Educational Research. In Liisa Piironen (ed.): Power of Images. Helsinki: Insea, 122-128.

Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I. & Shaw, Linda L 2001. Participant Observation and Fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (eds.): Handbook of Ethnography. London: Thousand Oaks, 352-368.

Eneroth, Björn 1996. Omtolkningar och associationskedjor. In Gert Z. Nordström (ed.): Rum Relation Retorik – Ett projekt om bildteori och bildanalys i det postmoderna samhället. Stockholm: Carlssons, 267-277.

Eräsaari, Leena 1995. Kohtaamisia byrokraattisilla näyttämöillä. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Fairclough, Norman 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Longman.

Fairclough, Norman 1997 (1995). Miten media puhuu. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Fiske, John 1993 (1990). Merkkien kieli; johdatus viestinän tutkimiseen. Tampere: Vastapaino. (Fiske, John 1998 (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies. London & New York: Routledge.)

Foucault, Michel 1997 (1969). The Archaelogy of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Geertz, Clifford 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Pam & Taylor, Sandra 1992. Fashioning the Feminine. Girls, Popular Culture and Schooling. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Goffman, Erving 1979 (1976). Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.

Gordon, Tuula, Holland, Janet & Lahelma, Elina 2000. Making Spaces. Citizenship and Difference in Schools. London: Macmillan.

Granö, Päivi 2001. Taiteilijan lapsuuden kuvat. Lapsuus ja taide samassa hetkessä. A doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: Taideteollisen korkeakoulun julkaisusarja A30.

Harper, Douglas 1998. An Argument for Visual Sociology. In Jon Prosser (ed.): Image-based Research. A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London: Falmer Press, 24-29.

Harrison, Dew 1997. Hypermedia as art system – art on the Internet. Art Journal, Fall 1997, (2.1.2006)

Heikkinen, Kaija. & Kupiainen, Tarja. 1996. Merkilliset merkit: esinekulttuurin semiotiikkaa. In Kupiainen, J. & Sevänen, E. (eds.): Kulttuurintutkimus. Helsinki: SKS, 249-269Hutchinson 1990

Heinämaa, Sara 1996. Ele, tyyli ja sukupuoli. Tampere: Gaudeamus.

Isaak, Jo Anna 1996. Feminism and Contemporary Art. The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Laughter. London and New York: Routledge.

Jick, Todd D. 1983. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. In J.Van Maanen (ed.): Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage, 135-148.

Jokinen, A., Juhila K. & Suoninen, E. 1993. Diskurssianalyysin aakkoset. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Lather, Patti & Smithies, Chris 1997. Troubling the Angels. Women Living With HIV/AIDS. Boulder, Oxford: Westview Press.

Lather, Patti 1993. Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism, Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-694.

Lather, Patti 1994. Critical Inquiry in Qualitative Research. Feminist and Poststructural Perspectives: Science “After Truth”. In Crabtree, Miller, Addison, Gilchrist & Kuzel (eds.): Exploring Collaborative Reseach in Primary Care. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 103-114.

Lincoln, Yvonna & Guba, Egon 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lowenfeld,Victor & Brittain, W. Lambert 1975. Creative and Mental Growth.  New York, London: Macmillan.

Mäkelä Maarit 2004. Lektio: Saveen piirtyviä muistoja, Naistutkimus, 17, 1, 54-59.

Mason, Bruce & Dicks, Bella 1999. The Digital Ethnographer. CYBERSOCIOLOGY 6: Research Methodology Online, (22.6.2000)

Mathison, Sandra 1988. Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 2, 13-17.

Nielsen, Anne Maj 1995. Gender in Children’s Pictures. In Ruotonen, Boysen, Krogh-Jespersen & Lahelma (eds.): Content and Gender: Transforming the Curriculum in Teacher Education. Association for Teacher Education in Europe, PAVIC, 117-139.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko 1999. Näkemisen uudet tavat: Kuvaamataidonopettajan suhde 1960-1970-lukujen taidekasvatuskäsitysten muutoksiin. Lisensiaatintyö. Taidekasvatuksen osasto, Taideteollinen korkeakoulu.

Pöysä, Jyrki 1996. Nykyperinteen tutkimus. In Kupiainen & Sevänen (eds.): Kulttuurintutkimus. Helsinki: SKS, 226.248.

Ruby, Jay 1996. Visual Anthropology. In D. Levinson & M. Ember (eds.). Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 4, 1345-1351. (6.3.2003)

Salo, Ulla-Maija 1999. Ylös tiedon ja taidon ylämäkeä. Väitös. Lapin yliopisto.

Sava, Inkeri 1992. Taide, kasvatus, tutkimus, muutos. Kasvatus, 23, 5, 411-414.

Sulkunen, Pekka. 1997. Todellisuuden ymmärrettävyys ja diskurssianalyysin rajat. In Sulkunen & Törrönen (eds.): Semioottisen sosiologian näkökulmia. Tampere: Gaudeamus, 13-53.

Tarasti, Eero 1990. Johdatusta semiotiikkaan. Esseitä taiteen ja kulttuurin merkkijärjestelmistä. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Thomas, Glyn V. & Silk, Angèle M.J. 1990. An Introduction to the Psychology of Children’s Drawings. New York: New York University Press.

Thorne, Barrie 1993. Gender Play. Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Trinh T. Minh-Ha 1991. When the Moon Waxes Red. Presentation, Gender and Cultural Politics. New York, London: Routledge.

Vuorinen, Jyri. 1997. Taideteos merkkinä. Johdatus semioottiseen taidekäsitykseen. Helsinki: SKS.

Walker, Rob & Lewis, Ron 1998. Media Convergence and Social Research: The Hathaway Project. In Jon Prosser (ed.) Image-based Research. A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London: Falmer, 162-175.


Analysis of Images (26.3.2004)

Cinemasense (1.1.2006).

Documents on Anthropological Multimedia, (12.2.1999)

Hathaway Primary School: A Multimedia Case Study (20.10.2000)

Hypermedia Research Center (20.1.2004)

Society for Visual Anthropology, (12.2.1999).


[1] See Salo1999, 40-47, 51; Ball 1998, 136

[2] Emerson et al. 2001, 353

[3] Geertz 1973, 5-19; Ruby 1996

[4] See Ball 1998, 135

[5] Ruby 1996, 1351

[6] Gordon, Holland & Lahelma 2000, 56; Ball & Smith 2001, 310

[7] See e.g. Analysis of Images (26.3.2004); Society for Visual Anthropology, (12.2.1999); Ruby 1996, 1345-1346; VISUAL ETHNOGRAPHY (081199).

[8] Heikkinen & Kupiainen 1996; Tarasti 1990. See also Pöysä 1996; Fiske 1993; Vuorinen 1997; Barthes 1994a and 1994b

[9] Sulkunen 1997, 27-28

[10] Jokinen et al. 1993, 26-27

[11] Davies & Harre 1990. See also Fairclough 1997, 74, 319

[12] Aapola 1999a, 67

[13] Fairclough 1995, 39-73

[14] Jokinen et al. 1993, 25

[15] See Bahtin 1996, 103

[16] See Barthes 1994b, 1977, 1998

[17] See Davies 1991; Gilbert & Taylor 1992

[18] See e.g. Pohjakallio 1999, 132

[19] See e.g. Aronsson 1997; Nielsen 1995

[20] See e.g. Thomas & Silk 1990, 27-34. See also Lowenfeld & Brittain 1975, 28

[21] See also Ball & Smith 2001, 310; Granö 2001

[22] See Foucault 1997, 193-194

[23] See also Trinh 1991, 60

[24] See Coffey & Atkinson 1996, 191. See also Hutchinson 1990

[25] See also Coffey & Atkinson 1996, 159

[26] See e.g. Jick 1983; cf. Mathison 1988

[27] See Lincoln & Guba 1985, 125

[28] See Walker & Lewis 1998; see also Hathaway Primary School: A Multimedia Case Study (20.10.2000); Documents on Anthropological Multimedia, (12.2.1999); Hypermedia Research Center (20.1.2004); Cinemasense (1.1.2006).

[29] See Ruby 1996, 1346; Coffey & Atkinson 1996, 122, 181-186; 153; Ball & Smith 2001, 313; Banks 1994. See also Dicks & Mason 1999; Mason & Dicks 1999

[30] See e.g. Bush 1945, Engelbart 1963 and Trigg 1983 cited in Harrison 1997.

[31] See e.g. Bruner 1990

[32] See Dicks & Mason 1998

[33] See also Lather & Smithies 1997; Eräsaari 1995

[34] Heikkinen & Kupiainen 1996, 249

[35] See Barthes 1977, 67

[36] See Barthes 1994a, 174

[37] See e.g. Barthes 1977, 18-19

[38] Ruby 1996, 1345-1351

[39] Isaak 1996, 50; Ball & Smith 2001, 312

[40] See Eneroth 1996

[41] See Ball 1998, 137

[42] Banks 1995

[43] Ruby 1996, 1345-1351

[44] See Harper 1998, 29

[45] Burnett 1990

[46] Geertz 1973, 29

[47] See Denzin 1997, 77; Lather 1993. See also Trinh 1991

[48] Lather in Denzin 1997, 7-14

[49] See. Eisner 1992; Efland 1992

[50] Mäkelä 2004, 56

[51] See e.g. Sava 1992; Mäkelä 2004

[52] See Lather 1994, 108

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s