Through the Eyes of the Participant

Abstract

In this article, we introduce participant viewpoint ethnography (PVE), a phenomenological video research method that combines reflexive, interview-based data with video capture of actual experiences. In PVE, participants wear a head-mounted camera to record the phenomena of study from their point of view. The researcher and participant then review the video together, and the participant narrates and explains salient practices in the video. This generates both naturalistic video data (providing in situ access to social activities) and reflexive discourses on the activity of study. We detail this method, describing PVE data collection, how it differs from similar methods, the advantages of using it in social research, and potential challenges using the example of research on bike commuters. We conclude by suggesting uses for PVE in multiple areas of research.

Keywords

qualitative methods ethnography video phenomenology reflexivity

Even within qualitative and interpretive paradigms, scholars have called for increased reflexivity and questioning of research practices (Finlay 2002). One issue that is often challenged is the perspective or lens employed in research observations (Maxwell 1992). Although you can be an active participant in your own research site (Johnson et al. 2006), there will always be difficulties as you interpret and try to understand participant experiences (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). For these reasons, qualitative researchers have experimented with methods like phenomenological writing (Van Manen 1990) or member checks (Lincoln and Guba 1985) to better capture participants’ thoughts, meanings, and understandings.

Although these methods help researchers understand and verify the participant’s perspective, they can also result in subjective situated data that may be difficult to relate back to the wider social world. For example, collecting data through phenomenological writing provides the researcher with a first-person account of how a participant understands his or her involvement in the lifeworld. However, from these types of data, the researcher is limited in understanding how one participant’s experiences fit into broader social settings. This illustrates the difficulty of balancing demands for observational data as well as data that reflect social meanings as held and understood by participants themselves.

In response to these challenges, we present participant viewpoint ethnography (PVE), a novel qualitative research method that can be used in the context of larger ethnographic projects. We suggest PVE as a means to overcome difficulties inherent in both video research and ethnography, providing a way to capture participant perspectives on practices as well as participant reflections and discourses on those practices. We begin with a brief overview of the method and its phenomenological basis. Later in the article, we will describe the mechanics of the method in more detail and demonstrate how we have used it in our research. Throughout, we reference examples from our own research on bicycle commuters to illustrate the method.

What Is PVE?

As a method, PVE consists of two steps. First, a participant is equipped with a head-mounted video camera to capture the phenomenon of interest. In our case, we studied biking to and from work and transitions in and out of the home and workplace. By wearing the camera on his or her head (or bicycle helmet), the participant generates video data that reflect his or her perspective on the social world; the camera angle mimics what one sees. Second, the researcher and participant watch the video together and the participant describes and elucidates the events captured on the video.

We categorize this method as ethnographic because it is observational. Specifically, it follows ethnography’s concern to “see as an insider and think as an outsider” (Berg and Lune 2012:205), providing researchers with data illuminating how participants (literally) see the world as well as their reflections about that world. In addition to providing this insider viewpoint and reflections on a phenomenon, the method has advantages over techniques such as autoethnography in which the researcher is the participant (Ellis 2004) because it includes an outside perspective to interact with what has been reported (Hernandez-Albujar 2007). In PVE, an association between the social and the self is made through both a naturalistic observation of the relationship between participant and the social and the participant’s reflections on that observation. Additionally, because the participant conducts the observation by wearing a camera, there is no third-party intrusion in the experience or in the capturing of the experience. We therefore present this method as a unique way to incorporate video in ethnographic research.

PVE is a method grounded in phenomenology. The goal of phenomenological research is to provide the researcher with more direct contact with the phenomena under observation (Van Manen 1990). Phenomenological research assumes that the lifeworld is prereflexive and preverbal (Moustakas 1994). Thus, meaning can be derived when one directs their view toward their self (Schutz 1967). As a result, phenomenological research generally involves both a capturing and an explanation of lived experience (Van Manen 1990). Reflexive writing and interviews have been the primary means of capturing this reflexivity (Van Manen 1990). However, we suggest that reflexive data alone are not sufficient because an individual can never fully understand or know her or his own practices (De Certeau 1984). For this reason, our method combines reflexive, interview-based data with video that captures actual experiences.

Additionally, phenomenology values individual experience in the context of the social (Van Manen 1990). These concerns of community and the whole are central to social research, making such projects amenable to a phenomenological approach. Such an approach can overcome the ever-present challenge of generalization in qualitative research (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). Because a phenomenological approach privileges individual experience and viewpoints for revealing elusive elements of the world, it sees a special place for individual experience in research. Finally, phenomenological research is concerned with the mundane, as the researcher seeks to understand phenomena that may seem normal or taken for granted (Moustakas 1994). PVE (and phenomenological methods in general) allows researchers to study everyday topics in a way that provides social understanding grounded in personal experience.

Existing Video Methods

Although video methods have been used in many ways across social science disciplines, the use of video is not mainstream and there are still opportunities to develop video methods (Stanczak 2007). Video, along with photography, has long been used in ethnography in objective and archival ways to capture events like tribal rituals (Bernard 2011). However, in this context, video methods serve as a kind of “visual note taking” (Pink 2006:103), and studies often lack detailed analysis of the videos and serve as a supplement to other data. In contrast, we are concerned with video methods that move beyond a static view of context (Brown and Spinney 2010; Heath and Hindmarsh 2002) to ones that are concerned with situation and participant reflexivity (Murray 2009).

Although similar video methods exist, PVE is distinct in several ways. First, most methods that involve giving participants a camera allow participants to intentionally construct the video and introduce a reflexive element in the capture of video (e.g., Holliday 2000; Rich et al. 1998). Second, many studies do not record videos from a participant viewpoint. Third, when video is used to guide further data collection, it is usually the basis for interview questions rather than participant-driven observations about the video (Henry and Fetters 2012). Fourth, even in methods that are very similar, the research has been limited to mobility (Brown and Spinney 2010; Murray 2009; Spinney 2011) or artistic settings (Jules-Rosette et al. 2002); we suggest broader uses for PVE at the end of this article.

Advantages of PVE for Social Research

Although use of video methods has been limited, the nature and goals of social research make it well suited to these methods. Relative to existing research methods, PVE provides advantages for both data collection and analysis.

Data Collection

The first main advantage of PVE is that it provides the ability to collect a different kind of data. This happens in three ways.

First, PVE allows for detailed and relatively nonobtrusive observation of participants’ behaviors, providing the researcher access to more naturalistic settings or situations in which a researcher’s presence would distort the data (Pink 2006). For example, in our study of bike commuters, it would have been logistically difficult to follow bike commuters to observe them, and it would have disrupted and constrained what is normally a solitary experience. By being able to record a setting without the interruptive presence of a researcher and then review the recording with the participants, the researcher gains insight from participants (i.e., she or he is not imposing her or his own decontextualized interpretation on the experiences of others). Although the camera still frames the event in certain ways (and as we will discuss, the camera itself is still present and might be obvious to those who interact with the participant), the PVE method is unique because of the in situ access to phenomena that it provides to researchers.

Second, this approach provides the researcher with a unique point of view for data collection: the participant’s. As researchers, we are typically bound to our own perspectives on participant activity and seek to move beyond those confines by employing methods such as member checks to validate our interpretations and improve external validity (Lincoln and Guba 1985). PVE does not offer access into the participant’s mind; being able to see a situation through the eyes of the participant does not entail understanding a participant’s experience (Prins 2010). Even when it follows the participant’s gaze, video is still constructed and does not equal the participant’s actual experience (Pink 2006). Nonetheless, PVE provides the researcher rare access to the perspective of participants, at least partially experiencing the social world as they do. This overcomes a major problem with many video methods: the researcher’s frame of the event. In video research, choices like the camera angle or choice of room can have significant framing effects (Luff and Heath 2012; Tutt 2008). However, with PVE, there is no intrusion of a third party with a camera to influence the event under observation.

Third, the videos demonstrate where participants look, thus revealing to the researcher (as well as the participant upon reflection) what is seen by the participant. Even glances to the side that might be deemed distractions have meaning because they reveal the direction of participants’ attention and focus. For example, one of our concerns in this study was to see how bike commuters used various tools and material artifacts. This can be a challenge in video research (Luff and Heath 2012), but with a hands-free camera that follows the participant’s gaze, we were able to capture detailed observations about how bike commuters use and orient toward their bicycles, biking accessories, and their material and spatial environment.

Data Analysis

In PVE, the type of data collected enables a reflexive analysis. Therefore, the second major advantage of PVE is the affordance it presents for data analysis.

First, PVE provides a unique combination of observation and reflection. Although traditional ethnographies often entail simultaneously observing participant activities and asking reflexive questions about those activities, this reflection in-the-moment can affect the way that events unfold. In PVE, because these stages take place separately, participants can engage in more extended retroactive sense making and there is less risk of reactivity. Additionally, because one can replay, pause, or play the video slowly (Büscher 2005), there is the possibility to elicit more detailed and nuanced reflections on otherwise fleeting moments (Spinney 2011).

Second, PVE allows researchers to obtain reflexive discourses or discursive framings of meaning directly from the participant rather than through the researcher’s interpretation. While the researcher is not entirely removed from this interpretive process, there is one less layer of interpretation because the participant shares at least some of their own interpretations of the activity directly (Banks 2001), helping researchers move beyond using video for “visual note taking” (Pink 2006:103), to using video as a memory aid to generate participant reflections on their behavior and the meanings they assign to the world.

Third, PVE provides an opportunity to research embodied and spatial practices, moving the realm of observation beyond the static and discursive. Research often ignores the situated nature of practice (Brown and Spinney 2010), yet our context, including the space we are in or the material artifacts around us, significantly affects our behavior (Latour 2005). Video allows researchers to observe both changing activity and meaning and the stable background against which human activity takes place (Knoblauch and Schnettler 2012). Although the video generated through PVE is not equivalent to embodied experience, this method provides a means to begin more detailed discussions about the nature of embodied interactions with the world.

Specific Procedures

We developed this method for a study about the communication, organizing practices, and workplace interactions of bicycle commuters (for more details, see Wilhoit and Kisselburgh 2015). When developing the project, we planned to use bike commuters as an empirical example to theorize about embodied experience and material communication. Because of these theoretical concerns, we needed observational data and decided to use video data because they would allow for richer observation of the material and spatial elements of bike commuting as well as more nuanced analysis of the experience of commuting from home to the workplace. Although data collection for this project also included traditional interviews, the video data provided rich elements to the phenomenological and reflexive approach we used. Here, we will describe the specific methods used in this project.

We began by recruiting bike commuters for interviews. At the end of the interviews, the first author asked if participants would be interested in participating in the video portion of the research. Participants were offered a US$25 gift certificate to a local bike shop as an incentive to participate. Five participants out of the 40 interviewed participated in the PVE. These five participants wore a video camera on their head or helmet to record a single day of commuting, including going to work and returning home as well as the transitions into and out of their home and workplace (see Figures 1 –4 for sample stills from the videos). To make these recordings, we used a GoPro^TM HD Hero 960 camera, which is designed to capture action sport footage and has several different mounts for recording different sports. We used the elastic head strap mount, which can be fit over a helmet or on the participant’s head if they chose not to wear a helmet (see Figure 5). The camera measures 1.6″ × 2.4″ × 1.2″ and weighs 3.3 oz. Because this camera is intended for use in capturing outdoor sports activity, it is small, light, and unobtrusive for the wearer, although it is clearly visible to others.

Figure 1.

Luke uses a pedestrian crosswalk but must weave through cars stopped in it.

Figure 2.

Blake bikes next to (but not on) the bike lane on top of drainage grates.

Figure 3.

Jason has a special place next to his desk for his messenger bag.

Figure 4.

Abby stores her bike in a shed in her backyard.

Figure 5.

Camera on helmet using head strap.

To minimize and disclose risk, participants were required to sign an informed consent form before recording footage. Additionally, we gave participants an instruction sheet with information about how to use the camera and troubleshoot potential problems. Each participant was shown how to operate the camera. One advantage of the GoPro camera is that it is simple and has few buttons or features, making it easy to operate. Participants were instructed to turn on the camera before they left their home and continue recording until they were in their office and ready to begin work. Going home, they were instructed to begin recording before leaving their workplace and stop recording after arriving home. Participants were also told to stop recording if they encountered a situation that might disclose confidential information (i.e., entering a restroom to change clothes). One participant felt uncomfortable recording in his workplace and his videos therefore stop and start at the bike rack outside his office. In total, participants recorded 10 videos yielding 185 minutes of video footage, ranging in length from four to 34 minutes, traversing a variety of routes around the area we studied.

After participants completed the recording of their commute, the first author conducted in-person follow-up meetings to review the videos with the participants. Before meeting with a participant, she reviewed both videos and chose the one that included practices that needed clarification or contained unusual moments or experiences. Next, she met with the participant to view the selected video. Participants were instructed to comment on any aspect of the commute including decisions made, routes taken, interactions with cars, pedestrians, and other bikers, and the transitional moments between commuting and home or work. These interviews were audio recorded, and the researcher asked questions or prompted comments when appropriate.

After conducting the follow-up interviews, the first author coded the videos. These interviews were coded with the initial interviews because they presented similar content categories, helping us understand or clarify the content of the videos. An emergent coding process was used for the videos (Charmaz 2003) and the analysis was primarily sequential (Knoblauch and Schnettler 2012). After watching the videos several times, we determined categories for coding and then watched all the videos, specifically coding for each category. Subsequent viewings generated additional categories for analysis. In the end, we coded the videos for surfaces (roads, trails, etc.), interactions and intersections, material artifacts (tools/equipment/clothing), office transitions/interactions, and home transitions/interactions. The first author watched each video with a specific category in mind, coding anything salient to that topic, resulting in a set of time-coded notes for each category so the noted moment could easily be found again in the video.

These coding schemes became important to our final analysis and gave us important information in the interpretive process. For example, one of our findings in this research concerned how cyclists create new paths through space by bringing together different kinds of space and surfaces. Although participants mentioned this briefly in the interviews, it was through the videos and the list of surfaces revealed through coding that this finding truly emerged. One participant switched surfaces 21 times on his way to work, something he was not aware of and could not have revealed during the initial interview. Having video data then allowed us to see beyond conscious knowledge to explore embodied and spatial elements of commuting practices as well. Because the video served as a memory aid and elucidating tool, it allowed participants to more fully reflect on and explain everyday mundane practices that were unnoticed and taken for granted.

Additionally, the follow-up reflexive interviews contributed to developing an emergent theme of creating new paths after participants were asked why they chose to move between surfaces like the road and sidewalk. These reflexive answers built on our insights and allowed participants to reflect and elaborate on their motivations for such behavior. Although the coding process is clearly driven by the unique requirements of each research project and the variances in video content, careful coding is an integral step of PVE and cannot be overlooked.

Ethical and Practical Issues

Although PVE presents a number of advantages relative to other research methods, it also presents complications, including inherent drawbacks in terms of ethics, participant consent, and data. In this section, we discuss potential issues with PVE that we faced and anticipate might be problematic for other researchers.

Ethics and Consent

A first ethical concern with video research is that it is a technology of surveillance (Foucault 1977, 1980). Although information sharing and forms of surveillance like GPS tracking on mobile phones are increasingly common aspects of social life in the 21st century, researchers still bear an ethical burden to protect the privacy of participants and those with whom participants come into contact (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2011). As a technology of surveillance, video can reinforce the power of the researcher through the view of the camera, potentially leading to panoptic effects (Foucault 1977), the powerful dominance exerted by ubiquitous surveillance technologies. Additionally, as participants break social norms by wearing a camera, they may become the subject of additional scrutiny (Prins 2010). There are also feminist concerns that the camera represents a detached objectifying gaze (Crang 2003).

Next, preserving anonymity to minimize participant risk is an issue (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). In video recorded data, the identity of the participant is readily apparent or derivable. Although using videos or image stills in published manuscripts and conference presentations provides compelling evidence for one’s argument (Picart 2002), maintaining participant anonymity needs to be a priority unless participants have willingly consented to be identified. For example, we have included still images from the videos in articles written from this project (including this one). Most of these images show a generic road or sidewalk that would be difficult to trace to a particular participant. However, one image showing a participant cutting across the grass to get to his office is problematic. There is a worn line in the grass because he does this every day. This image clearly illustrates an argument we make about how cyclists create new paths through space by integrating multiple spaces and surfaces. However, the image also clearly shows and identifies his office building as he approaches. We chose to blur the building in the image so that the workplace, and by extension the participant, was not identifiable. Some may still argue that even this is not adequate protection. Therefore, constant scrutiny is needed to maintain participant privacy when collecting video data.

An additional complication from PVE is that people who do not agree to participate may inadvertently be recorded and become secondary participants. Ethnography often does often does not obtain the consent of all participants, but video makes these issues more sensitive. Although our institutional review board did not require it in our initial project, in a follow-up project they requested that we provide authorization from every workplace in which we planned to record. Even having permission from an authority or a gatekeeper does not mitigate the ethics of recording someone without their consent or knowledge. This was a minimal issue for our project because little of the recording took place in the office space. However, people were sometimes recorded without consent. Although the PVE camera was clearly visible and no one reacted negatively to its presence, this is an issue that must be anticipated and addressed in PVE research, particularly when the research topic concerns participant interactions with others.

Practical Issues

In addition to ethical concerns, PVE also presents some practical problems for research. First, getting participants to agree to wear even a small 3″ camera may be difficult. Although we conducted 40 interviews, only seven participants volunteered to participate in the video recording portion of the study (ultimately, scheduling constraints resulted in only five actually recording video). We believe this is both because of the time involved and the nature of wearing a camera. Participants who did wear the camera were excited about the novelty of it and were interested in seeing their videos. However, many participants might be uncomfortable doing so, particularly because it requires them to violate community norms (Prins 2010). We anticipate that recruiting participants for PVE research might present a challenge and that issues of participant self-selection may arise.

Similarly, the camera itself may be problematic. The camera we used was relatively small and light but still very visible, especially when worn on the head. In one video we recorded, a participant’s coworker stops her in the hall and asks about the camera. Although participants may forget about its presence, those they interact with may not. We like having participants wear the camera on their head because it most closely approximates their point of view. In many situations though, a less obtrusive camera would be needed. This recalls some of the ethical issues already mentioned: Is it better to have a more visible camera that might be more disruptive but less covert or to have a hidden camera that can record people unwittingly?

Additionally, there are logistical issues to consider with the PVE method. Although participants only recorded videos on a single day, each participant had the camera in their possession for a week or more. The videos were recorded in October and November when days were getting shorter and the weather was unpredictable, so sometimes participants had to wait several days for a good opportunity to record and then take several more days before meeting with us to return the camera. As a result, we collected less video data than we could have; two additional participants were interested in recording videos, but we were unable to schedule a time for them to use the camera before the winter weather arrived. Other research may not be seasonal, but researchers do need to consider the scheduling and time constraints of PVE, particularly if the researcher is in the field and needs to complete data collection in a certain amount of time.

Not only are there practical issues concerning the process of data collection, there are also logistical issues related to the data themselves. First, there are many situations where PVE would be a helpful method, but the activity of interest to researchers is difficult to capture. In our use of PVE, we have been concerned with the discrete event of commuting to and from work on a bicycle. There are defined beginning and end points, and the activity occurs at regular and predictable intervals. However, many research topics do not happen in such well-contained units. For example, in studying workplace conflict, it would be useful to have videos of actual conflicts. The difficulty here is obvious: You could have a participant wear a camera for several days without capturing any instances of workplace conflict. Although the data could be useful in the end, the time required to review the raw data to find the phenomena of interest would be high.

One way to deal with this abundance of data could be to have the participant note when there was conflict, allowing the researcher to ignore data other than those instances. However, this might lead the researchers to overlook minor instances of conflict that may be more interesting or important because participants were unaware of them. In designing research with PVE, researchers must plan how they will bracket and capture the phenomenon of interest.

This leads to the second data issue, which is that PVE has the potential to capture large amounts of data, making it tempting to capture too much data. But carefully coding and analyzing the data are not possible for weeks of collection. Additionally, it would be difficult to conduct follow-up, reflexive interviews about so much data. This is a drawback that we have found in many existing studies using video methods: Researchers are not clear about how much data they collected and how they were analyzed. Rather, it seems they have collected large amounts of data but only used some in their analysis with no clear criteria for inclusion. Researchers need to plan both what kinds of data will be most useful and the quantity necessary for analysis.

In summary, while there are limitations to the PVE method, we believe that with careful research design that attends to ethical, practical, and data issues, PVE can be a useful approach for understanding social phenomena in a detailed, naturalistic, and reflexive way. We note these limitations so that other researchers can learn from our experience and take care in planning and executing PVE projects.

Proposed Uses in Social Science Research

There are a number of additional possible uses of PVE in social science research. Although we have used the method in a specific context to study organizational communication, this method has the potential to aid many research projects. First, there has been a growing interest in the relationship between the social, material, and body (Bennett and Joyce 2010). Interviews or other discursive data are not adequate for researching embodied phenomena (Harquail and Wilcox King 2010). Although video methods have been used in some studies on the material (Cooren et al. 2008; Vásquez et al. 2012), researchers have held the camera in these situations. An important aspect of understanding the material is seeing how people orient themselves to the material. To examine this, a participant perspective is required. Video, then, allows researchers to see the often obscured relationship between artifacts and people (Mondada 2012).

PVE can also be used in studies about how people orient toward one another. This could be useful in many research contexts. For example, a study about patient–doctor interaction could benefit from seeing where patients and doctors focus their gaze during interaction or how they move around each other during interaction. Similarly, in a study on leadership, the leader can be fitted with a PVE camera, allowing researchers to see how followers orient toward and interact with the leader. Having two points of view and reflexive interviews on the same event would provide another level of insight on a phenomenon.

Additionally, PVE can be used to supplement ethnographic fieldwork. Because ethnography is concerned with understanding members’ meanings, PVE video could be used for probing how participants understand certain events. As a part of fieldwork, PVE could be helpful later in the research process when the researcher has identified culturally meaningful phenomena but needs additional interpretive perspectives to understand why the phenomena are meaningful. For example, if one has observed a recurring activity or use of an artifact but is not sure why the activity is repeated or the artifact salient, PVE could be a means to explore participants’ meanings and sense making. PVE could also be helpful early in the observation process to identify meaningful structures in a given culture. In the reflexive stage of watching the videos together, participants may emphasize things that the researcher would not have been aware of or recognized as culturally important. Finally, as a part of participant observation, the researcher might wear a camera and audio record herself or himself as she or he watches the video and makes sense of her or his experiences as a supplement to field notes and journaling. The first author used this method in a subsequent research project on bike commuters in Copenhagen, Denmark, and found it useful for reflecting on understanding the site of study and her positionality as a researcher.

Concluding Thoughts

We have presented PVE as an innovative research method that enables researchers to move beyond the point of view of the researcher, to see the world and social practices from the participant’s point of view. In addition to providing a literal participant point of view, PVE provides a means to elicit participant reflections on activity. This method is grounded in phenomenology, granting researchers access to more naturalistic observations of participant activity as well as reflexive discourses on that activity. Both of these kinds of data are unique and provide new insight into many aspects of the social world. We challenge researchers in many fields of social inquiry to incorporate PVE to see social action from a new perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Banks

2001. Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.

Bennett

Joyce

. 2010. Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Berg

B. L.

Lune

. 2012. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Bernard

H. R.

2011. Research Methods in Anthropology. 5th ed. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira.

Brown

Spinney

. 2010. Catching a glimpse: The value of video in evoking, understanding and representing the practice of cycling. In Mobile Methodologies, eds. Fincham

McGuinness

Murray

, 130–51. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Büscher

2005. Social life under the microscope? Sociological Research Online 10.

Charmaz

2003. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, eds. Holstein

J. A.

Gubrium

J. F.

, 509–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooren

Brummans

B. H. J. M.

Charrieras

. 2008. The coproduction of organizational presence: A study of Medecins Sans Frontieres in action. Human Relations 61:1339–70.

Crang

2003. Qualitative methods: Touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human Geography 27:494–504.

10.

De Certeau

1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

11.

Ellis

C. S.

2004. The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

12.

Finlay

2002. Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research 2:209–30.

13.

Foucault

1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

14.

Foucault

1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Gordon

. New York: Vintage.

15.

Harquail

C. V.

Wilcox King

. 2010. Construing organizational identity: The role of embodied cognition. Organization Studies 31:1619–48.

16.

Heath

Hindmarsh

. 2002. Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography, and situated conduct. In Qualitative Research in Practice, ed. May

, 99–121. London: Sage.

17.

Henry

S. G.

Fetters

M. D.

. 2012. Research method for investigating physician–patient interactions. Annals of Family Medicine 10:118–25.

18.

Hernandez-Albujar

2007. The symbolism of video: Exploring migrant mothers’ experiences. In Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation, ed. Stanczak

G. C.

, 281–306. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

. 2011. The Practice of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Holliday

2000. We’ve been framed: Visualising methodology. The Sociological Review 48:503–21.

21.

Johnson

J. C.

Avenarius

Weatherford

. 2006. The active participant–observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods 18:111–34.

22.

Jules-Rosette

McVey

Arbitrario

. 2002. Performance ethnography: The theory and method of dual tracking. Field Methods 14:123–47.

23.

Knoblauch

Schnettler

. 2012. Videography: Analysing video data as a “focused” ethnographic and hermeneutical exercise. Qualitative Research 12:334–56.

24.

Latour

2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Lindlof

Taylor

. 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Luff

Heath

. 2012. Some “technical challenges” of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research 12:255–79.

28.

Maxwell

J. A.

1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62:279–300.

29.

Mondada

2012. Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: The case of architects at work. Qualitative Research 12:304–33.

30.

Moustakas

C. E.

1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Murray

2009. Looking at and looking back: Visualization in mobile research. Qualitative Research 9:469–88.

32.

Picart

C. J.

2002. Dancing through different worlds: An autoethnography of the interactive body and virtual emotions in ballroom dance. Qualitative Inquiry 8:348–61.

33.

Pink

2006. Doing Visual Ethnography. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

34.

Prins

2010. Participatory photography: A tool for empowerment or surveillance? Action Research 8:426–43.

35.

Rich

Lamola

Chalfen

. 1998. Video intervention/prevention assessment (VIA): An innovative methodology for understanding the adolescent illness experience. Journal of Adolescent Health 22:128.

36.

Schutz

1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

37.

Spinney

2011. A chance to catch a breath: Using mobile video ethnography in cycling research. Mobilities 6:161–82.

38.

Stanczak

G. C.

2007. Introduction: Images, methodologies, and generating social knowledge. In Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation, ed. Stanczk

G. C.

, 1–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Tutt

2008. Where the interaction is: Collisions of the situated and mediated in living room interactions. Qualitative Inquiry 14:1157–79.

40.

Van Manen

1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: SUNY Press.

41.

Vásquez

Brummans

B. H. J. M.

Groleau

. 2012. Notes from the field on organizational shadowing as framing. Qualitative Resarch in Management and Organization 7:144–65.

42.

Wilhoit

E. D.

Kisselburgh

L. G.

. 2015. Collective action without organization: The material constitution of bike commuters as collective. Organization Studies 36:573–92.