I'm just reading through chapter 7 of the Prosser book. I can definitely understand some of the reservations held by critics as covered in the book. For example, if a researcher is exploring another culture there is always the issue that they will create an image of something that they believe to be important - a value judgement - however they may miss something that is inherently important to the other culture's meaning system but not necessarily obvious. Nevetheless on p104 'personal reactivity' is mentioned as a methodological argument against image-based research however the personal characteristics of the researcher can impact just as much if they were using 'traditional' methods such as the written word.
It seems image-based research still has a long way to go to be taken seriously in the academic world, unfairly so I think. However Prosser's comments on this gap are rather insightful when he suggests that often if things have always been done a certain way, they are not questioned but instead just handed down by teachers, etc. This makes a lot of sense and can definitely make anyone involved in this area feel like a 'pioneer'!
Conclusion - I really like visual sociology!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment