Film as Fieldwork
Film as Fieldwork
- Mark PedeltyMark PedeltyDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota Twin Cities
- , and Elja RoyElja RoyDepartment of Communication and Film, University of Memphis
Summary
This article is about making media as a method for studying media, specifically focusing on film. Production-based methodologies can be particularly revelatory, especially when it comes to better understanding aspects of media production that might not be accessible via textual methods and audience ethnography alone. Scholars in communication studies, media sociology, media anthropology, media literacy pedagogy, and film studies have argued that a praxis combining media production and reflexive analysis can help us to better understand “backstage” realities that are less accessible to textual analysis and audience research methodologies. Who or what “authors” a film? Working as a scholar–producer can usefully complicate notions of authorship in the field of media studies, moving the field from an implicit auteur model (the media “text” as “authored”) to more complex understandings of the collective and institutional processes involved in most filmmaking, and in media production more broadly. Production-oriented methods are advancing as new media scholars, accustomed to making media, enter the academy.
Subjects
- Mass Communication
- Media and Communication Policy
Introduction
Ethnographers have employed aural, visual, and electronic media in communication fieldwork for decades (Ruby, 1975). That tradition has been updated and accelerated with the adoption of digital technologies (Pink, 2013). Audio technologies (Brady, 1999), photographs (Collier & Collier, 1986), filmmaking (Lowgren & Reimer, 2013), and telephony (MacEntee et al., 2016) are among the digital communication technologies fieldworkers use to conduct research. This article takes the matter one step further, exploring the use of media production as a methodology in and of itself as a revelatory practice that can supplement other methods of communication research.
It is fairly common for ethnographers to document their research via video. One of the finest exemplars in the field of communication studies is Margaret Quinlan, whose “digital and artistic translation of research” into documentary film has earned her several regional Emmys (Roberson, 2014). However, Quinlan’s work represents a longstanding translational tradition, using media to represent research outcomes to the broader public. This article is about making media as a research methodology: film as fieldwork.
Although far less common than the translational tradition, the idea of making media to study media is not completely new either. For example, “photo elicitation” has been used for decades in the subfield of visual anthropology (Collier & Collier, 1986; Harper, 2002). In photo elicitation, photographs are shown to informants in the field to spark responses and discussion around issues of tacit culture that might otherwise remain below the surface. Methodological tools like photo elicitation can help the fieldworker to bring matters of communication to the fore that might otherwise remain subtextual, obfuscated, and perhaps even taboo. It is also an excellent way to study nonverbal and visual communication.
The act of making media with informants can be a revelatory methodology. In a world that is already heavily mediated (Couldry & Hepp, 2018), mediatized (Hemer & Tufte, 2012), and intertextual (Kristeva, 1986), making media with a community of informants can reveal truths about forms of communication, culture, and community that might not be as readily accessible via other methods of engagement, such as the interview or traditional forms of participant observation. After reviewing relevant literature and providing an epistemological explanation for film as fieldwork, an example will be provided to indicate how making media can productively shift perspective.
A Review of the Literature
Before narrowing down to the scholarship regarding film as fieldwork, it is necessary to first consider the broader temporal, technological, and disciplinary contexts that have moved scholars in a range of disciplines toward more active roles in media production. In part, it is a matter of following the lead of our media-making informants. Croteau (2006) pointed out the need to move beyond a focus on centralized and well-funded media production. As the Internet became more affordable and accessible, and media-making technologies became ubiquitous, an era of self-produced media emerged. Croteau (2006) predicted that the mainstream corporate media would remain powerful but small content creators would have the means to create and distribute content as well. Thus, media scholars and researchers were—and are—faced with exciting opportunities as well as daunting challenges when looking at an expanding world of self-produced media content. In Gauntlett’s (2013) Making is Connecting, communication and design scholar David Gauntlett argued that self-produced media is part of a much broader do-it-yourself (DIY) movement. The author called attention to the shift from the production culture of the centralized and powerful elites to people creating and distributing their own learning and entertaining audiovisual content.
Similarly, Deger (2013a) noted that media production has become far less dependent on media industries and hubs. Studying media in and with the Yolngu, an Aboriginal community in northern Australia, the author argued that the affordances of new technologies helped the community to rediscover traditional forms of image-making and renew those traditions. The Yolngu created a distinct world of rituals, fusing traditional performative dynamics with digital media. For example, Deger points out that Christmas Birrimbirr (Christmas Spirit), a video artwork created by the community, emphasizes collective, participatory creativity rather than the individual pursuit of novelty so highly valued and rewarded in Western media production.
In another project, Deger built upon David MacDougall’s (2005) idea that films can convey impressions, experience, and understanding that are beyond the scope of other forms of communication. Deger (2013b) then made a short film, Christmas with Wawa (Christmas with Brother). Although she had observed the community’s media-making before, this was her directorial debut, using a participatory media-making perspective to further her understanding of Yolngu ritual and mediation. This is a common methodological trajectory, starting with ethnographic fieldwork, moving toward translational exposition of field-generated knowledge, and toward more coproductive media-making in and with informant communities.
Part of the premise of film as fieldwork is to match method to subject. Our informants are increasingly living highly mediated lives. For example, Sniadecki (2014) made a documentary film about migrant workers and urban spaces. Collaborating with workers, site managers, and city dwellers, the author spent three weeks filming a demolition site in the capital of China’s Sichuan province, Chengdu. Sniadecki drew attention to the difference between a film and written ethnography by focusing on phenomenology, sensory ethnography, and cinephilia—qualities that the scholar was not so much bringing to the site, but rather revealing as integral to the mediatized lives and realities already involved in contemporary existence. The author argued that the traditional ethnographic approach to media production tends to reduce the meaning embedded in images and sound to mere arguments, using cultural data for illustration and evidence. Cinematic sound and visuals can help reveal aesthetic dimensions that are difficult to render or examine via text alone.
Coproduction plays a vital role in the move toward film as fieldwork. For example, Harris (2018) claimed that participatory media-making disrupts power relations and can become a political force for marginalized groups. Similarly, scholars such as Leurs et al. (2018) focused on integrating media literacy and community consciousness-raising through active, participatory media-making. They studied how young migrants, especially refugees, use smartphones to raise critical consciousness and strengthen solidarity. The scholars initiated a media literacy program with teachers and 100 students at a Dutch school that offers “international transition classes.” The students were asked to create media to gain awareness of how young migrants are often subject to stereotypical media representation. Similarly, Bruinenberg et al. (2019) studied young migrants’ media practices, noting that those practices changed as they gained critical media literacy. The authors argued that the one-size-fits-all media literacy methods designed for Western, industrialized, educated, and democratic societies fail to account for different ethnic and socioeconomic demographics.
Likewise, Dezuanni (2018) observed that children’s use of digital games such as Minecraft, in combination with media education, heightened their media literacy and use of digital materials, ability to produce media, conceptual understanding, and analysis of media practices. Similarly, O’Leary and Renga (2020) found that a practice-oriented approach improved students’ understandings of audiovisual media through videographic critiques. In each of the above cases, the collective, investigative, and pedagogical roles of media-making are combined rather than segregated out into separate acts.
Mayer (2016) applied that same praxis-based logic to media studies, arguing that including production research in the realm of audience research can provide new insight into power relations that the study of media texts alone cannot. And film as fieldwork can break down the increasingly fluid boundary between producers and audiences. For example, Christopher Robé (2014) demonstrated how digital media production is a central focus of social movements and an integral form of activism. While studying textual artifacts produced by and about movements is useful, so too is intersubjective media-making as a way of better understanding the worlds in which media content is produced.
Lowgren and Reimer (2013) labeled the integration of production and consumption “prosumption” and, similarly, used the term “produsage” to describe the melding of production and usage into a more holistic and widespread practice. Among the many insights in their book, Collaborative Media: Production, Consumption, and Design Interventions (2013), Lowgren and Reimer argued that the rising culture of collaborative media is causing media content to be less predefined. In a world of expanding definitions, possibilities, purposes, and practices, production-oriented methods for studying media are also becoming increasingly productive. The most complete and productive articulation of those trends—as well as the methodological implications and possibilities for applied media studies research—is found in Ostherr’s Applied Media Studies: Theory and Practice (2018).
The Medium is the Method
The authors of this article experimented with media-making as a research methodology as part of a grant-funded collaboration entitled Field to Media: Exploring Environmental Crisis Via Musical Performance & Media Production. Roy (filmmaker and media studies scholar) conducted cinematic fieldwork in Bangladesh and India, while Pedelty’s (media anthropologist) project was based in the Salish Sea region of the United States and Canada. Their audiovisual projects were part of a larger collaboration involving a team of five scholar–practitioners. Collaborator Yan Pang (composer, choreographer) worked in China, and Rebecca Dirksen (ethnomusicologist) carried out her fieldwork in Haiti while Tara Hatfield’s (ethnomusicologist) experimental fieldwork developed in Tanzania. Each of the five subprojects used community-level coproduction as a method for understanding how local communities conceive of, communicate, and confront environmental challenges. They did so by making musical videos and documentaries with informants. Their media work revealed a great deal about each community’s organizational dynamics and desires and the ecological contexts within which they are imbricated (Pedelty et al., 2020). The individual subprojects and videos can be viewed at FieldtoMedia.Net, as can a documentary describing the entire team project.
However, the goal here is not to report on the authors’ fieldwork but rather to assess and explicate the experimental methodology involved. As media studies scholars, the authors came into agreement with the consensus outlined in the literature review section above: that it is possible to reveal tacit aspects of mediatized lives through making media with our informants. Media production is a primary interest in media studies (Long, 2014; Mayer et al., 2009), and one way to study production is by participating in it. The medium is the method.
This is by no means a radically new idea. Actively practicing an object of study in order to better understand it is central to many disciplines and subjects. For example, ethnomusicologists have practiced “bi-musicality” (Hood, 1960) for some time, a method wherein scholar–musicians perform and learn alongside their musician-informants to better understand aspects of training, musicianship, performance, composition, communication, and meaning that might not be readily apparent from the vantage point of the audience or critic (Hood, 1960). What we propose here is similar: by making media with fellow media producers, we can illuminate aspects of filmmaking that might not be readily accessible when solely studying the text (films) or audience. Such methods simply take the ethnographic concept of participant observation to its participatory extreme.
The methodology developed in the Field to Media project is laid out in greater detail elsewhere (Pedelty et al., 2020), and the goal here is not to overview or promote any single way of integrating media production into media research but rather to argue for doing so on epistemological and methodological grounds. For example, it is very much in line with Ostherr’s (2018) experimental media “lab” based approach. Whether one is behind the camera or in front of it, what the scholar coproducer stands to learns in league with coproducers is as potentially varied and complex as the communities, places, purposes, and moments involved in the research. And that is part of the point. In the case of the Field to Media collaboration, for example, the scholars involved studied community-based media-making from the varying vantage points of producers, directors, choreographers, performers, editors, and more, each learning something different as a result. For example, through making Sentinels of Silence? Whale Watching, Noise, and the Orca, Pedelty (2020) discovered organizational dynamics within the nonprofit networks of the Salish Sea that might not have been revealed via formal interviews alone. Similarly, through her filmic experiences in India and Bangladesh, Roy was exposed to tacit international tensions among her informants and movements.
Case in Point: Understanding “Authorship”
Engaging in filmmaking can complicate our understanding of film production itself. As Rangan (2011) argued in dissecting the relatively famous case of Born into Brothels (Briski & Kauffman, 2004), claims for collaboration can provide ideological cover for the perpetuation of inequitable relationships in media production. A few individuals typically have far more editorial and directorial power than others in their community of “coproducers.” The pretense of fully equitable collaboration belies the reality of hierarchical organization and hyper-specialization that media-making often requires, even at the community level.
Some level of hierarchy is inevitable, as is specialization. Differential levels of power in decision making and management are necessary in order to successfully complete a film, just as a degree of task-specific autonomy needs to be accorded to each specialist if they are expected to become invested in the collective project and do their work creatively, professionally, and effectively. As the authors discovered time and again when working on coproductions in the field, someone must make myriad small and large decisions on a moment’s notice and within logistical and budgetary constraints. Someone must manage and direct talent for most forms and genres of media-making to result in a comprehensible outcome.
In fact, there are many such roles to play—far more than often imagined from the audience’s endpoint perspective— including everything from accounting to catering. To posit that all individuals involved could effectively execute their specialized roles while also having a full and equal say in larger directorial and production decisions is to imagine an ideal that is almost impossible to operationalize. Schechner’s (2003) theatrical concept of “quadrilogue” perhaps comes closest to recognizing that more complex world of interaction, input, and decision making. In actual productions, particularly at the community level, budgets are tight, time is fleeting, and people are complex.
That does not make claims of coproduction impossible or insincere, but it does indicate that the scholar–producer should practice a great deal of critical reflexivity when undertaking and writing about media coproductions. That level of directly informed reflexivity might, in turn, bring a bit more humility, nuance, and complexity to media studies scholars’ critiques of industrial media production and media texts.
If that is true in even some of the most community-based coproductions, what are we to make of major studio-based cinema? Can we treat major studio productions as if they have a singular author to blame, laud, or focus upon, or are such films more accurately understood as social, institutional, and polysemic productions?
Industry public relations and advertising tend to overemphasize the power of individual minds and decision-makers within media production. The auteur Director is a necessary media fetish, a condensation symbol that can (mis)represent complex backstage realities in the form of a singular creator to be interviewed, promoted, and understood by audiences. The mythos of individual authorship is, therefore, a form of commodity fetishism that magically converts institutionalized processes into accessible human artifacts and narratives.
Various audiences play their part in this collective fiction, including many scholars who use textual analysis in isolation to “read” film “texts.” For scholars and other critics, it is easier to point at individuals and groups than to elucidate the myriad material, ideological, institutional, and human forces involved in producing media. As film audiences, it is a fiction in which we all participate to some degree. In fact, if the cast and crew of thousands do their work well, a film or TV program does indeed seem like the narrative construction of a single mind. The teleological human tendency to ascribe the authorship of mythic texts and performances to a singular mind is akin to attributing authorship of a complex universe to a singular god or set of deities. So too, media producers are also partly products and projections of the larger social world with highly circumscribed creativity and limited agency. More reductive understandings of media production are appealing, but rarely accurate. And that is where ethnographic explorations of media production as well as media-making itself can help the media studies scholar to productively problematize some of the basic assumptions of textual analysis.
After taking part in relatively small-scale community coproductions—productions that occupy a space somewhere between inexpensive social media and heavily bankrolled studio films—we are inclined toward skepticism of the auteur-attributions often made in media studies. Sellors (2007) describes the problem well in his essay, “Collective Authorship in Film” (2007), similarly arguing against locating authorship in the acts of a very small core of creatives. Sellors focuses on editorial power, intent, and what he refers to as the “utterance”:
Throughout this article I have aimed to demonstrate that there is a difference between the properties of a film and the properties of a filmic utterance. This difference should guard us from being able to identify authors of a work in numbers approaching the number of figures in The Last Judgment, but not The Last Supper. This seems about right. In a collaborative medium, we should expect to find not only authored components, but also varying degrees of joint authorship in the finished work. (p. 270)
Sellors goes on to note the number of stars, cinematographers, scriptwriters, composers, choreographers, producers, directors, and myriad other specialists that make up the creative whole. Numbers somewhere between “The Last Supper” and “The Last Judgement” indeed. Somewhere between egalitarian claims of coproduction—wherein claims of inclusivity can occlude realities of hierarchy—and auteur assumptions that obfuscate filmmaking’s broader ecology lies the truth in most cases. This might seem like common sense, but it remains surprisingly unrecognized, undertheorized, and methodologically unavailable in media studies. Media-making methodologies are one way to make the matter more accessible to media studies scholarship.
How and why might the example of authorship matter? If we are to assume that a film is primarily the product of a single or small set of writers, producers, and/or directors, then all one needs to do is advocate to replace those specific individuals with others more ideologically suited to the task. Such a theory implies that different individuals within those same or similar institutional contexts would produce radically different media. Empirically speaking, that has proven to be less true than critical scholars might hope. In an insightful study on the topic, O’Brien (2017) determined that the growing representation of women in the Irish film industry, for example, did not translate into a hoped-for feminist transformation of film in Ireland. The identities of the people in charge changed, but not the ideological and political economic structures conditioning their labor. Media authorship involves more than individuals, groups, and identities. It is a complexly systemic process, as is social power, more broadly speaking. Grasping that complexity might serve reformist ends more successfully. Media production takes place in a complex ecology that includes the considerable force of genre expectations, corporate ideologies, filmmaking conventions, audience biases, market disciplines, and technologies.
In that way, media production can be thought of as a “boundary object” within and through which groups of varying social power negotiate cultural production (Dávila et al., 2017). Budget, for example, wields more power than individual choice. A director needs to compel a crew and talent to approximate their vision through careful communication, encouragement, and negotiation, whereas budgets dictate what is and is not possible. If there is no money to pay for a new cast member, they cannot be added. If there is no funding to shoot at a second location, it cannot be done, no matter what the people involved might desire.
As for genre expectations, the media producer must often make a Faustian bargain between creating more independent works of art and risk having the film resonate with no one (the ultimate auteur), or make a more compromised, genre-bound production that will appeal to funders, consumers, policy makers, festival juries, and other audiences. Genre plays the role of interlocutor in that complex negotiation across individual and institutional boundaries. In other words, genre is itself a medium of communication between producers and consumers.
An armchair critic might wonder why producers choose to present ideologically compromised work. The scholar–producer, having witnessed the force of myriad coproductive influences, experiences such trade-offs more directly. Such behind the scenes fieldwork can help us to understand the complex negotiations at the heart of media production. Per the point of ethnographic participant observation more generally (Johnson et al., 2006), the scholar–producer phenomenologically encounters these forces firsthand, in visceral form, and therefore has a harder time black boxing that which goes into creating a media text.
This is not to say that media-making methodologies are superior to textual analysis or audience research. Like the people bound up in Plato’s Cave, each methodology allows us to witness a different set of shadows, even if cast by the same fire (or projector). A more holistic understanding of media ecology might emerge if we were to pay closer attention to all aspects of media, including what goes into production. One way to do that is to make media as part of media studies fieldwork.
Epistemological Challenges, Methodological Opportunities
There are many logistical, financial, temporal, institutional, ideological, and epistemological obstacles to the wider scale adoption of media-making approaches to media studies. The last on that list, epistemology, will be considered briefly here.
Even poststructural approaches tend to retain at least a few tenets of positivism. For example, it remains difficult for many scholars to break the fourth wall between scholar-observers and their objects of study. Most media scholars study exogenous media from a relative distance. We critique what they create.
A counterargument has been put forth in this article—the idea that scholars can be creators as well as interpreters of media. An iterative epistemology, praxis (theoretically enriched practice and theory informed by practice), can benefit comprehension. Social research is a creative enterprise, an intersubjective engagement with the world. Ethnographers have for decades understood their methodology as one of cocreation rather than purely objective discovery (Tedlock, 1991). During the poststructural turn in ethnography, reflexivity and intersubjectivity replaced objectivity, in theory. Yet, much of the language of objectivity is retained, in tone as well as in the basic methodological assumptions of who, what, and how media is studied by media studies scholars.
Scholars often adopt a serialized approach to social change, maintaining a positivistic line of separation between research and application. Scholars study and publish, hoping that others—activists, policy makers, professionals—will put their insights into practice. Going beyond that segregated role model of research, action researchers attempt to critically combine observation, experience, and action. In the world of musical performance and media, for example, action researchers have become creatively involved in changing the systems of production they study (Dirksen, 2012). The methodological adoption of media-making strategies has developed alongside the epistemology of action research.
Action research developed in a Freirean (Freire, 1970) mode. Action researchers view understanding (theory) and doing (practice) as iterative, rather than separated or serialized. The action researcher operates on the premise that (a) knowing can be enriched by doing, (b) reflexively examining and laying bare one’s biases is more epistemologically sound than hiding behind a pretense of objectivity, and (c) that if the researcher does not act upon that which they have learned, it is unlikely that anyone else will. The action researcher cuts out the mythical middle person and gets more directly involved in making change. Reason and Bradbury (2012) argued that what is learned via advocacy and action is at least as valid and useful as that which is learned via more objectively distanced methodologies. Again, the application of these concepts in media studies is best developed by the authors whose applied media-making experiments are published in Ostherr’s (2018) edited volume, Applied Media Studies: Theory and Practice.
Compounding problems like climate change, systemic racism, environmental justice, and extinction call for action research, applied research, and public engagement. Media-making is a useful way of exploring and knowing media, and concerted attempts to solve sticky problems can be just as fruitful, from the standpoint of discovery, as methods that analyze, theorize, and characterize media representations of those problems.
Methodological Limitations and Conundrums
There are numerous limitations and challenges, and at least one contradiction involved in film as fieldwork. Starting with the contradiction, media production is a resource-intensive enterprise, much more so than textual analysis. Given our primary interests in ecocinema (Roy, 2021) and ecomusicology (Pedelty, 2012, 2016), we recognize that a production-based methodology is far more energy-intensive and wasteful, from an ecological standpoint, than textual analysis or traditional ethnographic fieldwork.
One answer to that contradiction is to use these powerful tools to examine and develop alternative modes of media-making and research, especially those that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and waste (Wilde & Nevins, 2020). Working locally while networking globally is another response to the ecological conundrum. For example, Ecosong.net’s most recent projects have developed with more sustainable methods in mind. Another answer to the ecological conundrum is to focus on environmental exigencies and policy change. Perhaps higher environmental costs can be justified if the work results in tangible outcomes, another reason for action and applied research (Ostherr, 2018).
There are additional limitations to incorporating media production into media studies, including money, training, and time. Genre conventions in the academy, developed as they are around textual analysis and production, make it difficult to fund, prepare for, and undertake time consuming media production-based research.
Furthermore, it can be difficult to write about filmmaking. Again, the medium is the method. Filmmaking is a particularly effective way of communicating cinematic research. Translating the complex, multimodal experiences of filmmaking into the written word, while also necessary, is a challenge. The genre conventions for writing about media-making research are just now developing.
Conclusion
This article argues that media production is a useful method for studying media, fleshing out the example of film as a form of fieldwork. The authors reviewed here call for a highly participatory form of ethnographic participant observation, one with an experimental tinge and problem-solving ethos. In addition to epistemological arguments for film as fieldwork, a specific affordance—examining the nature of media authorship—has been offered as an illustration of the methodology’s potential.
Participatory methods of media research are likely to grow in popularity. New generations of scholars have grown up in a world where the line between media production and consumption continues to blur. Every teen has the means to become a Tik Tok celebrity. They understand, to an extent, what contrivances lie behind the curtain when it comes to the making of a successful social media production, even if much of the political, economic, and algorithmic power of the media industries continue to be largely hidden. Genre literacy is less and less difficult to translate into media competence. For each new generation of scholars in media studies, it becomes easier to cross the rapidly thinning line between consumption and production of media. Likewise, having been raised in an era of experiential education, the idea of knowing by doing is well developed in younger scholars. As a result, the idea of making media as part of scholarly research might become more and more comfortable to new generations of media researchers.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the Mellon-funded Humanities Without Walls consortium at the University of Illinois, as well as our coproducers, Rebecca Dirksen, Tara Hatfield, and Yan Pang.
Further Reading
- Baily, J. (2009). The art of the “fieldwork movie”: 35 years of making ethnomusicological films. Ethnomusicology Forum, 18(1), 55–64.
- Barker, J. (2004). Films and other trials: Reflections on long-term fieldwork among the Maisin, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Studies, 27, 81–106.
- Briski, Z., & Kauffman, R. (2004). Born into brothels. Drakes Avenue Pictures.
- Chio, J. (2014). Fieldwork, film, and the tourist gaze: Making 农家乐 peasant family happiness. Visual Anthropology Review, 30(1), 62–72.
- Glowczewski, B. (2020). Beyond the frames of film and Aboriginal fieldwork. In Pasqualino, C., & Schneider, A. (Eds.), Experimental film and anthropology (pp. 147–164). Routledge.
- Goodman, P. S. (2004). Filmmaking and research: An intersection. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(4), 324–335.
- Hackett, A., Pool, S., Rowsell, J., & Aghajan, B. (2015). Seen and unseen: Using video data in ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative Research Journal.
- Koch, J. (2019). Fieldwork as performance: Being ethnographic in film-making. Anthropology Southern Africa, 42(2), 161–172.
- Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the time of the anthropocene. New Literary History, 45(1), 1–18.
- MacDougall, D. (2011). Anthropological filmmaking: An empirical art. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 99–114). SAGE.
- Pedelty, M. (2017). “We live in the lake”: Ecomusicology as community pedagogy. Journal of Music History Pedagogy, 8(1), 72–85.
- Powdermaker, H. (1950). Hollywood the dream factory. Little, Brown, and Company.
- van de Port, M. (2018). In love with my footage: Desirous undercurrents in the making of an essay film on Candomblé. Visual Anthropology Review, 34(2), 136–146.
References
- Brady, E. (1999). A spiral way: How the phonograph changed ethnography. University Press of Mississippi.
- Bruinenberg, H., Sprenger, S., Omerović, E., & Leurs, K. (2019). Practicing critical media literacy education with/for young migrants: Lessons learned from a participatory action research project. International Communication Gazette 83(1), 1748048519883511.
- Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. University of New Mexico Press.
- Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons.
- Croteau, D. (2006). The growth of self-produced media content and the challenge to media studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(4), 340–344.
- Dávila, P., Colangelo, D., Chan, M., & Tu, R. (2017). Expressive cartography, boundary objects and the aesthetics of public visualization. Leonardo, 50(5), 509–510.
- Deger, J. (2013a). The jolt of the new: Making video art in Arnhem Land. Culture, Theory and Critique, 54(3), 355–371.
- Deger, J. (2013b). Christmas with Wawa.
- Dezuanni, M. (2018). Minecraft and children’s digital making: Implications for media literacy education. Learning, Media & Technology, 43(3), 236–249.
- Dirksen, R. (2012). Reconsidering theory and practice in ethnomusicology: Applying, advocating, and engaging beyond academia. Ethnomusicology Review, 17, 1–35.
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Seabury Press. (Original work published 1968)
- Gauntlett, D. (2013). Making is connecting. John Wiley & Sons.
- Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual studies, 17(1), 13–26.
- Harris, U. S. (2018). Participatory media in environmental communication: Engaging communities in the periphery. Routledge.
- Hemer, O., & Tufte, T. (2012). ComDev in the mediatized world. Nordicom Review, 33(Special Issue), 229–237.
- Hood, M. (1960). The challenge of “bi-musicality.” Ethnomusicology, 4(2), 55–59.
- Johnson, J. C., Avenarius, C., & Weatherford, J. (2006). The active participant-observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods, 18(2), 111–134.
- Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34–61). Basil Blackwell.
- Leurs, K., Omerović, E., Bruinenberg, H., & Sprenger, S. (2018). Critical media literacy through making media: A key to participation for young migrants? Communications, 43(3), 427–450.
- Long, P. (2014). Media studies: Texts, production, context. Routledge.
- Lowgren, J., & Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative media: Production, consumption, and design interventions. The MIT Press.
- MacDougall, D. (2005). The corporeal image: Film, ethnography, and the senses. Princeton University Press.
- MacEntee, K., Burkholder, C., & Schwab-Cartas, J. (2016). What’s a cellphilm? Integrating mobile phone technology into participatory visual research and activism. Springer.
- Mayer, V. (2016). The places where audience studies and production studies meet. Television & New Media, 17(8), 706–718.
- Mayer, V., Banks, M. J., & Caldwell, J. T. (Eds.). (2009). Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries. Routledge.
- O’Brien, A. (2017). Feminine or feminist? Women’s media leadership. Feminist Media Studies, 17(5), 836–850.
- O’Leary, A., & Renga, D. (2020). Teaching Italian film and television and videographic criticism. The Italianist, 1–14.
- Ostherr, K. (Ed.). (2018). Applied media studies: Theory and practice. Routledge.
- Pedelty, M. (2012). Ecomusicology: Rock, Folk, and the Environment. Temple University Press.
- Pedelty, M. (2016). A song to save the Salish Sea: Musical performance as environmental activism. Indiana University Press.
- Pedelty, M. (2020). Sentinels of silence?: Whale watching, boat noise, and the orca.
- Pedelty, M., Dirksen, R., Hatfield, T., Pang, Y., & Roy, E. (2020). Field to media: Applied ecomusicology in the anthropocene. Popular Music, 39(1), 22–42.
- Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. SAGE.
- Rangan, P. (2011). Immaterial child labor: Media advocacy, autoethnography, and the case of Born into Brothels. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies, 25(3(75)), 143–177.
- Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. SAGE. Second Edition.
- Robé, C. (2014). Materializing cultural struggle in film and media studies. Culture, Theory & Critique, 55(1), 17–33.
- Roberson, L. (2014). Communication studies professor wins Emmy for “the courage of creativity.”
- Roy, E. (2021). Art, activism and Sundarbans: A case study of musical environmental movement through film [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.
- Ruby, J. (1975). Is an ethnographic film a filmic ethnography? Studies in Visual Communication, 2(2), 104–111.
- Schechner, R. (2003). The future of ritual: Writings on culture and performance. Routledge.
- Sellors, C. P. (2007). Collective authorship in film. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65(3), 263–271.
- Sniadecki, J. P. (2014). Chaiqian/demolition: Reflections on media practice. Visual Anthropology Review, 30(1), 23–37.
- Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 69–94.