Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action

Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action EDITED BY Aline Gubrium, Krista Harper, and Marty Otañez Walnut Creek, California LEFT COAST PRESS, INC. 1630 North Main Street, #400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 www.LCoastPress.com Copyright © 2015 by Let Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN ISBN ISBN ISBN 978-1-62958-098-2 978-1-62958-099-9 978-1-62958-100-2 978-1-62958-101-9 hardback paperback Institutional eBook consumer eBook Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: [to come] Printed in the United States of America he paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992. CO NT E NTS List of Illustrations • 9 Foreword by Phillip Vannini • 11 Acknowledgments • 13 1 Aline Gubrium, Krista Harper, and Marty Otañez Introduction • 15 PART 1 Digital Storytelling • 39 2 Darcy Alexandra Are We Listening Yet? Participatory Knowledge Production through Media Practice: Encounters of Political Listening • 41 3 Marty Otañez and Andrés Guerrero Digital Storytelling and the Hepatitis C Virus Project • 57 5 6 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action PART 2 Photovoice • 71 4 Ciann Wilson and Sarah Flicker Picturing Transactional $ex: Ethics, Challenges, and Possibilities • 73 5 Cynthia Selin and Gretchen Gano Seeing Differently: Enticing Reflexivity in the Futurescape City Tours • 87 PART III Participatory Video • 101 6 Charles Menzies In Our Grandmothers’ Garden: An Indigenous Approach to Collaborative Film • 103 7 Jean Schensul and Campbell Daglish A Hard Way Out: Improvisational Video and Youth Participatory Action Research • 115 PART IV Participatory Mapping and GIS • 129 8 Nick Rattray Counter-Mapping as Situated Knowledge: Integrating Lay Expertise in Participatory Geographic Research • 131 9 Simona L. Perry Beyond Words: The Transformative Practice (and Politics) of Digital Spatial and Visual Ethnography in a Rural Shale Gas Boomtown • 147 10 Edward González-Tennant Resurrecting Rosewood: New Heritage as Applied Visual Anthropology • 163 Contents PART V Participatory Digital Archives and Museums • 179 11 Catherine Besteman Ethnography of an Ethnographic Somali Photography Archive in Maine • 181 12 Madeleine Tudor and Alaka Wali Showcasing Heritage: Engaging Local Communities through Museum Practice • 197 13 Natalie Underberg-Goode PeruDigital: Ethnographic Storytelling through Iterative Design • 213 PART V 7 Participatory Design Ethnography • 227 14 Nancy Fried Foster Participatory Design for the Common Good • 229 15 Elizabeth Chin, Cayla McCrae, Morgan Marzek, and Tina Zeng Caminemos Juntos: Collaboration, Ethnography, and Design in Northeast Los Angeles • 243 16 Elizabeth Chin, Cayla McCrae, Morgan Marzek, and Tina Zeng Matthew Durington, Samuel Collins, and the Anthropology by the Wire Collective: Games Without Frontiers: App Design as Networked Anthropology • 259 Index • 277 About the Authors • 283 I L LU ST RAT I O N S Figures Figure 4.1: he perfect couple Figure 4.2: Paradise Figure 8.1: A Timeline of participatory GIS: case studies and conceptual ields Figure 8.2: A sample aerial map interview instrument Figure 9.1: GIS map of landowner-identiied special places, water resources, and shale gas developments (density of shale gas wells) Figure 9.2: ArcMap and ArcCatalog drats showing many of the participantgenerated countywide data layers Figure 10.1: Location of Rosewood, Florida Figure 10.2: Ruins of house near Rosewood Figure 10.3: View of Rosewood Virtual World Environment available via the Rosewood Heritage Project website Figure 10.4: Documenting Rosewood’s African American cemetery in 2012 Figure 11.1: Binti and her son, Banta, Somalia Figure 11.2: Iman’s grandfather, Banta, Somalia Figure 11.3: Quran School in Banta, Somalia Figure 12.1: Shoes as a medium through which a comparison of cultural similarities and diferences were presented to the public Figure 12.2: Standard-issue hard hat displaying a steel worker’s ailiations Figure 12.3: Photo of the lakefront in Portage, Indiana, captures the juxtaposition of elements in the Calumet landscape 9 10 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Figure 12.4: Public art evoking the region’s heritage helped reframe this former substation-turned–art gallery. Figure 13.1: PeruDigital homepage Figure 14.1: Drawings from design workshops at the University of Maryland and Purdue University Figure 14.2: Four themes derived by University of Maryland graduate students in architecture from participatory design and ethnographic information Figure 15.1: Marlon’s tattoo design from the Jovenes Ink activity Figure 15.2: Screenshots of Jovenes youth and MDP students during the “Pass the Mic” exercise Figure 15.3: Visitors listening to Caminemos Juntos on headphones while “standing in the shoes” of the Jovenes youth Figure 16.1: Screenshot of a wire-framed prototype using http://popapp.in Figure 16.2: Network diagram of Baltimore Steel app Figure 16.3: Network diagram of HIV Outreach Clinic app Figure 16.4: Network diagram of Youth Works app Tables Table 4.1: An iterative data collection and analysis process Table 8.1: Two models for creating accessible environments Table 16.1: Degree and betweenness in Baltimore Steel App Foreword Phillip Vannini I was profoundly surprised when I received the editors’ invitation to write a foreword for this book. More than surprised, I admit that I felt like an impostor. My ethnographic work has nearly always been visual and digital. Yet, I never thought of it as suiciently participatory or action-oriented. For example, to generate interesting and at times even entertaining public knowledge, my hybrid media ethnographies (e.g., ferryresearch.ca; lifeofgrid. ca) have used digital sound, photography, and video not so much as illustrations for journal articles, but rather as the narrative basis for publications in popular magazines, the Internet, TV, and newspapers. Knowledge mobilization of this kind, I have always thought, is necessary for raising awareness and molding public opinions, but perhaps it falls short of being action-oriented. Furthermore, even though I have always involved research participants in the editing of their visual representations (who would want their face or home in the national news if their depiction isn’t fair or accurate, right?), I have always been cautious about calling that a form of collaboration. But impostor syndrome or not, because I have always felt a deep antipathy toward traditional ways of doing and especially sharing research (e.g., see publicethnography.net), and a great deal of antagonism toward the structural academic bias for methodological conservativism, I agreed to write a few opening and perhaps apologetic words as I looked forward to catching up with the latest developments in this ield. As I write these words now—ater having read this wonderfully thorough book—I realize that I have been conducting visual, digital, and actionoriented participatory research for the last few years, much to my ignorance. My feeling is that this volume will have a similar converting efect on many other readers. And indeed I can only hope that it will do so because, in all 11 12 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action honesty, for anyone in the twenty-irst century to be convinced of the value of doing inaction-oriented, analog, nonvisual, and uncollaborative research is to be trapped in a time warp of frightening proportions. From digital storytelling and photovoice to participatory ilm and collaborative mapping, and from participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) to collaborative digital archive and museum curation (and more), the contributors to Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action share enough inspiring tools to convince anyone—from the already initiated to the skeptics still keen on paper-and-pencil measures—to pick up a few new skills and evaluate the potential of these evolving methodological traditions for the achievement of both old and new research objectives. As a cynic by birthright and a critical and relexive mind by trade, I view the immense appeal of action-oriented participatory visual and digital research strategies less in the shiny glitter that makes them new and edgy (i.e., their technological sophistication and their democratic commitment) and more in the way they allow us to take pleasure in the delight of enchantment. In fact, there isn’t enough enchantment in the world of research: there isn’t enough respect—in other words—for the naiveté, wonder, and curiosity that drives (and should drive) all forms of inquiry in the irst place. Enchantment is, regrettably, beaten out of us at every turn. Research professionals caught in the insidious mechanics of the neoliberal state have their enchantment chastised out of them every time they write a grant proposal that asks them to spell out in advance what they are going to ind out, much like undergraduate and graduate students are conined to “defending” the impracticalities and romantic visions of their research designs before they embark on thesis or dissertation research. Enchantment, the institution tells us, is unnecessary, childish, biasing, impractical, and even frightening. Disenchanted in turn by these numbing politics of bean-counting accountability, and by a myopic focus on reliability and validity-obsessed research, participatory, digital, and visual research followers want us to relearn to appreciate creativity and relationality. Creativity—the ability to envision something unique and original—and relationality—the capacity to be sensitive to others and to be open to their potential to afect us, as much as our potential to afect them—are what truly distinguish the enchanting approaches outlined in this book. Creativity and relationality are the keys to a diferent role for social scientiic research in academia and in society. Enchantment, this book tells us, is possible, desirable, empowering, productive, and contagious. And even a lot of fun. Acknowledgments his project began with a conference panel at the Society for Applied Anthropology meetings in Albuquerque in 2014 and quickly grew into a wider and more interdisciplinary circle of researchers. For us as co-editors, this collection and the accompanying multimedia website has truly been a collaborative efort. We have listed our names alphabetically to relect this. We have beneitted from research support that helped us to develop this project. Aline received funding from the Ford Foundation to develop a digital storytelling-based research, training, and strategic communications project focused on sexual and reproductive justice, in concert with young parenting women and in collaboration with her colleague Elizabeth L. (Betsy) Krause and a number of terriic partnering organizations. hanks to all who have fostered and supported this work. Aline also received National Institutes of Health funding to develop what she calls a “culture-centered, narrative approach” to health promotion, again centered on digital storytelling. Krista received and Instructional Improvement Grant from the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and a Community Engagement and Service Learning Fellowship from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, both of which provided resources for research and writing. Marty received a grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, with a focus on viral hepatitis. We thank Mitch Allen at Let Coast Press for his encouragement, expertise, and incredible patience in guiding us throughout the process of editing this book. Ryan Harris, Jennifer de Garmo, Michelle Treviño, Lisa Devenish, and Stephanie Adams helped us get the book in print and reaching new readers. Jennifer Collier’s early feedback broadened our perspective on what we could do with this project. 13 14 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action We feel very fortunate to be part of scholarly communities that support our work on participatory visual and digital research. Aline thanks her colleagues in the Departments of Health Promotion and Policy and Anthropology. Krista would like to thank her colleagues in the Department of Anthropology and the Center for Public Policy and Administration (CPPA). Marty thanks his colleagues in the Anthropology Department and the Latino Research and Policy Center at UC Denver. He also thanks future storytellers who are willing to story-share and listen. Finally, we express our deepest gratitude for our families. Aline thanks Marit, Malin, Lily, and Vince for keeping her grounded and present, especially when everything academic seems so “yet-to-come.” Krista is grateful to Michael, Zeke, and Rafael for their encouragement through so many diferent projects. She also is thankful to her parents and the Sammet, Garner, and Ash families for always being there for her. Marty thanks his wife, graphic designer and web designer Michelle Otañez. C H A PT E R 1 Introduction Aline Gubrium, Krista Harper, and Marty Otañez Taking the “Participatory Turn” As social researchers, many of us were trained to focus on researchergenerated questions contributing to generalizable knowledge that might or might not be applied in community settings at some later time. Postmodern critics of the late twentieth century drew focus to issues of power in scholarly representation, leading many ethnographers to take what is now known as the “literary turn” or the “relexive turn” (Behar and Gordon 1995; Cliford and Marcus 1986; de Groof 2013; Foley 2002). Since that time, postcolonial, feminist, and other activist scholars pushed the critique beyond scholarly texts to new forms of participatory action research (Castelden et al. 2008; Hale 2008; Harper 2012; Hemment 2007). We have moved beyond the “literary turn” and relexivity for relexivity’s sake to a new “participatory turn” of collaborative and community-based research. At the same time, visual and digital media technologies present us with new ways to work alongside communities to produce and communicate our research collaboratively. But what does this “participatory turn” look like in action? Participatory visual and digital research methods are changing the landscape of our work across disciplines and on the ground in collaboration with communities. Scholars in public health, anthropology, communication, environmental studies, science and technology studies, heritage studies, education and youth development, and museum studies are all taking the “participatory turn.” his collection consists of six parts, each featuring contributions by experts in each of the most well-known research methods. Aline Gubrium, Krista Harper, and Marty Otañez, “Introduction” in Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action, pp. 15-37. © 2015 Let Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 15 16 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action As in our irst book (A. Gubrium and Harper 2013), where we presented key igures in the ield through their “core stories,” contributors recount how they came to be practitioners of emerging participatory visual and digital research and how their use of these methods changed them. Chapter authors present their own version of participation and collaboration as it plays out in action, their use of digital or visual technology, and discuss issues of power and ethics that relate to their project process or outcomes. A companion website to the book (www.pvdraction.org/) allows readers to view the research products presented in each contributor’s chapter. Part I includes two very diferent projects that use digital storytelling. Digital storytelling is a workshop-based process in which participants create irst-person narratives about an important moment in their lives and then use digital editing sotware to synthesize their narrative with digital images, video, text, and sound/track to create a compelling short video (Lambert 2012). Darcy Alexandra’s chapter presents her longitudinal work with asylum seekers in Ireland and relects upon digital storytelling as a way to foster “political listening,” empathy, and action. Marty Otañez and Andrés Guerrero use this method to learn about the lives and challenges of people living with Hepatitis C in Denver. he chapters in Part II highlight diferent issues in Photovoice. Photovoice is a participatory method in which participants take photos in relation to participant-derived themes, participate in generative conversations around selected photos, and then display and dialogue around the photos in a community forum setting to address key themes for action (Wang 1999). Ciann Wilson and Sarah Flicker use the method to elicit young women’s understandings of sexuality and sexual health in an African, Caribbean, and black neighborhood in Toronto, a context marked by racial, gender, and class inequalities. Cynthia Selin and Gretchen Gano harness Photovoice techniques to participatory technology assessment in the Futurescape City Tours project, in which citizens and experts explore neighborhoods as they discuss how new technologies might transform urban life in North American cities. Part III presents the work of veteran participatory action researchers working in ilm and video. Charles Menzies ofers a retrospective lens of his ilm projects with the Gitxaała Nation in Canada and his learning process as an Indigenous ilmmaker moving into an ever more collaborative approach. Jean Schensul and Campbell Daglish describe their “improvisational video” technique for engaging youth in participatory action research (PAR) and communication campaigns on issues related to health and drug use. Introduction 17 Part IV moves into the intriguing terrain of participatory geographic information systems (PGIS). Researchers are increasingly using the cartographic techniques and sophisticated spatial analysis tools of GIS to study how maps and space matter. In PGIS projects, maps are participantcreated and/or created using GIS sotware. Maps in either form are used as visual elicitations devices for answering four questions: 1) Where is something located? 2) Where is something concentrated? 3) What kinds of things coincide in a speciic place? and 4) How is a place changing over time? (A. Gubrium and Harper 2013, 153–154)? In Nick Rattray’s chapter, we see people with and without physical disabilities mapping and evaluating accessibility on a university campus and revealing “invisible barriers” in the process. Simona Perry takes a participatory, qualitative GIS approach in her work with rural Pennsylvania residents, representing layers of stories associated with speciic landscapes afected by shale gas exploration. Historical archaeologist Edward González-Tennant uses GIS as a starting point for grappling with multimedia research, collaborating with survivors and descendants of a massacre that took place in an African-American town in the early 1920s. His Virtual Rosewood museum uses interactive online features to engage descendant communities and the broader public in coming to terms with “diicult heritage.” Part V brings together several examples of participatory digital archives and museums. In our irst book, we noted an opening up of “opportunities for the public to participate in collections and archives, not only as information consumers, but also as contributors and lay curators…. [M]any [social scientists] have come to see the [digital archiving] process…as a new form of participatory action research” (A. Gubrium and Harper 2013, 169). Catherine Besteman gives an autoethnographic account of the development of an online archive of photographs and research materials from her ieldwork. She developed “he Somali Bantu Experience” in consultation with local Bantu refugees who were resettled in Maine ater leeing Somalia’s civil war. Madeleine Tudor and Alaka Wali present their use of PAR to develop interactive, community-based exhibitions at Chicago’s Field Museum, where “mixed media are the core for representing research to broader publics.” Finally, Natalie Underberg-Goode examines the iterative process of developing PeruDigital, a virtual ethnographic museum created by a team of scholars, students, programmers, and artists from the United States and Peru. Part VI marks the robust emergence of participatory design ethnography as a mode that crisscrosses social science, art, and user-focused technology. Nancy Fried Foster ofers case studies of participatory design in higher-education 18 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action libraries that bring together students, staf, and faculty to produce better spaces and services. She argues for the urgency of participatory design and critical design studies as harnessing research to produce “shared value.” his concern runs through the chapter by Elizabeth Chin and colleagues, which follows the path of design students and homeless youth in Los Angeles as they work together to develop a multimedia installation inviting the public to “take a walk in someone else’s shoes.” In the inal chapter, Matthew Durington and Samuel Collins take inspiration from Chin’s provocative question: “Why can’t design itself be a form of ethnography?” hey present their team’s iterative process of designing ieldwork apps as a way to analyze and relect on the community-based multimedia materials collected over the past several years by the Anthropology by the Wire project. Taken together, these cases present an exciting array of possibilities for engaged research, but also new tensions for scholars to navigate. Crosscutting themes emerge across the chapters in relation to theoretical and ethical issues, the research process and methods, and the products, outcomes, and “broader impacts” of participatory visual and digital research. Theoretical and Ethical Issues A dialectics of collaboration undergirds our contributors’ research practice. Participatory work is not merely a way to gain entrée into diicult-to-access communities. Rather, the projects described here are rooted in an egalitarian ethic where the research participants and communities are irst and foremost prioritized. Lying at the heart of much of this work are process questions: What good is it? Who is it good for? And who determines what good it is for? In each contributor’s core story, there comes a moment where ethical and theoretical dilemmas drive them to take the participatory turn. One turning point in many of our scholarly trajectories came when we irst read the works of Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, cited by several contributors as an inspiration behind their collaborative and social justice commitments. he methods discussed in this book all draw upon Freire’s (2000) process of conscientization: a “cycle of dialogue, relection and action [with participants in which they are] empowered via collective questioning of dominant narratives and explanations to develop critical consciousness,” as Schensul and Daglish write in their chapter. In Freire’s model, inquiry is wedded to civic engagement and a vision of transforming unjust structures. Introduction 19 Scholars oten take the participatory turn out of a commitment to “upending the political structure” of research as usual (Chalfen and Rich 2007, 63). Yet, our contributors do not romanticize the collaborative research process: they explore issues of power, particularly when working with multiple stakeholders in a project. Feminist scholar Donna Haraway’s (1988) notion of “situated knowledge” is instructive as it applies to structures of power and serves as a theoretical cue for many of us going participatory. Situated knowledge, rooted in local cultural, historical, and embodied speciicity, may be especially trustworthy from the vantage point of the subjugated. “Situated knowledges require that the object of knowledge be pictured as an actor and agent, not as a screen or a resource, never inally as a slave to the master that closes of the dialectic in his unique agency and his authorship of ‘objective’ knowledge” (Haraway 1988, 592). Rattray uses a participatory mapping process with students, some disabled and some able-bodied, to gain their “embodied expertise” on geographical barriers to ease of movement on campus. Here, participatory research serves as a “countermapping” of the usual campus map depictions, which igure as authoritative/technocratic evidence of accommodation. Participant-produced maps evoke situated knowledges and more dynamic bodies of evidence. Or, as Haraway writes: “Only partial perspectives promise objective vision” (1988, 582–583). A number of our contributors cite the work of French ilmmaker and anthropologist Jean Rouch as an intellectual inspiration. Rouch proposes a “shared anthropology,” in which knowledge produced with or on a community or culture is accessible to its members (Ginsburg 1995). Similar to a Freirian championing of the dialogical process as critical to emancipatory research, Rouch places the collaborative process of ilmmaking on equal footing with the outcome: the inished ilm. Collaboration serves as a “site for relexivity and social engagement among those involved in the process” (A. Gubrium and Harper 2013, 97). A shared anthropology upgrades research participants to the position of co-researchers who are quite capable of interpreting their own experiences (Pink 2011; Rouch 1975; Rouch and Taylor 2003; Stoller 1992). Broadening Our Spectrum of Engagement Along with a shared research and media production process comes the idea that engagement and collaboration encompass a wide variety of roles, strategies, purposes, and outcomes. Many of our contributors position their work within the realms of PAR: some call it collaborative research, and yet 20 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action others situate their work as community-based participatory research (CBPR). Some of this has to do with our theoretical inluences and disciplinary conventions, as well as funding possibilities (see Peterson and A. Gubrium 2011). We do not make strong distinctions between these approaches here, but point to the common thread of scholars broadening their spectrum of engagement. Tudor and Wali present building a museum collection as an act of communitybased organizing and networking with multiple local organizations. hey engage community members in the task of gathering archival material, curating assemblages of artifacts, and communicating submerged histories to the public. Besteman also frames her ethnographic work as one of “collaboration” rather than “participation,” entailing the design of a digital photo archive to house her past work in Somalia and present work in Maine with resettled Somalis. he work, she notes, has promulgated a variety of encounters of engagement among multiple parties, including research (in this case photography) “subjects,” students and faculty at her university, local community members in Maine where the photo archive is housed, and outside audiences viewing the photos from afar through the digital archive. Other contributors move around within the spectrum of engagement. he speciic form of participant engagement depends on the context and purpose of the particular project at hand. Flexibility in participatory strategy is exempliied by Menzies’s ilmmaking work. In his full-length feature ilm, Bax Laansk—Pulling Together (2011), community members provided feedback on the rough cut of the ilm only ater Menzies has edited the ilm to this stage. In another ilm, Gathering Strength (2014), the entire process evolved through ongoing consultation with a community organizing team. With In My Grandmother’s Garden (2009), he cuts a longer ilm into shorter pieces that he calls “video vignettes.” Video vignettes are produced to serve a variety of constituencies, including outside viewing audiences and local community members, for purposes of documentation and knowledge transfer. Menzies leaves open the possibility that others may splice and repurpose his ilms into smaller cuts to it their needs, which is yet another way of engaging participation. Power Asymmetries Do Not Go Away One may enter research collaborations intent on disrupting uneven dynamics on the research playing ield. Yet, it is important to enter the game with eyes wide open to the ways that positionality continues to afects Introduction 21 power and agency. Funders, researchers, facilitators, and participants are all involved in this negotiation. Tudor and Wali raise important questions about power dynamics: Research can illuminate tensions and divides between social sectors and organizations, but can it help to address these conlicts? …Does awareness of exclusionary tendencies lead to action for inclusiveness? Do visual media provide more convincing evidence of areas of common ground between divided sectors than other ways of representing research indings? Like Tudor and Wali, we want to see how we can push participatory research further, to take these questions into deep consideration in the research process and produce richer stories of the local communities we work with and for. Contributors also highlight the ways experience informs practice in participatory research. Newbies may come into a project with the idea in mind that power dynamics will be balanced and easily maintained. It takes experience (and/or a good bit of guidance from a practiced mentor) to realize that the imagined ideal of participation and actual practice on the ground oten manifest quite diferently from one another. Hierarchies and power arrangements inform the ways projects are carried out. Constraints are real. Fried Foster’s chapter presents her work using participatory design to shape plans for a user-designed revamping of a university library space. While notions of the common good and beneits to wider publics undergirded the original intentions of her project, the design process sometimes strayed from this ideal due to the budgetary, structural, and technological constraints oten found in a public university system. Alexandra also notes the impact of these constraints in her chapter. Writing about her longitudinal digital storytelling study, Alexandra similarly describes the impact that funders and community organizations and staf can have on the course of a collaborative project. Indeed, our interlocutors are oten better attuned to these dynamics than we are, so much so that they may shape their media productions to it the agenda of the sponsoring organization. Researchers must take these power relationships into account, too. Logistical, ethical, and political challenges are always present in the research process, participatory or otherwise. Yet these are particularly accentuated by digital and visual methods that call for the active participation of community members to visually document their experiences. Perry’s 22 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action chapter evokes ways that politics complicate participation. She writes about using a participatory mapping approach to document conceptualizations of environmental justice around the controversial topic of fracking. Oppressive gender expectations (and sexism as a power dynamic in the ield) are especially visible here, in terms of who participates in the work. Legal intricacies also arise, which preclude some key players (namely landowners) from participating. Furthermore, noble intentions of justice may be circumscribed by community suspicion, especially in communities that were previously exploited by or disenfranchised from the system. Perry notes that one way to disrupt the usurpation of participation by those in power is to “give back” to the community, here in the form of providing useful knowledge on policies and regulations that would help shape decision-making on fracking. While participation and power dynamics are indeed complicated matters, one can still strive for an ethic of equity in knowledge production. Limits of Listening and Critique of “Giving Voice” Haraway cautions the reader that in proposing to do emancipatory work, a danger lies in “romanticizing and/or appropriating the vision of the less powerful while claiming to see from their positions…. he standpoints of the subjugated are not ‘innocent’ positions” (1988, 584). Gubrium and colleagues “complicate voice,” as they describe the co-created, co-mediated, and strategically authentic voicing of participants as they strive to do something with their digital stories (2014, 345). he stories produced are hardly value free, with language (voice) not only the speaker’s, but also “ever populated with the intentions of others” (see Bakhtin 1981; A. Gubrium et al. 2014, 345). Similarly, Alexandra critiques the notion of “giving voice” to underscore the politics of listening and being heard. Rather than “digital storytelling,” which might connote the idea that a person individually tells her “one truest story” to convey a most authentic voice, Alexandra reframes her process as “cocreative” and “documentary.” Audience/ing is also important. Contributors like Alexandra recognize the stage-y quality of all research and keep in mind that research materials are produced with intentionality, which keys in on the idea of the “goodenough” story (J. Gubrium 2003; J. Gubrium and Holstein 2009) that is worth a listen. Several contributors explore the strategic use of emotion in stories and research. Do participants produce upliting or tragic stories? How does this relate to one’s political position and situation, as well as to that of the Introduction 23 listening audience (Jackson 2002; Loseke 2009)? As Alexandra reminds us, it is important that we take our interlocutors seriously, as they may very well understand that by producing a certain type of story—whether it be hopeful or critical—they may increase narrative rapport with viewing audiences. he idea of authenticity also provokes another tension: how to “authentically” represent a community and culturally centered understandings without reifying stereotypes and negative representations of the community. Might there be some value for “inauthenticity” in this regard? Sociologist Dennis Waskul (2009) takes on this challenge himself through a daylong experiment of self-imposed sincerity meant to explore “why honesty is not always the best policy.” His realization: sometimes it pays to represent oneself (and others) as a “more or less” person rather than attempting to formulate an “authentic self.” We see a similar approach in our own work and that of chapter contributors in terms of presentation of self and others in visual and digital media making. Schensul and Dalglish highlight this tension as they relect on their work in a participatory action ilmmaking project with urban youth in Hartford, Connecticut. Authenticity is gained through the embodied and experientially rich understanding of participants who actually have lived and researched structural constraints that shape the ilm script in terms of narrative arc and character motivation. Community participants are crucial in helping to deine the issues, discursive strategies, and the shape of the ilm. Yet, the input of ilmmakers and outside researchers is critical for heightening awareness among participating community members about the potential for perpetuating stereotypes that they seek to challenge. In this sense, we liken the participatory digital and visual process best thought of as one constituted through “strategic voicing” (see A. Gubrium et al. 2014), spoken when we witness, honor, and advocate on behalf of those who are not usually listened to or heard. Which Stories to Tell and How to Tell Them? As much as we may seek to amplify previously silenced voices, we must also critically examine who participates in participatory visual and digital projects and who does not. What sorts of ethical issues are raised in the process of inclusion and disclusion? Besteman homes in on ethical issues around collaboration and inclusion, as when the resettled Somalis depicted in a photo exhibition were seen as “getting all the attention” by others groups in rural Maine that perceived themselves as equally marginalized. 24 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Not everyone wants to participate in a participatory visual and digital project. What does the absence or silence on behalf of some people signify? Wilson and Flicker write about a Photovoice/digital storytelling project focused on young black women’s understandings of and experiences with transactional sex in a Toronto neighborhood. Project participants notably do not position themselves as participants in this economy, except speaking to common expectations by others (i.e., men) that they might do so. Participants instead focus on “other” young women, speaking for other women who participate in transactional sex by taking photos and producing digital stories that socially distance themselves from the practice. Otañez and Guerrero also illustrate a complexity in voicing and representation through a case study of a digital story produced by one participant, Eric, as part of their viral hepatitis digital storytelling workshop. Strategic voicing does not just emanate from the storyteller, but is also mediated by secondary characters. he authors key in on the voice of digital storyteller Eric’s father, who, though not positioned as a key actor in Eric’s story, is heard throughout in the ways his voice casts shadows on his son’s take of the U.S. biomedical system and its afect on his (Eric’s) health-seeking practices. Other voices are also heard in the story. Eric speaks to his own small, immigrant African community members’ perceptions of hepatitis as a diagnosis to be ashamed of and kept quiet. hese voices mediate the narrative aesthetics, including Eric’s decision not to appear in the digital story and to change the tone of voice through anonymizing sotware. Our contributors wrestle with decisions about how to tell stories and which images to present. Besteman used images from her photo archiving project in an English Language Learner (ELL) book, hoping that these would resonate with the younger Somali students. Several students felt ashamed by the inclusion of old, pre–civil war photos, however, and some Somali community members expressed concern that photo subjects were depicted as looking “poor.” hey feared that these images might negatively afect public perceptions of this refugee community down the line. Besteman had to consider how images spoke to a range of potential audiences. Ethics of Circulation Ethical tensions arise around the circulation of media produced in collaborative research projects, especially around the repurposing, sharing, and dissemination of produced materials. Exhilaration lies in the possibility Introduction 25 that people ind the media produced in our projects relevant enough to repurpose and recirculate. “Wired” anthropologists Collings and Durington also signal this impulse as they note that social media is replete around us. he authors take a “networked anthropology” approach, aiming for multipurposed research products that are simultaneously media to be appropriated and used by the communities with whom we work, to connect to others (i.e., other communities, potential grantors, friends, and family), and are also research data generated in the space of an ongoing commitment to communities to assist with networking eforts to a wide breadth of audiences (Collins and Durington 2014). he risk of breaching “internal conidentiality” was present long before the Web, but the ubiquity of social media across the world makes it diicult to guarantee conidentiality (Ellis 1995; Scheper-Hughes 2000). Even in traditional qualitative research products, knowledgeable insiders are now able crack a pseudonym with a quick Google search. Sociologist Katja Guenther writes: he decision to name or not to name raises several interrelated issues, which necessitate balancing the protection of internal and external conidentiality, research goals, strategies in the ield and in the presentation of data, and personal comfort. Yet conversations about these issues rarely arise (Guenther 2009, 240). Because participatory visual research oten includes identifying images or popular dissemination campaigns, scholars who use these methods are the harbingers (or alternatively, the canaries in the coal mine) of transformations in protocols for ethical research. When one of the goals of a project is “broader impacts,” dissemination, and reuse, traditional guarantees of conidentiality may need to be renegotiated. We have asked before, and ask here again: what is to be gained from protecting participants’ conidentiality, and what is lost when their voices are kept hidden and they are not able to lay claim to knowledge production (A. Gubrium and Harper 2013)? Given the commitments of many of us to academic institutional requirements, including human subjects boards, we may need to navigate representational politics in a variety of ways, depending on the venues through which we distribute our texts. Gubrium and colleagues (2014) note this tension in their ethnographic digital storytelling work. One component of this work focused on strategic communication of new media materials from a youth sexuality project through mass and social 26 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action media networks, a requirement of the foundation sponsoring the project. Yet another component centered on research output, including dissemination of research indings in peer-reviewed journals. hey note the uncanny efect of meeting university human subjects board requirements to shield the identity of a research participant in a journal article, with the participant positioned as a “vulnerable research subject,” while also screening the participant’s digital story “full frontal” in public presentations, on the project website, and through social media ater the participant provided consent for release in each of these venues. Herein lies a major strength—yet also the Achilles heel—of participatory visual and digital research. We are drawn to these methods precisely because they allow for multipurposed applications, with data collection and research interwoven with real-world activism and advocacy in the pursuit of social justice. It is oten hard to harmonize formal institutional protocols with these research goals, which are also rooted in ethical practice. Reflecting on Process and Methods We are oten asked what we have come to call the “participatory chicken and egg question”: “Which comes irst? he visual or digital production process, or getting to know the community context as a participatory researcher?” Our contributors ofer diferent perspectives on how to embark on the participatory visual and digital research process. Menzies begins with participant observation, with video production coming later and serving as a complementary tool. Others, like Wilson and Flicker, argue for the visual production process as a way of gaining entrée into a community because it provides a service and engages collaborators in a common, practical mission. Later on, the process of designing digital multimedia sites and sotware apps can create “recursive moments” for group relection and discussion, as Durington and Collins and Underberg-Goode argue. All contributors agree upon one thing, however: participatory visual and digital methods are not a panacea, but are best combined with engaged ethnography and a focus on process. The Means Are as Important as the Ends A key principle in participatory visual and digital research is that “the means are as important as the ends.” Two things must happen simultaneously to build successful partnerships. Research partners develop a common understanding Introduction 27 of the research agenda and then take the process and practical work seriously. Alexandra presents the ield site in participatory visual and digital research as a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998): having a shared task to complete (such as a digital story) places the researcher alongside participants, rather than head-to-head. As Diane Austin writes: “[P]rojects are the vehicles through which we identify our strengths and weaknesses and develop trust, conidence, and direction” (Austin 2004, 422). Paying attention to process ofers insights into our partners’ afective and intellectual framing of collaborative research. In Perry’s chapter on PGIS, ethnography becomes a kind of “therapeutic praxis” for members of a rural community afected by shale gas exploration. Valuable knowledge emerges as participants explain their motivations and thought processes on the collaborative work in progress, as we see in diverse projects from Schensul and Dalglish’s critical performance ethnography to Chin et al.’s participatory design workshops and Underberg-Goode’s iterative design of the PeruDigital website. he need for improvisation and lexibility runs through many chapter authors’ discussion of the research process. Participatory action research demands constant consideration of participants’ everyday exigencies, group dynamics, anticipated audiences, and funders’ constraints. Just because a project is stated as collaborative and social-justice oriented does not necessarily mean that community members will be interested in participating at all points. Participatory action researchers must pay attention to the burdens placed on individuals even as we seek to maximize the beneits to the community. Otañez and Guerrero modiied their original workshop-based approach to digital storytelling to accommodate participants’ work schedules by meeting one-on-one to record voiceovers between back-to-back work shits. Flexibility meant literally meeting participants where they were at, and relections on the research process highlighted the structural vulnerabilities faced by storytelling participants. Many contributors discuss how the “participatory turn” has made them take the process of training novice researchers more seriously. Researchers need to prepare participants for ieldwork and media production by presenting research design, data collection methods, and ethical issues in accessible, jargon-free language. Participatory visual and digital research oten involves community participants and students in the research process, potentially retooling long-standing “town-and-gown” divisions. When the research is integrated into a university course, insensitive or disengaged students may behave in a way that undermines carefully cultivated relationships with 28 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action community partners. Even so, Chin and colleagues, Rattray, and Durington and Collins all note the transformative “situated/side-by-side” learning that occurs in the participatory research process (Lave and Wenger 1991). The Role of Technology Participatory visual and digital research can be technology-intensive relative to traditional qualitative methods, prompting new questions: What do digital technologies and environments bring to our scholarship? How do technologies relate to the theoretical insights we develop in the course of using them? We take these questions seriously. As Selin and Gano state in their chapter, “new styles of technology not only equal novel conveniences, features, and economic arrangements; they also prompt the evolution of new social forms and political arrangements.” Social and symbolic meanings infuse technology. Menzies points out that the technology we use communicates indexically to participants. he presence of technology signals that research is taking place and sends messages about the care and professionalism of documentation. For this reason, Menzies prefers larger, high-quality cameras to small, consumer electronics that may raise suspicions of covert research or look unprofessional. Other authors, such as Durington and Collins, revel in the democratization of mobile technologies. hey prefer devices such as smartphones because these communicate that research can be “user-friendly,” accessible, and integrated into everyday life. How do we address structural issues surrounding technology without turning back to a researcher-as-expert framework? Some technologies seem ubiquitous, but several contributors faced challenges in working with people with slow Internet service and limited computer access and skills. hese were obstacles for Perry’s PGIS research in rural Pennsylvania. Perry readjusted her project to meet participants where they were. She asked participants to mark up laminated paper maps during focus group sessions. She then took these annotated maps back to the lab to enter the data into GIS sotware. Functionally, digital platforms aford new ways to tell stories about research. Underberg-Goode suggests “understanding and exploiting characteristics of new media that can be brought to bear on narrative ethnography: interactivity, a sense of navigable space, nonlinearity, and a blurring of author/audience boundaries.” Social scientists can leverage these qualities to reach new audiences and to break down barriers between experts and the public. Introduction 29 Mixing It Up and Engaging with Design Since we wrote our irst book, we have seen more and more practitioners “mixing it up” by combining diferent methodological techniques, disciplinary approaches, and modalities. We see Wilson and Flicker pairing Photovoice with digital storytelling and González-Tennant combining GIS, digital storytelling, and game environments. In their “Anthropology by the Wire” project, Durington and Collins began with participatory video and then added social media such as Twitter and Tumblr to foster a “networked anthropology.” Now they are developing apps to “gamify” ieldwork training and create virtual tours. Rattray and Perry both mix GIS with interviews, Photovoice, and other techniques to produce maps that convey a rich, qualitative sense of place and participants’ experience. Practitioners are combining disciplinary approaches to solve problems, with the idea that the people most afected by policies and design should take part in planning. Fried Foster shows how multidisciplinary teams of ethnographers, librarians, and architects work with users to design better academic libraries that respond to student and faculty needs. Chin’s team brought together design, music, ethnography, and PAR to understand and amplify the concerns of homeless youth. Underberg-Goode describes the interactions between anthropologists, Latin American studies specialists, and computer programmers to develop a bilingual, culturally appropriate digital humanities website. Participatory visual and digital research is going ever more “multimodal”: integrating visual materials and text with materials drawing upon other senses (Dicks 2014). Tudor and Wali, working in a museum setting, mix together media that participants can view and read with material culture that they can touch and manipulate. González-Tennant created a virtual environment for his Rosewood Heritage Project, allowing site visitors to wander and explore an African-American town that was destroyed by racist violence almost a century ago. Selin and Gano’s Futurescape City Tours use multiple modalities to engage citizens in a discussion about how nanotechnologies and other innovations can shape and change cities. hey combine urban “wayinding” walks; conversations with a variety of citizens, stakeholders and experts; and image-based (akin to Photovoice) “deliberative” sessions. hese diverse projects embrace diferent sensory modes to elicit participants’ understandings and to engage with the broader public. 30 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Outcomes and Audiences Scholars are turning to participatory visual and digital methods to share their research beyond the academy and engage with multiple publics. A desire to serve the public, inluence policy, and present diverse views in programming motivates them. he participatory approach reorients a sense of “broader impacts” in our research by transforming the relationship between experts and the public. Making a Public Impact Contributors in this volume present several cases where research outcomes directly serve the public through public institutions and programming. Tudor and Wali describe their community-based work at Chicago’s Field Museum as facilitating community members as they share stories about a deindustrializing region and resist gentriication. Collaborative documentation and exhibitions support local eforts to establish the proposed Calumet Natural Heritage Area. Materials from Besteman’s digital photographic archive have been integrated into teacher’s guides for working with Somali refugee students in Maine. Fried Foster’s “design ethnography for the public good” marshals research indings to improve libraries’ layout and service provision models, enhancing work and study conditions for students, faculty, and librarians. Chin’s research team stresses the importance of ethnographic listening in “design for the public good,” especially when working with stereotyped groups like homeless youth. Scholars are also making policy interventions with participatory research. Menzies, González-Tennant, and Perry used video, photography, and GIS to assist research communities in claiming land and property rights. Here, research helps to amplify the voices of less powerful groups, such as indigenous people, African-American descendant communities, and rural residents. Rattray’s team used PGIS to present the situated and embodied knowledge of students with physical disabilities. Maps made a compelling case for the university to adopt a more accessible, “universal design” for campus. Breaking Down the Fourth Wall Participatory visual research breaks down the “fourth wall” of research, to borrow a metaphor from the performing arts. Traditionally, actors onstage perform a play as if an invisible “fourth wall” separates them from the Introduction 31 audience. Playwright Bertholdt Brecht famously broke down the fourth wall in plays where the actors directly addressed the audience. Later, Augusto Boal developed participatory theatre, directly encouraging audience members to help solve the problems enacted on stage (Boal 1979; Quinlan and Duggleby 2009). Like actors pretending that they do not see the audience through the fourth wall, social scientists have traditionally conducted and written about their research as if it were separable from our research participants and publics. Schensul and Dalglish position their ilmmaking as a form of critical performance ethnography that “engages actors in the performance of ethnographic interpretation to illustrate cultural processes or disseminate the results of research to broader audiences.” In participatory visual and digital research, we move away from a model of expertise that holds up the “sage on the stage”: the lecturer on the podium. Research participants are invited to go “behind the scenes” of visual research. hey sometimes join us or take the lead “onstage” in presenting indings to diferent audiences, who in turn ofer new interpretations of the issues portrayed. Breaking down the fourth wall of research opens up the question of who is positioned as the expert, a theme running through many chapters. Fried Foster writes about participatory design as a partnership among multiple experts—including engineers and designers (in the context of this chapter), workers, and social scientists—directed at the common good. Selin and Gano attempt to upend the lay/expert hierarchy by retooling “technology assessment” as a walking tour in which citizens, policymakers, scientists, and engineers mingle and deliberate together. Yet they also caution that participants and traditional experts may still maintain the “expert/lay divide” in their interactions. Perry and Rattray’s GIS projects respectively highlight participants’ embodied expertise through participatory mapping. While policymakers use oicial maps as a static, authoritative form of evidence, participant-produced maps show barriers hidden in plain sight, “groundtruthing” more dynamic bodies of evidence (see also Maida 2013). Material Deliberation and Materializing Knowledge Participatory visual research uses visual and material culture to trigger public deliberation, akin to Touraine’s model of a “sociology of intervention” (Touraine 1983) or Freire’s “conscientization” (Freire 2000). Selin and Gano describe their work as a form of “material deliberation,” with the goal of “facilitating ‘relexivity’ that allows for self, community, or cultural evaluation in an iterative way.” Material deliberation moves away from the two-dimensional, linear 32 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action text forms common in academia to the use of artifacts as prompts for public engagement. Tudor and Wali present how their community-based museum projects use artifacts to stimulate conversations about the transformation of life in the Calumet region. Seemingly insigniicant material details—such as labor union and Earth Day stickers on a steelworker’s helmet—lay open more complex stories and dispel stereotypes. In several case studies presented in this book, participants document their observations while navigating a physical space, inspired by urbanist Kevin Lynch’s concept of “wayinding” (Lynch 1960; see also the concept of “wayfaring” in Hall and Smith 2011). Selin and Gano used a walking tour to elicit people’s relections on technological change in the city. Rattray’s team navigated a university campus to provide a “countermap” of physical accessibility. In Perry’s work, participants took pictures of their own special places in the landscape, then came together to view the photos and discuss the transforming rural environment. Visual methods give insights into participants’ routines and everyday paths and open up space for placebased stories. Along with material deliberation, scholars in this volume describe their process of “materializing knowledge” in new formats that respond more dynamically to audience interests. Underberg-Goode’s multimedia, 3D virtual museum gives users a sense of navigable space and allows them to follow multiple paths to explore interests. By “choosing their own adventure” through a body of knowledge, audiences assemble a social scientiic narrative, “a kind of story world in which insights about how such complex topics as history, economics, and gender and ethnic identity play out in the context of a festival.” González-Tennant and Durington and Collins also point to exciting possibilities for merging game formats with social scientiic research and communication. Participatory design ethnography ofers yet another way of “materializing knowledge.” In these projects, research not only produces texts describing social practices and analyzing users’ perceptions and values, it also informs the design of speciic spaces, objects, and technologies. Recontextualization and Creative Repurposing Recontextualized documents, photos, and artifacts take on new meanings as participants and audiences encounter them in new ways (Fabian 2008). Digital storytellers gain new insights from screening their stories in a diferent Introduction 33 landscape, or alongside other participants’ stories, as Alexandra notes in her chapter. his allows digital storytellers to shit from participant as objectiied (by experience) to material/product as object with meaning-making constituted by the participant (A. Gubrium 2009). Community-based museum research transforms exhibitions from static displays to sites where participants curate and reinterpret their signiicance of artifacts, as Tudor and Wali demonstrate in their chapter. We also see a lot of creative repurposing: visual materials gain a second life when research partners reuse them. Digital technologies make it easy and inexpensive to cut, copy, and remix visual materials for multiple purposes and audiences, compared with traditional ilm and photography. Besteman’s open access Web-based archive of photos makes it possible for the community to repurpose photos for museum exhibitions and as visual material in a textbook published for English language learners from Somalia. Otañez and Guerrero’s project also allows for a multipurposed approach: digital stories are used as part of a grassroots communication campaign to promote disease testing and to inform the public about viral hepatitis as a health issue, as well as a source of research data (from the production process, digital stories, and screenings) to analyze dominant discourses about the disease. “Remixing” research inevitably transforms the modern ideal of the scholar as auteur of a master narrative into a more postmodern mode of the scholar as bricoleur (tinkerer) assembling vignettes. Menzies’s core story relects this shit. For Menzies, digital media means “having your cake and eating it too”: one can use short-format videos to make “directorial” documentary productions for one kind of audience while also retaining a collection of “video vignettes” that can be repurposed and reassembled as a video “playlist” for other audiences. Menzies writes, “[the] productive lifespan and interpretations [of these video vignettes] extend beyond the limitations of the ilmmakers’ speciic initial intentions.” he PAR approach focuses strongly on outcomes, and participatory visual and digital researchers are developing new ways to evaluate the reach and reception of their projects. Durington and Collins are developing apps to track the “ripple efects” of participatory media production. hey write: “As a community-based participatory project, our goal was never to go viral, simply to create a networked anthropology which participants could not only access but also creatively repurpose.” Other scholars are taking advantage of website analytics tools to go beyond scholarly citation metrics to understand how research products are being consumed by the public. 34 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Conclusion: Research and Action with a Human Face Many of the forces motivating scholars to use participatory visual and digital methods are relected in the chapters that make up this volume. Participants’ narratives and media can be used to amplify previously silenced voices and perspectives; challenge dominant discourses on health, wellbeing, and society; and facilitate dialogue. he research process itself oten creates a sense of solidarity among participants, bolsters and broadens social networks, and, more individually speaking, builds self-respect and conidence for resilience and coping. Research products encourage audience engagement, evoke emotional and collective responses, and can be used as materials for organizing, advocacy, and to promote change. Public screenings or exhibitions of visual and digital media provoke moments of encounter and purposeful “political listening.” Across the chapters, we sense a tension between the traditional expectation that social research be conducted in a naturalistic context and the more negotiated reality of collaborative research. Increasingly, qualitative researchers acknowledge our own role in delineating “the ield” (Gupta and Ferguson 1992) and see ield research as a new kind of “lab” in which more staged interactions like workshops take place alongside naturalistic participant observation. Both approaches serve as platforms for conducting meaningful research with speciic publics. All the same, while the authors acknowledge that their work is not always based on an organic approach of heading into the ield and “seeing what happens,” they emphasize a tactic of “letting go,” in terms of relinquishing (or at least ceding) control to community member/participants. Our contributors highlight the need for improvisation and acknowledge that many of us are “learning as we go” in this work. As with the irst volume, we note that many of us were not formally trained in the visual methods we have taken on, instead learning by doing. For some, this happened out of pure necessity, whether it was due to funding challenges, strategies and intended outcomes, or the realization that the method they had planned to use was not particularly collaborative or appropriate and instead served to further subjugate the voices and perspectives of participants at the expense of scholarly/authoritative knowledge. Whether our contributors position their intellectual shits as a lightning strike or a gradual realization in their core stories, for most of us this work has deeply transformed our methodological practice and our professional identity as researchers. his collection is a irst step in creating a “community Introduction 35 of practice” of researchers, giving our diverse practices a common name, developing a shared vocabulary for our work, and building theory and method as a joint enterprise. REFERENCES Austin, D. E. 2004. Partnerships, Not Projects! Improving the Environment through Collaborative Research and Action. Human Organization 63(4): 419–430. Bakhtin, Michel. 1981. he Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Behar, R., and D. Gordon. 1995. Women Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Boal, A. 1979. heatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto. Castelden, H., T. Garvey, and the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. 2008. Modifying Photovoice for Community-Based Participatory Indigenous Research. Social Science and Medicine 66(6): 1393–1405. Chalfen, R., and M. Rich. 2007. Combining the Applied, the Visual and the Medical: Patients Teaching Physicians with Visual Narratives. In Visual Interventions: Applied Visual Anthropology, edited by Sarah Pink, 53–70. New York: Berghahn Books. Cliford, J., and G. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: he Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Collins, Samuel, and Matthew Durington. 2014. Networked Anthropology: A Primer for Ethnographers. New York: Routledge. de Groof, M. 2013. Rouch’s Relexive Turn: Indigenous Film as the Outcome of Relexivity in Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology 26(2): 109–131. Dicks, B. 2014. Action, Experience, Communication: hree Methodological Paradigms for Researching Multimodal and Multisensory Settings. Qualitative Research 14(6): 656–674. Ellis, C. 1995. Emotional and Ethical Quagmires in Returning to the Field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24: 68–98. Fabian, J. 2008. Ethnography as Commentary: Writing from the Virtual Archive. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Foley, D. E. 2002. Critical Ethnography: he Relexive Turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 15(4): 469–490. Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Ginsburg, F. 1995. he Parallax Efect: he Impact of Aboriginal Media on Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology Review 11(2): 64–76. Gubrium, A. 2009. Digital Storytelling: An Emergent Method for Health Promotion Research and Practice. Health Promotion Practice 10: 186–191. 36 Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action Gubrium, A., and K. Harper. 2013. Participatory Visual and Digital Methods. Walnut Creek, CA: Let Coast Press. Gubrium, A., E. L. Krause, and K. Jernigan. 2014. Strategic Authenticity and Voice: New Ways of Seeing and Being Seen as Young Mothers hrough Digital Storytelling. Sexuality Research & Social Policy 11(4): 337–347. Gubrium, J. F. 2003. What is a Good Story? Generations 27(3): 21–24. Gubrium, J. F., and J. A. Holstein. 2009. Analyzing Narrative Reality. housand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guenther, K. M. 2009. he Politics of Names: Rethinking the Methodological and Ethical Signiicance of Naming People, Organizations, and Places. Qualitative Research 9(4): 411–421. Gupta, A., and J. Ferguson. 1992. Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Diference. Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 6–23. Hale, C. 2008. Engaging Contradictions: heory, Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hall, T., and R. Smith. 2011. Walking, Welfare and the Good City. Anthropology in Action 18(3): 33–44. Haraway, D. 1988. Situated Knowledges: he Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599. Harper, K. 2012. Visual Interventions and the “Crises in Representation” in Environmental Anthropology: Environmental Justice in a Hungarian Romani Neighborhood. Human Organization 71(3): 292–305. Hemment, J. 2007. Public Anthropology and the Paradoxes of Participation: Participatory Action Research and Critical Ethnography in Provincial Russia. Human Organization 66(3): 301–314. Jackson, M. 2002. he Politics of Storytelling: Violence, Transgression and Intersubjectivity. Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press. Lambert, J. 2012. Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. New York: Routledge. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Loseke, D. 2009. Examining Emotion as Discourse: Emotion Codes and Presidential Speeches Justifying War. he Sociological Quarterly 50(3): 497–524. Lynch, K. 1960. he Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maida, C. A. 2013. Expert and Lay Knowledge in Pacoima: Public Anthropology and Essential Tension in Community-based Participatory Action Research. In Toward Engaged Anthropology, edited by Sam Beck and Carl A. Maida, 15–35. New York: Berghahn 21. Introduction 37 Pink, S. 2011. Multimodality, Multisensoriality and Ethnographic Knowing: Social Semiotics and the Phenomenology of Perception. Qualitative Research 11(1): 261–276. Peterson, J. C., and A. Gubrium. 2011. Old Wine in New Bottles? he Positioning of Participation in 17 NIH-Funded CBPR Projects. Health Communication 26(8): 724–734. Quinlan, E., and W. Duggleby. 2009. “Breaking the Fourth Wall”: Activating Hope through Participatory heatre with Family Caregivers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 4(4): 207–219. Rouch, J. 1975. he Camera and Man. In Principles of Visual Anthropology, edited by Paul Hockings, 79–98. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Rouch, J., and L. Taylor. 2003. A Life on the Edge of Film and Anthropology. In Cine Ethnography: Jean Rouch, edited by Steven Feld, 129–146. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Scheper-Hughes, N. 2000. Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1: 117–140. Stoller, P. 1992. he Cinematic Griot: he Ethnography of Jean Rouch. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Touraine, Alain. 1983. Anti-Nuclear Protest: he Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wang, Caroline. 1999. Photovoice: A Participatory Action Research Strategy Applied to Women’s Health. Journal of Women’s Health 8(2): 185–192. Waskul, D. 2009. he Importance of Insincerity and Inauthenticity for Self and Society: Why Honesty Is Not the Best Policy. In Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society, edited by Phillip Vannini and J. Patrick Williams, 51–64. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.