Skip to main content

In Defence of the “Thin”: Reflections on the Intersections Between Interactive Documentaries and Ethnography

Part of the Digital Ethnography book series (DIETH)

Abstract

Based on the author’s own experience in using idocs within a variety of different settings the present paper sets off with the idea of exploring the potentiality of this audio-visual form as a tool for teaching and conducting visual ethnographies. It proposes, therefore, a shift away from conventional reflections on the potentiality of idocs as communication tools exploring instead the extent to which idocs can be considered as proper tools for producing ethnographic evidence. This chapter offers concrete examples on how to engage with idocs based on my own practice and discuss also the possible integration of other emerging technologies. The overarching provocation of this chapter lies in its defence of “thin descriptions”.

Keywords

  • iDocs
  • Digital ethnography
  • Emerging technologies
  • Documentary
  • Thin descriptions
  • Visual research methods

The original version of this chapter was revised: Incorrect author name has been corrected. The erratum to this chapter is available at DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61222-5_11

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 5.1

References

  • Aston, J., and S. Gaudenzi. 2012. Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field. Studies in Documentary Film 6 (2): 125–139.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, M. 2001. Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, K. 2008. Documentary Display: Re-Viewing Nonfiction Film and Video. London: Wallflower Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, W. 1999. Illuminations. London: Pimlico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruzzi, S. 2000. New Documentary. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favero, P. 2015. For a Creative Anthropological Image-making: Reflections on Aesthetics, Relationality, Spectatorship and knowledge in the Context of Visual Ethnographic Work in New Delhi, India. In Media Anthropology and Public Engagement, ed. S. Abraham, and S. Pink. Oxford: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favero, P. (forthcoming). To Swallow or to get Swallowed, this is the Question: On Viewing, Viewers and Frames in the Context of “New” Images. In An Anthropology of Contemporary Art, ed. T. Fillitz. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färber, A. 2007. Exposing Expo: Exhibition Entrepreneurship and Experimental Reflexivity in Late Modernity. In Exhibition Experiments, ed. Paul Basu, and Sharon MacDonald, 219–238. London: Blackwells.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, D. et al. 2007. From Michael Moore to JFK Reloaded: Towards a Working Model of Interactive Documentary. Journal of Media Practice 8 (3): 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3–30. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grierson, J. 1966. First Principles of Documentary. In Grierson on Documentary, ed. F. Hardy. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurti, J. 1969 [2010]. Freedom from the Known. London: Rider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. 1961 [1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, M.S. 2003. The Art of Interactive Narrative. Indianapolis: New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min-ha, Trinh T. 1993. The Totalizing Quest of Meaning. In: Theorizing Documentary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, W.J.T. 2015. Image Science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, K. 2012. Modes of Interactivity: Analysing the Webdoc. Media Culture Society 34 (2): 195–210.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, B. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. 1986. Tempo e Racconto. Milan: Jaca Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanjek, R. 1991. The Ethnographic Present. Man 26 (4): 609–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. 1970. On Phenomenology and Social Relations, ed. H. R. Wagner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoller, P. 1984. Eye, Mind and Word in Anthropology. L’Homme 24 (3–4): 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturken, M., and L. Cartwright. 2001. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taussig, M. 2006. Walter Benjamin’s Grave. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bohemen, S. 2014. Interactive Activism. MA thesis, University of Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. 1998. The Third Subject: Perspectives on Visual Anthropology. Anthropology Today 14 (4): 16–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo S. H. Favero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Favero, P.S.H. (2017). In Defence of the “Thin”: Reflections on the Intersections Between Interactive Documentaries and Ethnography. In: Gómez Cruz, E., Sumartojo, S., Pink, S. (eds) Refiguring Techniques in Digital Visual Research. Digital Ethnography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61222-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61222-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61221-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61222-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)