As Pauwels (2000) states, visual methods study what we see and how we make sense of the visual, the experience of observing visual objects and making sense of visual representations. This author adds another fundamental consideration in the use of visual methods: "the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge to produce visual material as a crucial part of scientific discourse" (Pauwels, 2000, p.9).
The Revue Française des Methodes Visuelles proposes a definition of visual methods from a tradition based on image research. They situate visual methods in a framework of reflection and practice of hermeneutic and heuristic approach, the incursion of critical theory (Horkheimer and Adorno, 2016) and a constant self-reflection. "We could superficially define visual methods as the set of research methods in social and human sciences that are not limited to the production and / or delivery of writings in their modes of scientific argumentation" (Bouldoires, Meyer, & Reix, 2018, p.11).
Despite the progressive recognition of the value of the visual, it was not until the 1970s that the image was academically recognized (Dion, 2007). This is despite the fact that scientific cinema has a more distant past. It was Malinowski (1884-1942) and Flaherty (1884-1951) who gave impetus to expository ethnographic cinema. In descriptive visual anthropology Regnault, Meda and Bateson have stood out (Febrer, 2013, p. 782). In the 1950s, the work of Jean Rouch (1917-2004) inspires a new generation of anthropologists that will drive contemporary visual anthropology. In the current landscape, visual methods are fully recognized (Pink, 2006a) and interdisciplinary work is mutually enriching. With the technological development of capture devices and the invention of other narrative forms in the interpretation of images, social research is advancing by studying audiovisual practices that go beyond the artistic activity of photography and video (Ibanez, 2006).
For this proposal we turn to the field of visual anthropology in a technological environment such as Ruby (2000), Banks & Ruby (2011), Rouch (2003), Hine (2005; 2015), Pink (2001; 2006b), Collier & Collier (1986), Hockings (1995), Banks & Morphy (1997) or Ibanez, Chabert, Lamboux-Durand, & Wanono (2017). They advanced documentary storytelling with the combined use of photography and video in early works, and then with hypermedia and the use of different technological devices. In addition, they perfected the integration of visual and digital technologies in the ethnographic study, among which we can highlight hypermedia (Ibanez, 2006).
We move in three levels of action, following the approaches of Ardévol (1994): the audiovisual as a methodological instrument, the audiovisual as an object of study and the audiovisual as an expository form of results. Following these levels, we develop the proposed methodology in which the use of technologies is taken into account in the different phases of the research: planning and elaboration of the theoretical and methodological frameworks, field work, treatment and analysis of the information and presentation of the results.
In order to approach the audiovisual as a methodological instrument, we integrate the instruments in the research process from the use of the camera as an explorative technique and interactive methodology. The camera becomes a fundamental element of observation and data recording. It is introduced from the beginning in the field work as an instrument of participant observation and descriptive analysis, for exploratory purposes and in a reflexive manner.
The second level refers to how to apply the methodology to the object of study, in our case the emerging forms of digital audiovisual journalism as an object and as a practice. By understanding it as a practice, we can focus our study both on the production of images and on their context, use and consumption.
Following the postmodern paradigm shift that questioned notions of objectivity and separates the observer from the observed, anthropology takes a turn towards reflexivity and becomes aware of the role of the researcher in the process of obtaining data. This concept gradually imposes itself as an ethical and methodological safeguard to reveal to the public the constructed dimension and underlying epistemological assumptions of audiovisual productions. (Ruby, 2000: 156, in Boup, 2016) . Baptiste goes further and proposes to use reflection as a heuristic tool to understand what happens in production situations (filming in his particular case) on both sides of the camera. (Boup, 2016) This idea is key in our methodological proposal in which method and object are linked in a reflexive way in an audiovisual production context in which researcher and journalist use the same tools for different purposes.
Based on the information and images obtained during the research, we will edit the material and shape it to create an audiovisual product about the process itself. This means that we are not only going to study audiovisual representation from the three approaches explained above, but we have also created a work using virtual reality as a format. The realization of this meta-documentary experience is part of the research work, since the creation is integrated in the methodology.
For these projects we do not start from a script prepared prior to the recording, but we use part of the material we have obtained to shape it in the edition. Digital technologies are, in addition to research tools, an alternative way of publishing the results, creating a link between the object of study and the form of exhibition. For this proposal, inseparable from the research methodology, we based ourselves on the project on the perception and personal projection of the players Visual Distance FIFA 2001. We also refer to the COME/IN/DOC17 project (Gifreu, 2013). Unlike our project, this one is not directly related to the methodology used by the author, but it does arise from the use of all the information obtained during the research. The author does not carry out anthropological work or use visual methodology for his doctoral thesis, but focuses on analyzing interactive documentaries. It is a project created later with a specialized team and its objective is to describe and explain the interactive documentary as its own genre, using its own form.
The importance of fieldwork is the first-person experience, which will be reflected in the filming and will be the object of the analysis. The ethnographic data is the product of the relationship between the memory of the field experience and the categorizations and theoretical frameworks. It is the first-person experience that distinguishes the knowledge obtained with ethnography from other methods and "is what turns an audiovisual record, an annotation, a time series of photographs or a tag cloud into an ethnographic datum capable of contributing to a dense description" (Ardévol, 2017, p.33).
We start from a theoretical reflection on the possibilities of the camera to obtain and process information, beyond the written annotation and direct observation. Knowledge and experience with the audiovisual medium ensure a good use of the device and the obtaining of quality images (focus, lighting, movements, audio control, etc.). This facilitates the field work and the subsequent processing of the material to present the results. This experience not only gives us an advantage in technical aspects, but also favors us in the treatment of the informants, the composition of the image, the interpretation of the filmed material and the general treatment of the information we obtain.
This knowledge of the medium and the tools leads us not to have to devote great effort and attention to the technical aspect and to be able to direct that attention to observation and participation in the activity we are filming. We introduce recording as a tool for research and creation, both processes integrated into the practice. We subsequently use the material obtained as part of the exhibition of the results and, therefore, the process is linked. Nevertheless, the tools are at the service of the research and their use is not conditioned by the subsequent treatment of the images.
During the filming we experiment with the possibilities of the medium and introduce the camera as part of the process in an interactive way. This interaction is based on the fact that we use one of the cameras as an extension of the researcher, who performs a participant observation. Therefore, the camera and the filming process are integrated in this participation (Rouch, 2009). We also follow the visual anthropological approach of Lallier (2011) and his Filmed Observation, a term we use hereafter to describe the method.
We completed the proposal with the documentary richness of multi-camera and virtual reality with 360° video in an experimental way in one of the case studies:
The cameras are introduced from the beginning of the fieldwork as an instrument of participant observation, descriptive analysis and creation.
There is an equivalence between the researcher and the "documentalist", since it is the researcher himself who records.
The audiovisual recording is a fundamental part of the selection and elaboration of the data.
The recording is used in a prospective and experimental way: it appears from the beginning of the fieldwork as a central part (as opposed to the filming of the ethnographic expository documentary, recorded a posteriori with a script).
Filming does not start from a previous script. We are talking about adaptation, observation, data collection and interaction.
We use the camera in a personal way, as a tool that adapts to the researcher to film his or her gaze. For this reason, we have decided to dispense with stabilization or camera support instruments such as monopods or tripods. We do not need the fixed camera recording everything since the use of video does not respond to the observational method. On the other hand, the figure of the researcher with camera in hand provides greater freedom of movement, following the characters and sensitive use of the camera as a record of the participant observation and of the researcher's gaze. We consider that this is a more organic integration both for the researcher, who can "look through the lens", and for the protagonists, who adapt to that person looking through the camera, as if they were one.
In addition to the recordings, during the fieldwork, short interviews were conducted with the participants to learn about specific aspects. Conversations in the production phase are crucial to know why the camera was positioned, how the sequence was carried out, the director's interest in each protagonist, etc. It is necessary to know these details that can escape an "objective" observation. By interacting with the purpose of obtaining certain information we can contrast the answers with what has been observed and generate more content from which to obtain the data. Regarding the post-production phase, conversations have been equally crucial to obtain detailed information about the transmedia structure or the objective pursued with each decision.
We have produced a virtual reality work based on the present research as a pilot project from which to continue working. Although it is true that it is extremely complex to adapt a theoretical content to a visual experience, the resulting product is linked to the results of this work. This link is mainly due to being part of the creation process, through which we have worked with the data in a different way, we have experimented with the virtual medium of creation in the first person and we have produced an experience associated with and based on our object of study. Therefore, we focus the importance of this project on the creative process itself, which also implies a learning process, rather than on the result itself.
The reflection on the figure of the researcher/creator and the audiovisual representation process that has taken place during the conceptualization and development of the work is considerable. The virtual reality experience shows three scenarios, corresponding to each case study. In each scenario we show the case study in a visual way associated to one of the main notions that have been studied. A very conceptual result that encourages us to continue working on improved versions.
La creación de imágenes sobre el objeto de estudio se plantea desde el origen vinculado a la investigación con el objetivo de conocer lo audiovisual desde lo audiovisual en todos los sentidos. Igualamos objeto de estudio, método y exposición para realizar una investigación utilizando herramientas digitales visuales en todas sus etapas y aproximarnos a las nuevas formas de representación.
An ethnographic method, whether visual, digital or mixed, with participant observation as a form of data collection, involves the researcher becoming a research tool. As researchers we become members of the community to observe the process from within and document it.
There is an equivalence between the researcher and the non-fiction filmmaker, since it is the researcher himself who records. Despite this equivalence, this proposal differs from the expository ethnographic documentary, which is recorded after the ethnographic study. Our methodological proposal includes prospective recording, so the camera is introduced from the beginning of the fieldwork. Recording is a central part of the work and it is the researcher himself who decides what to film based on his interaction with the subjects and his adaptation to the environment. Jean Rouch's transformations in visual anthropology involved a change in the researcher-subject roles (shared anthropology and cine-trance) by introducing active participation in the filming process.
The treatment of the data obtained in the fieldwork goes through a series of stages: observation of the filmed material and relating it to the experience, structuring and categorization of the information, recontextualization of the data based on the categorization in relation to the general context of the research, projective observation and, finally, editing as analysis work. (Ardévol, 1994)
Thirdly, understanding the audiovisual as an expository form of the results leads us to ask ourselves how to compose an audiovisual product with similar characteristics to the object of study based on the results obtained. From the treatment of the images obtained during the research process we can elaborate a hypermedia product about the research itself. This proposal links the object of study with the methodology and the exhibition of results. It allows us to unite theory and praxis around the digital audiovisual and to offer a study with continuity in the three levels.
The introduction of the audiovisual immersive format not only responds to the idea of approaching the object of study and the method in a scenario that recreates the course of an event, but the holistic interest in experimenting with the possibilities that other tools offer us. The 360-degree video offers to analyze the experience of interaction with space through other sensations of the body and its movements in an immersive experience. An example that indicates us the possible applications of immersive works in communication research is the research project Réalités Impossibles (Chabert and Groupierre, 2018) in which they experiment and analyze the capabilities of these devices in relation to spaces.
The 360-degree video alters the conventional dynamics of audiovisual narration, because it forces us to create a story subject to the sensations that the user will later perceive from the image. In this format we film a subjective shot that has to be thought for later visualization and analysis by the researcher, not for an external user to whom a story is told. If we use this camera in a space where an action is taking place, we can film the action from all angles if we place it in a central point. The researcher using the video must choose his framing, the point of focus and, ultimately, where to fix his gaze. During this process he will inevitably fail to film another situation that could be interesting. This problem could disappear or, at least, diminish with the incorporation of 360-degree video. Below, we show a brief list of the technical characteristics of both recording formats and the comparison between both instruments applied to the research.
This VR project was created in an experimental way to create an immersive visual experience associated with research on contemporary digital documentary. It has been realized within the Hypermedia Communication Department of the Savoie Mont Blanc University, in the framework of the Master Création Numérique (USMB). This first version aims to explore the possibilities that the medium offers to create works associated with research within the disciplines of the social sciences. From this test we intend to continue working on the exhibition of research results through the XR to find the most appropriate way to disseminate the work.