Remembering My Hat

23rd April 2014

British Sociological Association 2014 – Leeds, UK (Part 1)

Filed under: Uncategorized — rememberingmyhat @ 14:28

Briefer than usual erratic and partial notes from a conference, because I am having an amazing multi-coloured array of technological problems. As ever, my own thoughts are in square brackets [like this]

Ester McGeeney, Sussex

Reanimating data from her PhD study by making films co-created by young people.

Boundaries, similarities and differences between participatory research, knowledge exchange, knowledge interaction, impact and so on?

Importance of sex-positive approaches to sex ed (what you usually get is all about risks and unwanted outcomes – medicalised, sex-negative). Practitioners Ester interviewed were supportive of this idea but didn’t feel knew how to go about it – worried about boundaries, about reaction of parents and the Daily Mail.

What matters, the process of knowledge exchange or the product?

Group of 7 young people, not research participants,designed the reanimations with help from film maker and Ester.

‘Good sex is’ and ‘bad sex is’ reanimations are finished and available on YouTube. Judged by the group to be successful.

BUT while YP have clear ideas about what constitutes good and bad sex, in interviews it’s clear that actual experiences are much more mixed and complicated.

So trying to use reanimations of interview data to get at this.

But what they initially did ‘didn’t work’. Tried other techniques. But what YP wanted was talking heads to camera – seen as authentic YouTube style? Professionals involved didn’t want talking heads, film-maker had said didn’t want to use them at beginning because leads to inauthentic, ‘Eastenders style bad acting’. But that’s what they seem to have ended up with. [Really interesting stuff about perceptions of authenticity / what genres read as authentic in what contexts and by whom]

The process has been great [But a great product gives you much wider but less deep impact].

 

Giovanna Fassetta, Strathclyde

Photography in research with young people

Lots of literature on poly-vocal nature of photographs people take as research participants – trying to please the researcher, other family members and friends influencing images taken, etc.

Also need to think about limits to choice of children [and other people] when they are taking photographs:

  • fear of attracting attention
  • lack of independent mobility and freedom of choice of where to go
  • ethical issues (lack of consent of family members photographed)

Need to think carefully about what conclusions can draw from participant-created data

Audience discussion: collective methods sometimes more enjoyable for participants and productive of richer data than one-to-one methods. But creates ethical issues about privacy of data.

Audience discussion: ways some methods become almost obligatory for work with some categories of people – photography for work with young people, one-to-one interviews with older people. Starts with really good work, but then gets fossilised into a normative expectation. People don’t publish when methods didn’t really work. So you only hear about the ways methods really worked.

 

 

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. […] erratic and partial notes from a conference. Part 1 here. My own thoughts in square brackets. No pretty pictures, I’m afraid, due to aforementioned […]

    Pingback by BSA 2014, Leeds (Part 2): Veganism + teaching LGBT+ in HSC | Remembering My Hat — 24th April 2014 @ 19:26 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: