Disregard Last Post

Sorry for the confusion, but I think I have finally come to terms with this project. It is not necessarily a documentary, for it to be one it would need to include a story, what this video is is a educational video. I am creatively going to look into how technological communication is used on this campus. Although, Hugo Perez gave me great ideas for creating an actual documentary with a story, it does not fit into my project. My project is going to be capturing people using technology and interviewing fellow students and faculty.

Hugo Perez Workshop

So today I went to a workshop directed by Hugo Perez, and although I was a little disappointed that we didn't actually make anything like I thought we would in a workshop, I had the opportunity to talk to him afterward. I mentioned to him the thesis of my project and how I wanted to interview students and faculty in the community and ask them about how they use different communicative technology. However, I voiced to him my concern of incorporating the research I have been doing, since this is a subject that is talked about immensely.

He didn't really have an actual answer for me, but he did mention some ideas on how to make this documentary into a story. If I don't have a story than all it is is an educational video, but I need a story to help bring everything together. Some of the ideas he gave me was to pull a Super Size Me like Morgan Spurlock and create a social experiment, meaning I myself should try and unplug from my electronics for a day; no facebook, no twitter, no e-mail and the worst one no phone! Then I could keep video diaries of my response to this experience.

The other suggestions he gave me was going up to students randomly and asking them the question do you think you could unplug for a day, or go without facebook for a day? Then he also suggested interviewing the IT department and finding out when the internet is the used the most and what websites are the most popular. He also suggested interviewing the counseling center about the effects that these technological communication devices have on us, which actually relates to some of the outside reading I have been doing, which I am going to talk about in a later post, but the article is called, The Anti-Social Network.

Overall I found these suggestions helpful because I was definitely aware going into it that I need interviews and need images of people interacting with technology but I was also aware that if this is everything I get then it's going to be one boring documentary. I like the idea of trying to unplug for a day because that will bring me into the documentary and could be kind of a cool story to connect to the research I am doing. Will unplugging make me happier, sadder, will I experience more anxiety?

Thoughts?

Facebook Group

So about a week ago I made a facebook event asking my St. Lawrence friends (not necessarily close friends, just people I am friends with on facebook in the SLU network) if they wanted to be interviewed for my documentary. The results so far...

6 people claim to be attending but only two of them actually posted on the wall of the event "verbally" showing commitment to participating. Out of the other four, I have spoken to one of them in person and she agreed to participate. The majority of the people who have said they are attending are people that I am friends with and spend a lot of time with, whether it's in class or in extracurricular activities.

8 people say to be "maybe" attending, clarification please? Maybe attending has always been an ambiguous term on facebook, and to be honest I usually click maybe attending when I feel bad rejecting the invitation and feel like the invite has been waiting for a response for a long enough time period. Out of the people who are "maybe" attending I haven't formally spoken to any of them.

10 people say they are not attending. Out of those who clicked no the majority of them I haven't spoken to in three years.

Here's the kicker...202 people are awaiting to reply. Some of these people are close friends who I have actually spoken to in person and mentioned to them that I need to interview people. Those that I have asked in conversation have said they would love to help, so why don't they confirm on facebook. You may be thinking, well they don't need to confirm since you spoke to them face-to-face but I actually spoke to all of them after I had created the group. Are they just ignoring my group? This has made me start to think about information overload. We get invited to so many events and groups on facebook that we stop actually looking at them. The same thing happens with email, I know I personally ignore a lot of emails because it just gets to be too much and then after a while that email gets lost among all the other emails I have.

So is this form of communicating to people about the idea of my project good or bad? Am I just being lazy by creating this group, because so far based on the results I am thinking I am going to need to take another approach to attract people to my project. Right now I'm thinking those that have verbally agreed will receive an email asking them to respond with a day and time that works well for them to start filming. Is email more personal then facebook? We will see.

Update

Today was an extremely hectic and busy day, but hectic and busy in a good way. Around noon I had a meeting with Amy and we discussed some of the more physical aspects of shooting. We realized I just need to start shooting and get something physical. Right now all of my ideas are stuck in my head and it's time I have something physical to show for it. Once I start shooting I believe it will be much easier for me to figure out how to incorporate my research because I will be able to physically see how my outside research is connected to my ethnographic research.

Right now though my main concern is figuring out a way to actually bring the outside research into the documentary. I don't think I will formally be able to figure this out until I have filmed interviews and visual imagery. However, one thing that Amy mentioned and caught my attention was the idea of using Jing, which is a program I can download for free. Jing allows you to capture what is on your computer, which is kind of what Michael Welsch from Kansas State does in his youtube clip, Web 2.0 (see below).




Jing could not only be used stylistically, captureing facebook profiles AIM conversations but I can also capture online newspaper articles that may be connected to my research. I can also bring up outside statistics that have been done by other people. Sidenote: This is all tentative and a way for me to write down some of the thoughts I have but right now I just want to focus on filming.

So before I start getting stuck in my head more I decided I should write out lists to keep me on track for filming...

Step 1: Begin filming interviews
Step 2: Film visual imagery that connects to what people are saying in interviews and captures people interacting with technology
a. Can film in the pub, students getting out of class, dana, library, computer labs
b. What am I looking for in this visual imagery?
i. People on facebook,
ii. People on their phones (texting, talking on the phone)
iii. People watching television on their computers
iv. People doing research
v. People multi-tasking

Also on the to do list are a list of general questions that will get people to talk during the interviews. These questions don't even need to mention technology, but they should be open ended and allow people to just talk.

Tentative Questions:
1. How are you involved socially on campus?
2. After class or during your free time what are some of the things you like to do?
3. How do you stay connected to people on campus?
4. What are some of your favorite websites and why?
5. What are some your favorite ways of communicating with people and why?
6. How do you go about planning out your day?

* Need to think of more open ended questions that may not even mention communication or technology. Any ideas please let me know.

List of People to Interview (in an environment that they are comfortable):
1. Friends 
2. Amy Hauber
3. Jenny McGreggor -- contact her again and ask for her class list of FYP students
4. Alana Alpert
5. First Year Students

Just Thinking

I've been reading this book my professor, Amy Hauber gave to me on making documentaries and have started to think about how I am going to shoot this film. The book consistently mentions that just having interviews isn't enough (more of this to come in the following posts), and so I have started to think of other ways to add to the film. This is what I have so far:

1. Using a voice over...it's been done in plenty of documentaries from Exit Through the Gift Shop to Dear Zachary, which I just watched today. Now I just need to know what I would want to say in the voice overs, which I think I will discover as I begin shooting.
2. Following a couple students around as they go about their every day...depending on who responds to my facebook event that I created (so far only two) I think it could be really interesting to follow students around as they go about their days. This would allow me to catch raw images that show them interacting with technology. I could film them for a week or more and then see what kind of footage I have. I would of course also interview these students that I have been following around, which will help bring the whole thing together.

I think I might be able to combine these two possibilities and will post in a few days about this book I am reading on documentaries and specifically what it is saying. Until then...

Next Step!

I've been doing the research and now it's time to start to think about filming and who I am going to interview. To find people willing to be interviewed I am using the snowball effect and have created a facebook event where I invited all my St. Lawrence facebook friends. Now I just need to wait and see if anyone responds. 

I think not only is using facebook a good way to attract people to my documentary and see if they are willing to be interviewed but I also think it will be interesting to see how the facebook event plays a role in volunteers. About ten years ago if you wanted to invite your friends to any kind of event you either emailed them or called them, but facebook is an easy way to invite your friends to something all at once. I invited about 300 people, but I am guessing that the number that respond will probably be 20 of my close friends. This is also an interesting thing to consider because since I am most likely going to attract close friends why couldn't I just call them or send them personalized emails? In that sense we need to question if facebook really does make a difference. This is related to whether facebook as a communication device brings us together (I could call my friends) or tear us apart? Does facebook really help people keep in touch more? 

These are all rhetorical questions that I can't answer and may never fully be able to, but through these interviews I hope I get a better understanding of why we as a community are so attracted to this form of communication.

On a somewhat separate note, I am also going to to contact the professor who made her first year students last year stop using all forms of technology, including computers and cell phones. I want to talk to her about why she decided to do this and see if she participated herself. I also am going to ask her for a class list of the now sophomores who participated in her class and were required to drop all forms of technology. Will keep you posted as my project develops further.

Understanding Technological Determinism

You may be asking yourself what exactly is technological determinism and what does it have to do with computer mediated communication. Well, essentially it has everything to do with computer mediated communication.

But before I dive into the details about how the two are connected, lets get an understanding of what I mean when I say technological determinism (don't be afraid by the big words). Technological determinism goes all the way back to the industrial revolution and is the belief "that technology causes or determines the structure of the rest of society and culture" (Technological Determinism 84). Which means that as technology develops society changes because it is influenced by these developments. For example, "the computer has changed the nature of jobs and work. The telephone led to the decline of letter writing...the internet has changed the nature of interpersonal communication" (Technological Determinism 84). Technology was created and we were effected, cause and effect.

However, there are many beliefs that it isn't technology that has influenced society, but instead society that has influenced technology. Think about it this way, technological development is "dependent on the state of the market: they were introduced only when they met persistent demand from consumer" (Winston 104). So not cause and effect but demand and supply. People want new technologies, they feel like they need new technology. The consumer has the power to drive technology. We wanted a mobile phone where we could check emails, so we were given the blackberry. We wanted giant color television that felt as if you were at the game instead of watching it from the comfort of your home, so we were given HD televisions. We wanted a way to communicate and keep in touch with our friends easily, so we were first given the telephone, then email and then finally social networks (again if you haven't seen The Social Network please please watch it!).

If you are still a firm believer in technological determinism, then just take a look at advertisements and you will most likely change your mind. Beginning in the early 1900s "advertising agencies sold the public on the idea that the latest advances in technology brought not only immediate personal gains but social progress" (Smith 19). The companies were able to do this by "using the psychological concepts of association and suggestions, neatly packaged in colorful and briefly worded appeals that excited mental images, advertisers encouraged people to believe that technology, broadly construed, shaped society rather than the other way around" (Smith 13). What this means is that through advertisements people felt like they needed what was being sold, therefore technology was shaping what society would become, but really they didn't need any of that they just wanted it. Technology soon became idolized and it "embedded itself deeply in popular culture" (Smith 13). Technology became such a necessity to peoples lives that it "became the cause of human well-being" (Smith 15). People couldn't tell the difference between things that they needed and wanted.

I think that as a society we need to "understand what sorts of implications new technology may carry with them" before we start to use them (Smith 32). Technology has become an important part of our culture and probably will continue to play a prominent role but we cannot let technology determine how we as a society behave. We have the power to pick and choose what forms of technology we want, not the other way around. If people never demanded social networks, then they wouldn't be here, but as Jesse Eisenberg says in the movie and this is a paraphrase, people want to see their friends on the internet. 

It started with friendster, and myspace and then Mark Zuckerberg came along and saw and understood what people wanted and that's what he gave them. We now have twitter, because again Zuckerberg saw people wanted to update their statuses and tell people what they were doing. Someone saw this and saw an opportunity to create a new site that would allow them to do just that alone, hence the creation of twitter.

Demand and Supply people.

Works Cited: 

Smith, Merritt Roe. "Technological Determinism in American Culture." Does Technology Drive History?. Ed. Merritt

             Roe Smith and Leo Marx. Cambridge, MA: 1994. 1-35.

"Technological Determinism." Philosophy of Technology. Blackwell, 2006. 84-104.

Winston, Brian. "Necessities and Constraints: A Pattern of Technological Change." In Film and Theory: An

             Antropology. Ed. Robert Stam and Toby Miller. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. 103-110.

Documentaries

For my senior project I have decided to present my findings through a documentary. What I love about the art of documentaries is exactly that, it is a form of art. The art class I am taking this semester is actually focusing on the art of documentaries, and so far we have been discussing the manipulation of emotions that is present in most of them, and what exactly makes a documentary manipulative. Let's begin by what I believe makes a documentary manipulative...

1. Non-diegetic music (music that is played externally): music can make moments feel more emotional than they actually are. A prime example of this is from the documentary we just watched called Life. Support. Music. At the end of the documentary you see the man who the documentary unfolded on playing a guitar on stage and the music just starts to build up and you feel a rush of happiness and hope as you watch this man (if that's too vague I'm sorry but I don't want to give the story away).

2. Use of camera angles :if a camera is far away from the subject it can give off the feeling that the person is alone, or possibly an outsider.

3. Lighting: Bright lighting can make you feel happier while a darker lighting can sometimes have an ominous effect.

Overall it comes down to stylistic choices.

Now here is the fork in the road that I am at. I am stuck between the ethics that come with doing qualitative research and use of stylistic devices to make my documentary not only informative but art.


Here is the trailer to Life. Support. Music.





The trailer is somewhat manipulative but it isn't nearly as manipulative as this trailer for the documentary Waiting for Superman. The trailer itself will make you cry.



So I guess what I figure right now is that everything is manipulative, whether it's a documentary or a paper. The thing is to understand that manipulation and to be conscious of it. I think it is okay if my documentary manipulates emotions a little bit as long as it doesn't over do it, like I think Waiting for Superman does.

The Ethics of Qualitative Research

Not only do I need to understand the importance of qualitative research and how to approach it, but I must also understand how ethics plays a role in this type of research. Some of the research I found discussing ethics was mostly discussing how ethics plays a role in feminist research, however I still believe that the information provided is applicable to the research I am going to be conducting. 

A very simple definition of research ethics a good base to begin is how it is "focused on how well participants are treated" (Gillies and Alldred 32). 

Now moving on. Research ethics takes into consideration how research is influenced by the researcher's perspective because the "personal perspectives of researchers inform the intentions we have for research" which again goes back to how as researchers we are subjective and need to approach our research with an open mind so that it does not affect our subjects (33). If you as a researcher understand the intentions you hope to get out of your research, this will help you clarify your means and will decrease the chances of subjectivity. "As Caroline Ramazanoglu and Janet Holland argue 'In connecting theory, experience and judgment, the knowing feminist should be accountable for the sense she makes of her own and other peoples' accounts and how her judgments are made'" (Gillies and Alldred 42).

Another interesting point I found out about ethics for qualitative research, (and although this comes from the feminist perspective, I definitely think it is applicable to my research), is that you must represent your subjects "in order that their voices and experiences are heard" (Gillies and Alldred 33). What I took this to mean is that you must come into your research with an open mind to avoid projecting your views on your subjects and therefore tampering with their voice. 

There has also been much discussion under feminist research that discusses the role of power and how when doing some of this research you are representing groups that you are not part of (most likely marginalized groups). Some feminists have actually decided that they will not speak for those that they cannot relate to, meaning as researchers their "warrant extends only to representations of themselves and their immediate communities" (Gillies and Alldred 40). Luckily for me I am focusing on the St. Lawrence community, one that I have been part of for four years and therefore I think ethically I can interview other students and members of the community because I can relate to them and am part of their community.

Another thing that is necessary to understand when conducting interviews is the idea of consent. When it comes to consent the ethics committee requires that the relationship between the researcher and interviewee should be formalized through written consent. Therefore, I believe that I too must write up a form and have my participants sign a document to show that they are consenting to my research.

However, the term consent can be quite ambiguous because what are the subjects exactly consenting to? If you inform your participants about the aims of your research, which may contribute to their consent, you must keep in mind that as your research progresses so may your aims and therefore what you told them in the beginning may change. "The precise nature of 'consent' for the participants might only become clear eventually, at the end of a study, when the researchers' impact on shaping the study is visible" (Miller and Bell 54). This "raises questions about what is it that the participant is consenting to" (Miller and Bell 54).

The last thing to make note of when discussing the ethics to interviewing is how you recruit your participants. Are you going to recruit people through a selective recruitment process or are you going to use the snowball affect, where you use your own networks and connections. It's actually kind of interesting because when I started to think about who I wanted to interview I immediately turned to the idea of using facebook and creating a group to get people to be interviewed but also as a way to attract them to my blog so that they can contribute (just interesting how social networks plays a role in ethics itself). However, one thing to take note of if you use the snowball affect is "the motives around why some people become participants and others resist [this] should concern the researcher and be documented in a research diary" (Miller and Bell 56). Perfect! That's what this blog is for, as a virtual research diary.

Works Cited:

 Gillies, Val, Pam Alldred. "The Ethics of Intention: Research as a Political Tool." Ethics in Qualitative

              Research. Ed. Melanie Mauthner, Maxine Birch, Julie Jessop, Tina Miller. SAGE Publication,

              2002. 32-52.

Miller, Tina, Linda Bell. "Consenting to What? Issues of Access, Gate-Keeping and 'Informed'

            Consent." Ethics in Qualitative Research. Ed. Melanie Mauthner, Maxine Birch, Julie Jessop,

            Tina Miller. SAGE Publication, 2002. 53-69.