visual research methodology!
Master Student
Rokka_Hietanen_RAM_2018_Onpositioningvideographyasatoolfortheorizing.pdf
RAM
https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570718754762
Recherche et Applications en Marketing 2018, Vol. 33(3) 106 –121
© l’Association Française du Marketing, 2018 Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2051570718754762
journals.sagepub.com/home/rme
Introduction
When the Lumière brothers invented the moving image, the first question that emerged must have been: what can the film do? It was the time of silent cinema, where the image was exclusively based on visuality and movement. It was undoubtedly also the first time that worthy filmic topics and subjects were being considered and chosen. The first-known film screening by the Lumières took place at the Salon
Indien du Grand Café in Paris (December 28, 1895) and featured 10 short films. Interestingly, many of these early films focused on describing relatively mundane activities and flows of everyday life: work- ers exiting the factory, the gardener and blacksmith at work, people moving about a street corner, a baby eating, fishing and the sea. But already then, some of the films were seemingly much more ambitious in
On positioning videography as a tool for theorizing
Joonas Rokka EMLYON Business School, Lifestyle Research Centre, France
Joel Hietanen Aalto University School of Business, Finland and Stockholm Business School, University of Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract The purpose of this article is to critically examine videography in the repertoire of visual approaches and delineate a positioning that would be distinctive, inspiring and daring. Notably, we advocate for alternative video-based approaches that expand the field beyond the dominant ‘representational mode’ by embracing the evocative power of video, and it is only in this way that videographic research could emerge into a self-standing research method without falling under other representational orders of analysis such as being read ‘like text’ or frozen into photographic ‘stills’. In so doing, we develop an image of thought of consumer videographies, where the affective forces of video are harnessed towards ‘theorizing’ in an emergent rather than descriptive form.
Keywords documentary film, non-representation, representation, video ethnography, videography
Corresponding author: Joonas Rokka, EMLYON Business School, Lifestyle Research Centre, 23 Avenue Guy de Collongue, 69134 Ecully Cedex, France. Email: [email protected]
754762RME0010.1177/2051570718754762Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Rokka and Hietanen research-article2018
Review Article
Rokka and Hietanen 107
their aims. They did not seek to only describe the passing of ordinary events, but were rather oriented towards provoking powerful emotions and reac- tions. Notably, they sought to express spectacles that would potentially shock, trouble or amaze the spec- tators. Examples included a ‘trick shot’ of steam train bustling right towards the camera – which made people run away from the film screening, ter- rified from the felt sensation of being caught under the train. Other filmic ‘illusions’ were created, for example, by playing film backwards which resulted in ‘impossible’ or ‘unreal’, yet thought-provoking images and encounters.
Fast forward to contemporary times and we are now living ‘the age of video’ (Russell, 1999). Video has quickly replaced cinema as the most dominant single cultural form (Denzin, 1995) and has become among other things the most sought-after content in the Internet.1 Since the early moments of filmmak- ing described above, a multitude of aesthetic genres and practices have proliferated, including drama, fiction, propaganda, advertising, documentary film, experimental art film and amateur/consumer-made film. While the academia has been slow to adapt to these developments, some scholarly disciplines such as visual anthropology (Banks and Ruby, 2011; MacDougall, 2006; Pink, 2007; Ruby, 2005) has enjoyed a long preoccupation with the medium. Equally, videographic research has been present in consumer research for almost two decades (Belk and Kozinets, 2005b; Dion, 2007; Kozinets and Belk, 2006; Veer, 2014) and is regularly featured in premium conferences and also published in journal special issues (Belk and Kozinets, 2005a; Caldwell and Henry, 2010; Rokka et al., in press). Yet, despite increasing emphasis on video-based research meth- ods, the field suffers from a lack of ontological, epistemological and methodological considerations that pertain to film and its specific vocabulary (see Hietanen et al., 2014). In addition, critical commen- taries have pointed out that the existing work strug- gles to balance between scientific versus artistic (Belk and Kozinets, 2005b; Petr et al., 2015; Wood and Brown, 2012); visual ethnographic versus doc- umentary film (De Valck et al., 2009); made versus collaborative films (Chatzidakis and Maclaran, in press; Whiting et al., 2016) and representational versus expressive (Hietanen et al., 2014; Schembri
and Boyle, 2013) mindsets. Moreover, the term ‘videography’ has been used very loosely to refer to nearly any form of academic film production, rang- ing from ethnographic film, to researcher-made footage, to any kind of footage or video data sources, making it nearly impossible to distinguish its nature or modalities.
The objective of this study is to ask how can vid- eography be defined and positioned distinctively in relation to other existing filmmaking practices, and how can it be thought of as tool for theorizing. We begin by critically assessing closely related but often conflated categories of visual ethnography, documentary film and experimental non-fiction film and then define videography as the practice of crafting research expressions and theoretical argu- ments on the moving image. In doing so, we draw parallels with different modes of filmic research but also challenge their dominant representational stance – that is, their implicit reliance on the video medium as a ‘verisimilitude-machine’ that can ‘cap- ture’ and thus faithfully recreate ‘reality’. Later, we also begin the work of developing the idea of theo- rizing with videographies from an emergent rather than descriptive perspective, making theorizing into a praxis that arises as an ongoing and open-ended process through affective encounters between researchers and fieldwork and the viewers of the videographic work. We argue this notion has the potential to broaden the way we think of video- graphic research and its impact beyond conven- tional academic audiences. Working towards this aim several videography examples are offered to illuminate our arguments. However, our aim is not to provide an exhaustive list of existing videogra- phies or the nature of their contributions since this has already been provided elsewhere (see Belk et al., 2017).We hope this can add to and facilitate the discussion about the ontology and vocabulary of videography in consumer and marketing research and help the field advance in novel directions.
Conceptual template for video-based approaches
This section offers a review of some of the most influential video-based research approaches. We pay particular attention to their underlying logics in
108 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
relation to their ontology and epistemology, repre- sentation and reality, assessment, as well as nature and focus of audio–visual storytelling and argumen- tation. After a closer examination of video ethnog- raphy, documentary film, experimental non-fiction film, the section ends with a proposition for posi- tioning academic videography. Each category will be illuminated by means of examples of prior work and, to aid the reader, the conceptual template is summarized in Table 1.
Video ethnography
Spanning close to a century, anthropological film- makers have pioneered the development and use of film-based approaches in academia (Banks and Ruby, 2011; MacDougall, 2006; Pink, 2007; Ruby, 2005). They have led the way particularly in using moving images in their aims for ethnographic repre- sentation of culture, commonly by means of pro- ducing edited ethnographic films or videos. While visual anthropology more generally entails the pro- duction of multiple forms of images, photos and video – often mainly for data collection and analyti- cal purposes – Pink (2007) defines ethnographic video to refer to ‘any video footage that is of ethno- graphic interest or is used to represent ethnographic knowledge’ (p. 169). This notion implies that ethno- graphic video shot by the researcher can basically assume any form, length, style or convention, as long as it is used as part of ethnographic research and to represent knowledge about that research to mainly academic audiences.
The roots of video ethnography run deep in the history of anthropological thought, and the earliest ethnographic films can be traced back to the early 20th century, right after the invention by the Lumières. Illustrative of the nature of films in this early, ‘realist’ filmmaking period is notably the pio- neering film by explorer Robert J. Flaherty – Nanook of the North (1922). Nowadays considered as the forefather of ethnographic film, Flaherty aimed to ‘realistically’ describe the everyday life and struggles of Inuit people in North Canada. Similarly, in the 1930s, Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead produced iconic ethnographic films that, in essence, tried to ‘capture’ the complex ritu- als by natives in Bali and New Guinea. The practice
was further proliferated and revolutionized as film- ing technology was improved, especially with the light 16 mm cameras that became popular in the 1950s. At this time, several ethnographers, includ- ing the French school led by Jean Rouch,2 devel- oped a movement around cinémaverité, that is the ‘cinema of the real’. Characteristic of this line of filmic productions was the aim to represent the ‘truth’ as seen by the filmmaker as objectively and unobtrusively as possible. Taking increasing inspi- ration from a scientific mindset, it was also sug- gested that ethnographic films should try to ensure scientific value by avoiding close-ups and instead attempt to film whole contexts, activities and actions with minimal editing and intervention by or subjectivity of the researcher (e.g. Heider, 1976). The focus of such ethnographic films was thus in the belief that it was possible to represent ‘whole cultures’ on film (Pink, 2007).
The break with this realist mode of filmmaking, however, emerged in full force in the late 1980s with the ‘crisis of representation’ that hit social sci- ences and anthropology in formidable ways. This pushed ethnographic films towards new perspec- tives, in which objective representation was prob- lematized and a more subjective and reflexive mode was being promoted (Dion, 2007; Pink, 2007; Ruby, 1982). This meant that increasing emphasis was placed on the filmic approaches that sought to chal- lenge the objectifying nature of anthropology and instead embrace the subjectivity of the researchers. This resulted in related shifts towards examining the individuals’ experiences and role as part of social and cultural worlds (MacDougall, 1997, 2006; Pink, 2007), and also to the realization that researchers are active participants in the negotiation and co-creation of social realities, by asking ques- tions, talking and by shooting (and appearing in) films. Moreover, experimentation begun towards collaborative film productions, as researchers are increasingly handing video cameras over to partici- pants (e.g. Pink, 2007; Whiting et al., 2016) and even asking them to also edit and produce the entire video in collaboration with researchers (Chatzidakis and Maclaran, in press), adding reflexivity into the process of knowledge production. Here it may also be useful to realize that even the aforementioned ‘realist’ accounts by Flaherty were filmed largely as
Rokka and Hietanen 109
T a b
le 1
. V
id eo
-b as
ed r
es ea
rc h
ap pr
o ac
he s
in c
o m
pa ri
so n.
V id
eo e
th no
gr ap
hy D
o cu
m en
ta ry
f ilm
Ex pe
ri m
en ta
l n o n-
fic ti o n
V id
eo gr
ap hy
R el
at io
n to
r ea
lit y
So ci
al c
o ns
tr uc
ti vi
st ; d
ep ar
tu re
fr
o m
s ci
en ti fic
r ea
lis m
D o m
in an
tl y
re al
is t
(e xp
o si
to ry
m
o de
); a
lt ho
ug h
o th
er s
ta nc
es
co -e
xi st
( i.e
. p o et
ic , r
ef le
xi ve
m
o de
)
N o n-
re pr
es en
ta ti o na
l ( i.e
. re
al it y
is a
f lu
x o f em
er ge
nt
re la
ti o ns
)
M o re
-t ha
n- re
pr es
en ta
ti o na
l; im
po rt
an ce
o f es
ch ew
in g
re pr
es en
ta ti o n
as a
s o le
fo
cu s
o f in
qu ir
y R
el at
io n
to v
id eo
a s
a m
ed iu
m o
f kn
o w
le dg
e pr
o du
ct io
n
V id
eo is
r ep
re se
nt at
io na
l V
id eo
is r
ep re
se nt
at io
na l
V id
eo is
r el
at io
na l
V id
eo is
r el
at io
na l
R el
at io
n to
v id
eo a
s m
et ho
do lo
gy V
id eo
is ‘a
w in
do w
t o t
he
w o rl
d’ , c
ap ab
le o
f ca
pt ur
in g
‘a ut
he nt
ic ’ e
xp er
ie nc
es a
nd
so ci
al /s
ym bo
lic w
o rl
ds
V id
eo is
a t
ra ns
pa re
nt
do cu
m en
ta ti o n
to o l w
it ne
ss in
g th
e ‘r
ea l w
o rl
d’
V id
eo is
a ‘l
ab o ra
to ry
’ f o r
cr it ic
al e
xp er
im en
ta ti o n
w it h
th e
po lit
ic s
an d
co nv
en ti o ns
o f re
pr es
en ta
ti o n
V id
eo is
a n
ex pr
es si
ve
to o l,
ca pa
bl e
o f th
e ev
o ki
ng p
o w
er fu
l a ffe
ct iv
e re
la ti o ns
a nd
e nc
o un
te rs
Em ph
as is
o f
ar gu
m en
ta ti o n
V is
ua l a
nd t
ex tu
al
ar gu
m en
ta ti o n;
b as
ed o
n et
hn o gr
ap he
r’ s
su bj
ec ti ve
ex
pe ri
en ce
s an
d in
te r
su bj
ec ti ve
n eg
o ti at
io ns
V is
ua l i
s o ft
en s
ec o nd
ar y
to t
ex t
an d
sp o ke
n w
o rd
; ar
gu m
en ta
ti o n
ba se
d o n
‘o bj
ec ti ve
f ac
ts ’ o
r te
st im
o ni
es
V id
eo s
pe ak
s fo
r it se
lf;
in te
rp re
ta ti o n
is le
ft t
o
th e
vi ew
er a
s te
xt ua
l ar
gu m
en ta
ti o n
is o
ft en
o m
it te
d
V is
ua l a
nd t
ex tu
al is
cr
ea ti ve
ly c
o m
bi ne
d fo
r ex
pr es
si ng
t he
o re
ti ca
l ar
gu m
en ts
t ha
t ‘t ak
e si
de s’
R o le
o f th
e re
se ar
ch er
Pa rt
ic ip
at o ry
a nd
r ef
le xi
ve ; y
et
m ai
n ro
le is
t o e
ns ur
e ‘lo
ya l’
re pr
es en
ta ti o n
o f va
ri o us
su
bj ec
ti vi
ti es
O bj
ec ti ve
c o m
m un
ic at
o r;
in
vi si
bl e
o r
hi dd
en in
t he
f ilm
, so
m et
im es
e m
bo dy
in g
‘t he
- vo
ic e-
o f-
go d’
O bs
er va
ti o na
l; fa
ci lit
at o r
o f cr
it ic
al a
nd p
o w
er fu
l en
co un
te rs
( w
it h
th e
w o rl
d)
Pe rf
o rm
at iv
e; t
ak es
s id
es
th ro
ug h
ex pr
es si
o n
o f
th eo
re ti ca
l a rg
um en
ts
ab o ut
t he
s o ci
al , c
ul tu
ra l
an d
m at
er ia
l w o rl
d R
el at
io n
to t
he o ry
bu
ild in
g Fo
cu s
o n
de sc
ri bi
ng a
nd
re pr
es en
ti ng
e th
no gr
ap hi
c kn
o w
le dg
e
Fo cu
s is
o n
ev id
en ce
-b as
ed
st o ry
te lli
ng a
nd ‘p
ro bl
em
so lv
in g’
Fo cu
s is
o n
pu re
e xp
re ss
io n
an d
o bs
er va
ti o n
Fo cu
s is
o n
de ve
lo pi
ng
an d
ex pr
es si
ng t
he o re
ti ca
l ar
gu m
en ts
B as
is o
f as
se ss
m en
t C
ap ac
it y
fo r
pr o du
ci ng
et
hn o gr
ap hi
c de
sc ri
pt io
n an
d in
si gh
t th
at is
u nb
ia se
d by
t he
re
se ar
ch er
C ap
ac it y
fo r
su pp
o rt
in g
ar gu
m en
ta ti o n
w it h
co nv
in ci
ng
an d
se am
le ss
e vi
de nc
e (t
es ti m
o ni
es , w
it ne
ss in
g)
C ap
ac it y
fo r
ex pr
es si
ng n
o ve
l an
d cr
it ic
al p
er sp
ec ti ve
s an
d en
co un
te rs
C ap
ac it y
fo r
ge ne
ra ti ng
th
eo re
ti ca
l i ns
ig ht
s an
d in
vo ke
im ag
in at
io ns
o f
so ci
al c
ha ng
e vi
a vi
de o ’s
af
fe ct
iv e
po w
er s
110 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
reconstructed sets, and it has later been argued that even then such pioneering work ‘only saw false problems’ with trying to keep a sharp distinction between the ‘captured real’ and the ‘produced per- formance’ (see Deleuze, 1989).
Video ethnography was soon characterized by approaches that aimed to question the dominant research paradigms, in trying to critically examine the role of the visual in production of knowledge and non-linguistic ways of knowing (Barker, 2009; Marks, 2000), as a means for producing ‘elusive modes of knowledge’, including tacit, aesthetic and embodied aspects of lived experiences (Toraldo et al., 2016). As observed by MacDougall (2006), the visual allows us to re-examine the ‘relation between seeing, thinking and knowing, and the complex nature of thought itself’ (p. 2). This is because we see and give meaning with our entire bodies – not just conscious thought – and any image we make also carries with it ‘the imprint of our bodies’ (p. 3). In short, our bodies produce meaning and mean- ing guides our attention and thought further. This ‘sensory’ aspect and sensitivity to how ‘senses come together’ via the moving image has thus been a major locus for much of the video ethnographic work (MacDougall, 2006; Merchant, 2011; Pink, 2009).
Facilitated by the possibilities of cheaper and more efficient digital cameras towards the turn of the 21st century, video ethnography has evolved to an entire new era of research filmmaking and dis- semination of audiovisual knowledge (e.g. Pink, 2011). One advantage has been the fact that research filmmakers are increasingly freed from the agendas and obligations set up by TV channels and funding needs, as video production is increasingly flexible and adapted to serve the agenda of research knowl- edge production. The other is that much more video material becomes available and propelled via the online streaming and social media sites.
The science versus art debate around video eth- nography has taken multiple turns ever since the earliest films. However, today most are likely to agree that it is unavoidable to break the strict divi- sion between ‘research footage’ and ‘cinematic/ artistic footage’ (e.g. Pink, 2007). Footage can no longer be seriously thought of as an ‘objective record’ of social life, and instead, the focus is
shifting on considerations about how theories can inspire, inform, or explain researcher-made footage and film. What is troubling, however, is that the anthropological tradition even today still clings on to knowledge as bound to words and text. For exam- ple, there is less focus on examining what a video makes us feel and more on how the video can be ‘read’, ‘coded’ and ‘translated’ into text and dis- course (see Gylfe et al., 2016; Schembri and Boyle, 2013). Equally, as observed by Hietanen et al. (2014b), the ontology of video ethnographic work, especially in consumer and marketing research, is firmly based on a representational mode and in some cases even influenced by a quasi-realist film- making vocabulary.
Documentary film
Documentary film is the broadest territory that will be covered here, not least because of its important influence on existing videographic filmmaking practice in marketing and consumer research (De Valck et al., 2009). Essentially, it entails an inform- ing logic that requires a video-based representation, case, or argument about the (historical) world. The main differences between video ethnography and documentary film concern their relation to aca- demia, as well as the extent to which they draw on cinematographic practices such as scripting, staging, rehearsal, editing and performances that we associ- ate more closely with fiction. Bill Nichols (2001), a pioneer of documentary film theory, agrees that the definitions of documentary film tend to change over time, but in general can be summarized as the ‘crea- tive treatment of actuality’.3 This suggests that tradi- tion relies heavily on addressing ‘actuality’ – about something that actually happened in the real or lived (and historical) world and very often about some- one, a real (historical) person. Moreover, a docu- mentary is essentially ‘a representation of the world we already occupy’ (Nichols, 2001: 9, emphasis in original). They are distinctive from other means of documentation in that they embrace the film’s abil- ity to convey an ‘impression of authenticity’, that is, a powerful impression made possible by moving image. Despite aims to ‘witness’ and document (his- torical) events, however, the ‘creative treatment’ is evident and it is recognized that all documentary
Rokka and Hietanen 111
films are, still, creative endeavours that also entail a creative vision and craft.
For the purposes of this article, we will next focus on Nichol’s framework of six documentary film modes that can be identified based on their tendencies and nature (see Table 2 for more details). These are not mutually exclusive or ideal- istic categories, but rather prominent tendencies in conventions that documentary films draw on. While they cannot be put on a continuum, the clearest opposing extremes are the expository and poetic modes. Expository mode is by far the most dominant and pertinent of these as it is the mode commonly used for television channels (e.g. news, historical and biographical documentaries). Stemming from evidently realist assumptions, the expository mode aims for an accurate representa- tion of historical events put together in a manner that rhetorics (narration and voice-over) are emphasized as the principal storytelling device accompanied by witnessing ‘authentic’ images and testimonies by key characters or experts of the story (e.g. Goldman Sachs – Power and Peril). On the other side of the spectrum is the poetic mode,
which is clearly a much more marginal and alter- native filmmaking practice. Poetic mode, while addressing the ‘real world’ as well, takes film more as a medium through which images of the world can be experienced. It thus considers the film more as a ‘relation’ than a representation, that emerges as viewers are put in an encounter with new knowl- edge, perspective and thought (also Cubitt, 1993). The poetic mode embraces the artistic qualities of the film to the fullest, in exploring various rhythms, associations, contrast and light (e.g. Man with the Movie Camera).
In addition, two other documentary modes stand out in light of our study, as they also commonly inform video-based consumer research. The first is the participatory mode where the filmmaker has an important role in negotiating meanings and in con- structing ‘a view’ into the world. A notable feature of this approach is the fact that the filmmaker can be heard or seen in the video, chronicling or ‘living through’ the events that are being witnessed (e.g. Grizzly Man by Werner Herzog). In contrast to this, one is the observational mode where the filmmaker, instead, attempts to stay as invisible as possible, or
Table 2. Modes of documentary film (adapted from Nichols, 2001).
Mode Goal Approach
Expository mode Dissemination of information or solving a dilemma or problem
Emphasis on rhetorics and often omnipresent and ‘objective’ (voice-of-god style) narration. Images stand as ‘evidence’ for the narration but are by nature secondary in the line of argumentation.
Participatory mode To produce the film in interaction, collaboration, or confrontation with the participants/subjects
The filmmaker is present and visible/audible in the film and in interaction with the subjects. The meaning or interpretation is negotiated through interaction process
Observational mode
To ‘unobtrusively’ observe and witness, letting the viewers decide on the interpretation ‘on their own’
Footage is mostly shot in a manner that the filmmaker is not exposed, following ‘a-fly-on-the-wall’ logic. The power of witnessing serves as the key persuasion and storytelling mechanism. Little or no rhetoric content
Reflexive mode To aid the audience in understanding the process of constructing film
Involves a critical attitude, questioning and de- mystifying the documentary filmmaking practice and reconsidering its implications
Performative mode To explain how the filmmaker is constructing his or her subjective truths
Involves presentation of the filmmaker in the film and in search for the ‘truths’. Forceful rhetoric argumentation and exposition of an agenda
Poetic mode Subjective interpretation of subject(s)
Poetic expression in editing, exploring associations, patterns that involve temporal rhythms and spatial juxtapositions. Little or no rhetoric content
112 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
more precisely ‘a-fly-in-the-wall’. Here the footage is often filmed over long periods of times, some- times with fixed cameras, and presented with mini- mal or little editing, in order to suggest the footage is more authentic evidence to the viewers in this way.
The practice of video work in the context of doc- umentary filmmaking can be perhaps seen as the least preoccupied by assessing the nature of its knowledge products. While documentary film is certainly deeply involved with creating powerful images, a journalistic style generally spans this approach, most clearly found in nature documenta- ries of even the newer type politically oriented work where the ‘researcher’ takes a commanding and central role in the production of events (such as Bowling for Columbine, Super-Size Me or The Act of Killing) – which is the instance of performative mode, according to Nichol’s typology.
Experimental non-fiction film
As formulated by Russell (1999), experimental non-fiction film can be seen ‘as a kind of laboratory in which the politics of representation and the con- ventions of observational cinema are brought under scrutiny’ (p. xii). This emerges from the interpene- tration of avant-garde artistic and ethnographic film that embraces cultural criticism in challenging vari- ous structures inscribed in conventional forms of cultural representation and that seeks to make parameters of cultural practice ‘newly visible’. This arguably ‘post-modern’ film is not as much a form, but rather a critical tendency of inquiry that engages social theory with aesthetic experimentation, video production practices, gaze and spectatorship. In other words, with experimental film, ethnography becomes less of a scientific practice and more a critical engagement with culture, as means of ‘read- ing and animating it’ and not aiming to transpar- ently represent it. The key here is that the human condition becomes more like an ‘ongoing cultural encounter, translation and transition’ (Russell, 1999: xvii) that can be interrogated via the moving image as a performance (Seregina, 2017). Yet, in contrast to classic ethnographic filmmaking and mainstream documentary film, a more fluid concep- tion of reality is embraced, as well as a view on his- tory as a ‘fantastic, flexible and inauthentic text’.
Examples of experimental ethnographic films usu- ally address topics such as gender, race, colonialism and critical representations of minority or ‘other’ groups (e.g. Mulvey, 1989; also Denzin, 2001).
In the experimental non-fiction films, meaning is not ‘closed’ but it escapes and evades representation (Russell, 1999: 5). Neither is the image seen as onto- logically and indexically linked to something ‘out there’ in the real world, nor to ‘fixed’ bodies – but rather it engages ambivalent and ‘open’ bodies of the subjects, the viewers and the film in a dynamic and haptic relationality (Barker, 2009). The film’s body is also a ‘living-body’ (non-human body) capable of ‘the perception of expression and the expression of perception’ (Barker, 2009: 9). According to this view, what we actually see when watching a film is not the filmmaker or the cameraman seeing, but the film seeing, perceiving, pointing, framing and signi- fying. These notions seem to agree also that video is incapable of transparent communication and, rather, unlike the cinematic image preserved in a celluloid, the video image is made anew at every transmission through digital platforms, devices and editing opportunities.
When video is no longer imagined to maintain a ‘realist’ connection to an ‘external’ world, a shift in its possibilities becomes evident. No more trapped in representation, video becomes about expression (see Hietanen et al., 2014) that can have a powerful affective relationship with the viewer. Thus, video, especially when furnished with a particular twist or unusual perspective, is capable of producing and expressing ‘impossible thoughts’ (Bogue, 2003; Deleuze, 1989; Massumi, 2002) that may affec- tively force us to think in novel ways. Video artist Bill Viola’s films stand as interesting experiments in this regard. Among his famous works is The Raft (2004), a video in which temporal modulation of the film with its unexpectedly slow playback, up to the extent that the movement nearly stops entirely, allows viewers to pay attention to subtle gestures, expressions, affective intensities and movement that would otherwise perhaps remain unnoticed. It is thus its expressive and non-representational qual- ities that open up new ways of thinking and theoriz- ing, as argued by Beyes and Steyaert (2012). Another case in point is Leviathan (2012) by Lucian Castaing-Taylor and Verena Paravel. The video
Rokka and Hietanen 113
examines the state of the contemporary fishing industry – and on another level the humanity’s rela- tionship with nature – by means of filming the daily encounters of a fishing trawler in the North Atlantic for several months. The affective power of the film stems partly from its shocking images and exces- sively long shots where the fishermen butcher the fish in a cold and machinic way. But the very lack of narration and contextual explanation seem to turn into an affective force in their own right. This is an example that shows how videography can stand on its own; an open platform forces the viewer into an embodied experience and then thrusts thought to think beyond the image. Thus, its expression is open and lacks a significatory stamp that closes onto itself to produce a stable representation.
Videography
We feel that the idea of videography in consumer research and related fields is distinct from the previ- ously presented approaches. For us, the main preoc- cupation of videography should – and must – be theoretical argumentation and elaboration through moving image and sound. There is an acute need for videography to be understood in this way, instead of being confused or conflated with the other, existing filmmaking traditions. Even though early iterations of videography in consumer research (Belk and Kozinets, 2005b; De Valck et al., 2009; Petr et al., 2015) took necessary steps towards this end, it is unavoidable to notice that the current production of video-based research (e.g. in the Association for Consumer Research Videography Track), which is also reflected in the practice and discourse of vide- ography production, is still struggling to uncover its meaning and unique contours. The term ‘videogra- phy’ has, unfortunately, come to equate nearly any form, style, type or length of film produced or made available in association with a research project. It is in this spirit that we wish to clarify the positioning and focus of videography. Yet, it must be made clear that we are by no means attempting to discover an orthodoxy of videographic research. Indeed, we welcome all forms of creative experimenting, but we hope it would become an effort that embraces critical reflexivity regarding what it is attempting to achieve. This is important not least because
different video-based approaches carry with them distinctive modes of evaluation and assessment cri- teria (see Table 1), which are reflected upon the entire peer review process of videographic work.
All in all, videographic experimentation in con- sumer research has been going on and growing in popularity for almost two decades now (Belk and Kozinets, 2010) and has produced amounts of video ethnographic or documentary film work (for a review, see Belk et al., 2017). Nevertheless, it is somewhat startling that while some videographic work in consumer research claims to be breaking from orthodox forms of textual representation, the outcomes are more often than not video reports try- ing to mimic the journal article format. Perhaps vid- eographers are trying to ‘play it safe’, in order to be more easily accepted in its particular academic aus- pice, but we continue to believe this way of approaching the medium constitutes a hindrance both to the development of the medium’s potential and its possibilities to forge a place of its own right (see Hietanen et al., 2014). Videographies screened at the ACR conference, for instance, have brought us a multitude of visual exposes spanning from the more conventional descriptive orientation to more experimental and artistic ones (e.g. Cléret, 2015; Seregina et al., 2013; Wijland, 2014).Yet, for us, to reimagine the potential of videography needs bolder ways of thinking than simply describing more and more exotic contexts of consumption; it needs a direct engagement with the idea and the potential of the medium itself and also a far more explicit vocabulary for assessing and discussing the work than we currently have at our immediate disposal.
While well noted by Belk and Kozinets (2005b; also Petr et al., 2015), the art/science dichotomy should not be the threatening challenge in a world seen through postmodern lenses and understood as performances (Seregina, 2017), it would neverthe- less seem that video, in this regard, has proven to be very illusory indeed. Linked with research practices we commonly see in Journal of Consumer Research, videographies tend to be structured similarly to research papers with clear beginnings and ends that are supported by interview data to bring back ‘slices of life’. The appearance of video to have a connec- tion with reality, indeed its ‘illusion of objectivity’ (Toraldo et al., 2016: 12), seems to truly continue to
114 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
fool us. As we will elaborate below, this illusory nature of video should not be followed as a ‘given’, but rather understood ontologically to be its most powerful feature that can potentially lift it out of a subfield position to stand on its own.
Nonetheless, conventional videographic practice in consumer research finds its apex in videos resem- bling mobile slideshows of ‘talking heads’ peppered with some background scenery and ‘floating text’ on screen. In such cases, not only is the ‘recreating reality’ approach maintained in a fully descriptive expository mode, but the storytelling is easily reduced into emic words of the interviewees as a more ‘pure’ form of data access (also Askegaard and Linnet, 2011; Earley, 2014). Inherent to this type of videographic practice is ‘implicit realism’ – an approach that the medium easily invites with its promise of rich data that offers simulated glimpses of what the camera-eye was gazing at. This form of documentary and observation-based film is also much easier to construct than a more active and engaging form of storytelling on video medium. Also, recent articles describing videographic prac- tice seem to further emphasize making the video medium itself even more subjugated under other representational practices, whether it be reading the video ‘like text’ (Pink, 2007; Schembri and Boyle, 2013) or freezing the video into still frames to ana- lyse it as photographic instants (Gylfe et al., 2016).
While some videographic work has attempted to relinquish its ties to such representational approaches (see below for notable examples), we do not mean to argue such mode of videographic work has nothing to offer, nor that it would not be capable of producing new knowledge, but we do wish to seek out other possibilities that would be more readily defensible from contemporary philo- sophical positions. The question for us is how should we understand the medium itself? What should we do with it? We are thus back to the same questions that the Lumière brothers were asking over 100 years ago.
We believe the way for video to become thought of as a ‘difference’ needs to be taken increasingly seriously. Step one would be to fully understand that video, in its relentless machinic movement has noth- ing to do with reality on an ontological level. Video as a digital format consists of electronic data points
that are completely removed from the place of recording – unlike film that as an analogue medium is moulded by the actual light in the context where it is shot (Cubitt, 1993). With electronic broadcasting, video data are also constantly on the move, capable of being remixed and electronically enhanced simul- taneously in all but infinite ‘editing tables’. Video should thus not be confused as a thing, but seen as performative production of production, a fantasy- machine powerful enough to invoke in us experi- ences of possible realities (Deleuze, 1989). In other words, we seem not to embrace its fiction ‘seriously enough’ (Žižek, 2006).
When a spectator is engaged in an encounter with a powerful videographic expression, the encounter with a powerful video entails a fully embodied relation that in its agency does not ‘wait’ for our cognitive mastery of its message. Following Deleuze (1989), in this sense the experiencing of a powerful video is not a meeting of two distinct bodies (viewer and the screen), but an ambiguous state that is defined by relation and affectivity that is not simply thinkable, but indeed forces us to think. A powerfully affective video can make our hearts race, make us nauseous or evoke tears (Barker, 2009; Marks, 2000), but more importantly, it has the power to show us compelling fantasies of possible worlds, forcing us to engage in ‘impossi- ble thought’ that holds the potential for social action (Deleuze, 1989; Olkowski, 1999). A good case in point would be the recent videography by Chatzidakis and Maclaran (in press) about Skoros, an anti-consumerist community in Exarcheia, Greece. This collaborative videography brings the viewer into an affective encounter with an ‘uto- pian’ collective refusing the capitalist market sys- tem and instead operates entirely through logics of sharing and solidarity. Why this video matters for researchers is not based on the idea of how accurate this market representation is, but rather the forceful thought that is embedded in the ongoing negotia- tion and collective experimentation of utopian ide- ologies. This videography also highlights that delivering a ‘shock to thought’ does not necessitate in any way shocking or thrilling images. Rather it may happen also through delicate everyday encounters that trigger a change or challenge in our thinking – and theorizing.
Rokka and Hietanen 115
For us, it is the aspiration to theorize that sets academic videographies apart from other forms of video-based work. This is what is most problemati- cally at stake in the ongoing debate on the potenti- alities of the medium – and it is important to notice that debates about ‘what theorizing is’ are ongoing also more generally speaking (e.g. Llewelyn, 2003). However, when conceptualized as an ontologically distinct medium that should find ways to stand on its own without a second-tier position in relation to text and photography, we believe there is a need to imagine theorizing itself in ways that allow the video medium to make use of its immanent and evocative powers.
Videography and emergent theorizing
To develop our idea further, we would like to distin- guish at least two prominent ways to think about theorizing with video-based methods. The first is descriptive theorizing, or logic most closely con- nected with theorizing understood as a way to deconstruct and describe studied social/cultural phenomena. Following Llewelyn’s (2003) categori- zation of different approaches common in qualita- tive research, this form of theorization tends to happen through (1) use of metaphors to describe empirical understandings, (2) differentiation/cate- gorization of empirical phenomena or actions, (3) development of entirely new concepts based on data, (4) explanation of different contextual settings and (5) depictions of how more global structures shape or relate to specific behaviour. While this pro- cess of theorizing is dominant in qualitative research, it is shorthanded by its insistence and drive towards building logical, static and mirror- like representations of articulations, categorizations and concepts in textual form. Similar logic of theo- rizing has readily been adapted to video-based research, as evidenced in recent reviews (see Christianson, 2016; Belk et al., 2017). What we see as a common thread across these early works is that their analysis typically entails the ‘freezing’ of the movement of the medium into stills for labelling and categorizing – and into text/voiceover. These approaches also invite conventional rigor-seeking practices that foreground quantity (of data) and
clarity (of videographic representation) (Schembri and Boyle, 2013).
The second way of approaching theorization is what we term here emergent theorizing. If this thought grounded in immanence and emergence regarding videographic research is taken seriously, theorizing on video can find breaks from conven- tional representational modes of capturing and reconstituting reality; its movement is always rela- tional and political. In this sense, videography should never be seen as a container or a work with a clearly delineated beginning and an end. When videography is understood and crafted into being a form of ‘serious fiction’ in its own right, a brico- lage of edited performances and interpretations, theorizing on video could begin to move from the logic of making an externalized statement of explanation to something that rather attempts to be part of emerging culture itself by animating, attun- ing, evoking, disrupting, sensitizing or entangling us with affective resonances of lived-through moments and events. This would entail a dramatic reconceptualizing of what kinds of material we produce and compose in a videographic sequence. Drawing from experimental, poetic and reflexive films, we should engage in producing compelling illusions that do not so much aspire to be faithful representations of external worlds ‘out there’ but rather faithful to how we as filmmakers critically interpret and theorize on incessant desires, intensi- ties and relations of consumption (see Böhm and Batta, 2010), even as they seemingly fail to pro- duce a static description or closure of any kind (Shankar et al., 2006).
Therefore, arguing for more rigorous representa- tional truths in the video form, while appealing for some, lies in stark contradiction with how we have come to understand the ontology of the video medium and the quest for emergent theorizing. It would seem to us, that videographic research, by tapping into the affective and evocative capacities of the moving image, should foreground its phan- tasmatic qualities (Žižek, 2006) and actively embrace affective and ‘sensory ways of knowing’ (Toraldo et al., 2016: 2) and encounters it produces. Video is not simply an observational tool – in the video-infused contemporary times, it is an active part of this world and its emergence (Deleuze, 1989;
116 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
also Cubitt, 1993), productive of and a constitutive presence in the phenomena we study (Mengis et al., 2016). In other words, theorizing on videography has to be thought increasingly as ‘more-than-repre- sentational’ and thereby embrace rather than con- strain the primarily non-linguist, tacit, sensuous and embodied qualities and agentic forces and affective relations that can potentially open up new ways of thinking, seeing and understanding (Hill et al., 2014; Lorimer, 2010; Vannini, 2015).
How to think of videography as a vehicle of theo- rizing then, more concretely speaking? While descrip- tive theorizing common to representational mode of videography may be warranted at times, emergent theorizing seeks to embrace the immanent qualities of video, and in this sense every videography can be seen as already and necessarily a form of action research (Ozanne et al., 2017). To give an example of these tendencies, the videography ‘Pushing the Scene’ (Hietanen et al., 2011) amassed over 6000 views in Vimeo and lively post-production discussions with the participants and viewers of our videography on the dubstep electronic music scene and helped develop more extensively into a consecutive work (Hietanen and Rokka, 2015). This latter version of the videography project, entitled ‘Monstrous Organizing’, is rather an open-ended participant in the cultural flows of affect and conveys problematic cultural questions rather than descriptive conclusions. It engages in theorizing, both implicitly and explicitly, by confronting the viewer with the critical question of how organization of cultural flows (such as a particu- lar musical sound) happen, not in inherently organ- ized and managed ways. Admittedly, embracing this form of theorizing requires imagining videography’s effects into potential futures, rather than reducing and recounting them as depictions of pasts. An affective and resonant experience that videography can pro- duce is thus not isolated in the viewer, but can change his or her actions, generating a potentiality of ‘action- thought’ (Deleuze, 1989: 163) or a ‘revolutionary consciousness’ (Bogue, 2003: 169). As we still con- tinue to struggle finding vocabularies to use for dis- cussing academic films, perhaps one way to alleviate this would be to focus more on how the videographies attempt to create potential for thinking about different futures and how they connect the viewers to relate and participate in new ways.
Furthermore, considering videography’s emer- gent theorizing becomes increasingly an ethical issue that would seem to invite more traditional eth- nographic approaches of researcher reflexivity, honesty and a faithful immersion into consideration (Richardson, 2000). While others warn that there are serious risks of active manipulation on video, we must be adamant in insisting that a turn to rigour by increasing (artificially) the ‘truth-value’ on screen necessarily remains a sheer fantasy. It is somewhat striking to us how videographers are so often called to discuss the potential threats of manipulating their material, as it would seem that such nefarious feats are much more readily achiev- able when producing research reports on text. With video, there at least remains a potentially convinc- ing residuum of presence and participation, whereas with text one surely has much greater latitude for crafting a story to support an argument. When we bracket some of our faith of ‘faithful representation’ and rather begin to imagine video as a conduit of ‘elusive knowledges’ (Toraldo et al., 2016: 3) that animate life instead of bracketing it that leads to ‘both rescue and irretrievable loss – a kind of death in life – in the making of texts from events’ (Clifford, 1986: 115). For us, videography is a deeply ethical, immersive and embodied undertaking, and when it realizes the impossibility of delivering reality, it can finally reach a new plane of honesty. This naturally includes the recognition of the threat of how video- graphic researchers can, in their eagerness, be seen to colonialize and ‘plunder’ cultural situations (Slutskaya et al., 2016). Videography thus becomes a praxis, a ‘doing’ in the sense of creating powerful and convincing affective encounters with fieldwork and the audiences of the videographic screenings, and where, essentially, the ‘moral ethnographer takes sides’ (Denzin, 2001: 326).
Discussion
While different types and forms of video footage will be shot, collected, facilitated, edited and screened by consumer and marketing researchers, it is important to ensure the reflexivity of filmmakers in understanding their commitment to distinct onto- logical and methodological underpinnings, as well as their own and research participants’ role in
Rokka and Hietanen 117
shaping their video-based work. Notably, as we have argued here, any footage that is shot has always its own intentionality, style, focus, depth and framing and is thus always and necessarily tan- gled in politics of representation. For example, when engaging in video-based research projects in consumer and marketing research field, questions that immediately arise include: should the (raw) video footage be always produced as part of ethno- graphic process – and aiming for uninterrupted, transparent, or ‘objective record’ (Crawford, 1992) – or should footage be intentionally crafted and scripted following a creative cinematographic strat- egy? Should the researcher aim to record and repre- sent ‘authentic experiences’ or symbolic worlds as they are, or be visible in the ongoing unfolding of negotiations, as a minor co-creator and force in the emergence of social orders? Is it enough that prior theoretical understandings ‘inform’ the video implicitly, or should the principal aim be explicit generation (or problematization) of theory, concepts and/or interpretive frameworks – and to what extent? Equally important is to ask what screening- videographies in conferences or as part of journal publications and beyond may potentially generate.
Our stance, while there may be others, has been that research fieldwork and the crafting of film should be considered two separate although inter- related entities. Certainly, fieldwork should not be compromised for filmmaking purposes. Yet, the planning and conducting ethnographic (or other) fieldwork may be done in a manner that would facilitate the production of a video in later stages. On the other hand, we also agree with Merchant (2011) that video can serve well in the process of data collection and analysis for example as a gen- erative and reflexive stimulus materials for inter- views or focus groups. Yet, we would distinguish these forms of video-based methods from the vide- ography that we have in mind. Videography that can stand on its own as a tool for theorizing.
Next, we will discuss our mapping of the video- based research approaches and in terms of two emer- gent main dimensions which – to us – highlight the uniqueness of videography (see Figure 1). The first is the extent to which filmmaking is oriented towards documenting, observing and describing the world
around us versus their focus on theorizing through crafting and animating of theoretical relations. The second dimension is the orientation of the film as representational versus relational or expressive.
While we recognize the possible dangers of grouping filmic traditions in this potentially sim- plifying way, we nevertheless feel that there is a need to signpost videographic research in the form of horizontal mapping (occupying the entire right- hand side of the figure). As we have shown, the traditions of video ethnography, documentary film and experimental film all fall short in their ambi- tion for explicit theory building, or at least they have been rendered subject to being secondary to textual descriptions about the films. This is why it is rare that these films ever explicitly add to an existing body of knowledge or theory. We argue this is something that videography can hope to address. We do not mean to say that the prior filmic traditions have not greatly contributed to our knowledge in various ways and in the develop- ment of contemporary filmmaking practice. We simply wish to emphasize that what we mean by theorizing on videography is to be both ontologi- cally and epistemologically understood as some- thing else we are accustomed to in traditional academic representation.
On the vertical dimension, we have illuminated that various modes of video-based research have taken different positions in conceiving video as either representational or relational. Here we have shown that the dominant modes have been represen- tational, notably in mainstream video ethnography as well as expository, observational, and participa- tory documentary film, but also in concurrent con- sumer and marketing research videographies (Hietanen et al., 2014). Yet, the more marginal video-based fields have progressed towards ques- tioning the ‘objective-mirror-of-nature’, and instead ventured towards non-representational modes that seek to ‘rupture, unsettle, animate and reverberate rather than report and represent’ (Vannini, 2015: 5). In this way, it can take inspiration from experimental and reflexive ethnographies where multiple exam- ples can be found of relational filmmaking (e.g. Leviathan).While we do not mean to shun more con- ventional or representational approaches, it is our
118 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
hope to raise awareness of video being always a political endeavor, and equally the way we think about what it is and what it can produce is an effect of our implicit political stances. Thus, whatever the style of video work, it is this sensitivity with the medium and the potential of the moving images we produce that we call for – across the board, across all aesthetic styles.
We did not include fiction film into our mapping, mainly due to the limited space here. But we would cheerfully welcome more work that attempts to take expression to more extreme lengths. Following Deleuze (1989), when the illusory nature of video is taken seriously, it is the image that tries to recreate a stable world that is the most deceitful. The more hon- est image connects with it phantasmatic potential openly, and if affectively powerful, forms a circuit that through the audiences starts to take part in pro- ducing possible worlds rather than showing resem- blances of truth-like fabrications. Two examples screened in past ACR Videography Track warrant
mention here. A Pen (Seregina et al., 2013) shows the life of a mundane consumption object from acquisi- tion to discarding and thus without explanation demonstrates consumption as a social process of simultaneous rule-setting and inevitable decay. In a different tone, Consuming the Contradiction (Hietanen et al., 2014) makes a more narrated attempt at theorizing the impossibility of authenticity and the insatiable desire of consumption to fetishize its own inauthenticity. In this videography, consumer inter- views and artistic staged accounts blend to form a phantasmatic production of desire manifesting in consumption that incessantly denies its own possibil- ity to reach resolve. While Seregina and colleagues’ film is a staged story with actors and Hietanen and colleagues’ film theorizes based on an infusion of artistic storytelling and ethnographic events, both videographies are examples that break out of repre- senting consumption phenomena to rather become instances of time in passing rather than glimpses into stable worlds (see Deleuze, 1989).
Figure 1. Conceptual template for video-based research approaches.
Rokka and Hietanen 119
Conclusion
In this study, we have offered an attempt to posi- tioning videography on the map of visual research methodologies and envisioning it as a tool for theo- rizing in contrast to data collection and presentation device. Our concern for this task came from the increasing confusion of what videographic research is and what it could be – in the sense of advancing the field forward. Next, we would like to conclude with a brief summary our ideas in terms of how they contribute to and expand the pioneering work by Belk and Kozinets (2005b) and notably their vide- ography assessment criteria initially offered for aspiring videographers, including considerations about the (1) theoretical, (2) topical, (3) technical and (4) theatrical aspects of film production. So, while they gave us the ‘4T’, we complement them with the ‘3R’ of powerfully affective videography. These entail assessing videographies based on the following key questions:
1. Relationality between agencies (all affective elements) in the videography, that is, How well do all the elements of the videography flow in unison, and more importantly, how well do its connections inspire ideas and touch us beyond the frame?
2. Relationality of shots and scenes and how they break out of description to form a con- nection with time itself, that is, How well does the affective surplus that relate beyond the frame connect thought to the movement of ‘time itself ’, showing that the viewer and the videography are both parts of the unfold- ing movement (of the world), and not exter- nal to it?
3. Relationality of the videography to chal- lenge thought by producing ‘impossible worlds’ that base theorizing as an expressive work not limited to documentation or description, that is, How well does the vide- ography produce powerful encounters that challenge the viewer to engage in new ways of thinking, seeing and theorizing?
We hope that these considerations would help in energizing and reinvigorating videographic con- sumer and marketing research towards promising
directions. In addition, they suggest that we need to take critical, expressive, political and phantas- matic videographic accounts of consumer and marketing research more seriously than before. What it adds is a potential to imagine the agentic power of video as a medium that is no longer sub- jugated under the orders of representation (such as academic text), but a powerful, political and even unpredictable medium of cultural production in its own right.
Funding
This research was funded by the Foundation for Economic Education (grant no. 8-4475).
Notes
1. Video currently accounts for 70% of all traffic and it has been estimated the share will reach 90% in 2020 (https://qz.com/742474/how-streaming-video- changed-the-shape-of-the-internet/).
2. Jean Rouch was inspired of Flaherty’s early work and also Dziga Vertov’s theory of Kino Pravda – ‘film-truth’.
3. John Grierson’s original definition from the 1930s.
References
Askegaard S and Linnet JT (2011) Towards an episte- mology of consumer culture theory phenomenology and the context of context. Marketing Theory 11(4): 381–404.
Banks M and Ruby J (2011) Made to be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Barker JM (2009) The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Belk RW, Caldwell M, Devinney TM, et al. (2017) Envisioning consumers: How videography can con- tribute to marketing knowledge. Journal of Marketing Management. Epub ahead of print 2 October. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2017.1377754.
Belk RW and Kozinets RV (2005a) Introduction to the resonant representations issue of consumption, mar- kets and culture. Consumption, Markets & Culture 8(3): 195–203.
Belk RW and Kozinets RV (2005b) Videography in mar- keting and consumer research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8(2): 128–141.
Belk RW and Kozinets RV (2010) ACR film festival: The last picture show. In: Dahl DW, Johar GV and Van Osselaer SMJ (eds) Advances in Consumer Research,
120 Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 33(3)
vol. 38. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Beyes T and Steyaert C (2012) Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organi- zational space. Organization 19(1): 45–61.
Bogue R (2003) Deleuze on Cinema. New York; London: Routledge.
Böhm S and Batta A (2010) Just doing it: enjoying com- modity fetishism with Lacan. Organization 17(3): 345–361.
Caldwell M and Henry P (2010) Editorial: Celebrating excellence in audiovisual representations mar- ket research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 13(1): 5–7.
Chatzidakis A and Maclaran P (in press) On critical collaborative videographies. Journal of Marketing Management.
Christianson MK (2016) Mapping the terrain: The use of video-based research in top-tier organi- zational journals. Organizational Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 12 September. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116663636.
Cléret B (2015) Street Corner Compromises – Negotiation and Construction of the Public Space between Social Worlds (videography), vol. 43. Duluth, MN: Advances in Consumer Research.
Clifford J (1986) On ethnographic allegory. In: Clifford J and Markus G (eds) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 98–121.
Crawford PI (1992) Film as discourse the invention of anthropological realities. In: Crawford PI and Turton D (eds) Film as Ethnography. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cubitt S (1993) Videography: Video Media as Art and Culture. London: Macmillan Distribution.
De Valck K, Rokka J and Hietanen J (2009) Videography in consumer research: Visions for a method on the rise. Finanza Marketing E Produzione 27(4): 81–100.
Deleuze G (1989) Cinema 2: The Time Image (trans. Tomlinson and R Galeta). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Denzin NK (1995) The Cinematic Society: The Voyeur’s Gaze. London: SAGE.
Denzin NK (2001) The seventh moment: Qualitative inquiry and the practices of a more radical consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 28(2): 324–330.
Dion D (2007) The Contribution made by Visual Anthropology to the Study of Consumption Behavior. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 22(1): 61–79.
Earley A (2014) Connecting contexts a Badiouian epis- temology for consumer culture theory. Marketing Theory 14(1): 73–96.
Gylfe P, Franck H, Le baron C, et al. (2016) Video methods in strategy research: Focusing on embod- ied cognition. Strategic Management Journal 37(1): 133–148.
Heider K (1976) Ethnographic Film. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hietanen J and Rokka J (2015) Monstrous organ- izing: Dubstep electronic music scene. In: Diehl K and Yoon C (eds) NA – Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 43. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Hietanen J, Rokka J and Roman R (2011) Pushing the scene – Tensions and emergence in an accelerated marketplace culture. In: Ahluwalia R, Chartrand TL and Ratner RK (eds) NA – Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 39. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, p. 676.
Hietanen J, Rokka J and Schouten JW (2014a) Commentary on Schembri and Boyle (2013): From representation towards expression in videographic consumer research. Journal of Business Research 67(9): 2019–2022.
Hietanen J, Schouten JW and Vanjala I (2014b) Consuming the contradiction. Advances in Consumer Research 41: videography.
Hill T, Canniford R and Mol J (2014) Non-representational marketing theory. Marketing Theory 14(4): 377–394.
Kozinets RV and Belk RW (2006) Camcorder society: Quality videography in consumer and marketing Research. In: Belk RW (ed.) Handbook in Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 335–344.
Llewelyn S (2003) What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(4): 662–708.
Lorimer J (2010) Moving image methodologies for more- than-human geographies. Cultural Geographies 17(2): 237–258.
MacDougall D (1997) The visual in anthropology. In: Banks M and Morphy H (eds) Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
MacDougall D (2006) The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Marks LU (2000) The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.
Rokka and Hietanen 121
Massumi B (2002) A Shock to Thought: Expression after Deleuze and Guattari. London: Routledge.
Mengis J, Nicolini D and Gorli M (2016) The video production of space: How different record- ing practices matter. Organizational Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 29 September. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116669819.
Merchant S (2011) The body and the senses: Visual meth- ods, videography and the submarine sensorium. Body & Society 17(1): 53–72.
Mulvey L (1989) Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington, IN; Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Nichols B (2001) Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington, IN; Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Olkowski D (1999) Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ozanne JL, Davis B, Murray JB, et al. (2017) Assessing the societal impact of research: The relational engage- ment approach. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 36(1): 1–14.
Petr C, Belk RW and Decrop A (2015) Videography in marketing research: Mixing art and science. Art and the Market 5(1): 73–102.
Pink S (2007) Doing Visual Ethnography. London: SAGE.
Pink S (2009) Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: SAGE. Pink S (2011) Digital visual anthropology: Potentials
and challenges. In: Banks M and Ruby J (eds) Made to Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 209–233.
Richardson L (2000) Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 6(2): 253–255.
Rokka J, Hietanen J and Brownlie D (in press) Screening marketing: Videography and the expanding the horizons of filmic research. Journal of Marketing Management.
Ruby J (1982) Ethnography as trompe L’Oiel: film and anthropology. In: Ruby J (ed.) A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ruby J (2005) The last 20 years of visual anthropology – A critical review. Visual Studies 20(2): 159–170.
Russell C (1999) Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.
Schembri S and Boyle MV (2013) Visual ethnography: Achieving rigorous and authentic interpretations. Journal of Business Research 66(9): 1251–1254.
Seregina A (2017) Engaging the audience through vid- eography as performance. Journal of Marketing Management. Epub ahead of print 22 September. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2017.1377753.
Seregina A, Figueiredo B, Uotila H, et al. (2013) A Pen (videography), vol. 41. Duluth, MN: Advances in Consumer Research.
Shankar A, Whittaker J and Fitchett JA (2006) Heaven knows I’m miserable now. Marketing Theory 6(4): 485–505.
Slutskaya N, Game AM and Simpson RC (2016) Better together: Examining the role of collaborative eth- nographic documentary in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 1 December. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116676343.
Toraldo L, Islam G and Mangia G (2016) Modes of know- ing: Video research and the problem of elusive knowl- edges. Organizational Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 14 July. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116657394.
Vannini P (2015) Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research. London: Routledge.
Veer E (2014) Ethnographic videography and filmmak- ing for consumer research. In: Bell E, Warren S and Schroeder J (eds) The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization. London: Routledge, pp. 214–226.
Whiting R, Symon G, Roby H and Chamakiotis P (2016) Who’s behind the lens? A reflexive analysis of roles in participatory video research. Organizational Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 29 September. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116669818.
Wijland R (2014) In Brutal Times (videography), vol. 41. Duluth, MN: Advances in Consumer Research.
Wood M and Brown S (2012) Film-based creative arts enquiry: Qualitative researchers as auteurs. Qualitative Research Journal 12(1): 130–147.
Žižek S (2006) The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema: Parts 1, 2, 3. A Lone Star, Mischief Films, Amoeba Film Production.
