Stepping forward, Looking back - a final evaluative essay of analysis and reflexivity

The purpose of this evaluative essay is to discuss the analytical framework and methodology used in my visual research project entitled Open Sky. The essay will be presented in two parts: the analytical process and the reflexive process.

To begin it is important to point out that this research was accomplished through qualitative analysis rather than the quantitative approach. Qualitative research can be defined as involving “an interpretive and naturalistic approach to the world” and that researchers “study things in their natural settings….and interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin 2011).  Qualitative research is well  recognised  within the fields of anthropology and ethnology and as such the method works well for social science research of a visual nature. Having said this, I would propose that the Open Sky project may also provide scope for consideration from a quantitative approach. From the qualitative approach the project provided scope for inferences and interpretations yet the photographs also, if viewed from the latter approach, would likely still provide substantial information about the status of the properties and the varying architectural styles and materials. Having said this, the qualitative approach provided much information and I feel was the most useful to the project chosen.

So, having acknowledged the efficacy of a qualitative approach I then considered what approach to use when considering the data provided by the photographs. The Grounded Theory method was particularly useful in the early stages of the project. The Grounded Theory method is considered a “systematic, yet flexible, set of guidelines for collecting and analysing qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data themselves” (Charmaz 2006).  In this approach the researcher collects data without focusing on a specific idea of what the data will ultimately unveil. This allows the researcher the opportunity of following various threads of inquiry and therefore constructing a well-rounded picture of the topic via the data provided.  Though open to possibilities the Grounded Theory method does have guidelines on how the analysing of data should proceed. This process is accomplished through the following steps:

1. Data collection – data is collected with as few pre-determined theories as possible thus allowing the researcher to follow various lines of inquiry without being constricted by pre-conceived ideas or theory.

2. Note-taking and coding – By taking notes of information and lines of inquiry the researcher begins to bring together evidence to allow the coding process. The coding process is highly important as it provides “the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data” (Charmaz 2006).  To code the researcher engages with the data, asking a variety of questions of the evidence provided and applies codes which may explain the information collected. Coding defines and names data in an attempt to determine links, underlying themes and important information that may have been missed by a pre-determined theory. The process of coding is ongoing and demands constant re-defining of codes in an effort to pick out the most important information evident in the data.

3. Memo-ing – As codes become more evident, the process of memo-ing becomes important to record thoughts and ideas that will ultimately lead to a theory. By keeping a memo record the researcher can make links between codes and uncover the over-riding themes of the data provided.  The memos help to sort the material and provide a structure to the final theory.

4. Conclusion and writing – As the researcher reaches the final point of the project where the data has been coded and re-tested, memo-ed and sorted for over-riding themes they should finally have conceived a theory on the data collected. This final theory is based on the data itself, the frequent analysing of data by ongoing reconsideration of codes and by meticulous memo writing which provides proof of varying lines of enquiry. The theory may be seen as the end point rather than the beginning as in other methods of analysis.

From the standpoint of my own research the Grounded Theory method was particularly useful. Having decided on the subject of my project, crumbling homes and castles of Mid-Ross, yet not having any pre-conceived ideas of theories gave me good scope to allow the data to speak for itself. After collecting data over a number of weeks I began to see ‘codes’ in the data and set about labelling the items in the photographs, linking them together with larger ideas and ultimately discovering three over-riding codes which I presented through Discourse Analysis rather than following through with the full Grounded Theory Method which I felt wasn’t able to fully represent what I was uncovering.  So, though I abandoned the final steps of the Grounded Theory Method, it led me to my preferable method of Discourse analysis.

While it is true that a Discourse analysis is most frequently suggested as a means of researching underlying meaning from a linguistic perspective I feel it was equally useful in attempting to code the elements uncovered in my visual project. Jorgenson and Phillips describe the Discourse Analysis method in the following way:

 “The meaning we attach to words is not inherent in them but a result of social conventions whereby we connect certain meanings with certain sounds”. (Jorgenson and Phillips 2002)

If we were to replace  ‘words’ with ‘photographs’ and ‘sounds’ with  ‘images’ we can start to see how this model works for visual research.  When reviewing the photographs we can begin to see the codes and how they may be interpreted with discourse theory. When comparing images of different properties on a single estate the social conventions that are understood begin to be clarified. The status discourse becomes clearer when the signifiers of wealth (materials, quality, access) are compared to the photographs of those lacking in these signifiers. Further, the signifiers of the core vs periphery conflict discourse and those of a Highland discourse also become clearer. Each of these discourses give us a view of the power held and equally power withheld in the building and habitation of these homes.

To conclude the analytical portion of the essay it is important to point out that though this was my first attempt at visual research and Grounded Theory I feel it was useful in data collection and interpretation. I also feel that by using the coding suggested in the process it enabled me to gain a clearer picture of the various yet linking discourses highlighted in the network model on my blog. As such, I would consider using the process again in further research projects.

At this point I will move on from the analysis aspect of the project and now discuss the issues surrounding the reflexive process.

While my choice of topic would seem to provide less scope for bias due to the freedom to photograph without concern for human subjects, it is in no way free of such concerns completely. After the first attempt at data collection it became clear to me that my personal reactivity to the sites was rather problematic (Prosser 1998 p93). The location of many of the sites led to complete freedom to photograph without outside influence yet my own feelings, knowledge and artistic desires led me to collect data in a way that may not have expressed the sites in a full and unbiased manner. The sites were frequently visited by way of bicycle on virtually deserted country roads and off road paths. The sites were at times located on hills that required exertion to reach them and this may have coloured my view of the previous inhabitant’s travails. Further, I come to this project from a cultural studies background and therefore have a good knowledge of Highland history and social/cultural issues. Though this foreknowledge was useful in interpretation, it does not sit particularly well with my attempt at using the Grounded Theory Method as some previous knowledge of the history of the sites likely influenced my analysis.  So, as no researcher exists in a vacuum, I can categorically state that whilst I attempted to approach this subject from as unbiased a point as possible, there were numerous issues that required me to re-evaluate the steps I was taking to remain so. The physical act of visiting the sites and the exertion required, the loneliness of the sites and the previous knowledge of local history all challenged my personal reactions to the site and may have affected the way photos were taken, what was chosen as worthy of recording and  how the coding was ultimately arrived at.

In conclusion I feel the entire process was a learning experience and through it I have come to see the efficacy of visual research. Though the project is currently still at a position where it is unlikely to be finished, I feel that there is much more that may be investigated and that the data still has more to ‘say’.  If I were to begin another visual research project I would be likely to use the analysis techniques described above again and, with hindsight, would attempt to remove my personal reactions even further from any data collection and analysis. As the project stands, I feel I have accomplished much and hopefully provided a view to the possibilities of researching ruined buildings of the Highlands.

CHARMAZ, K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.

DENZIN, N.K. and LINCOLN, Y.S., 2011. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

JØRGENSEN, M. and PHILLIPS, L., 2002. Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: SAGE.

PROSSER, J., 1998. Image-based research: a sourcebook for qualitative researchers. London ; Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.