1. Photographic Fieldnotes A way to perceive a field & a contribution to thick description ? Kim Rasmussen – Roskilde University

2. Can photograpic fieldnotes contribute to thick description of a field? What is a photograpic fieldnote? What is the difference between a written fieldnote and a photograpic fieldnote? Methodologies in a project about childrens everydaylife Examples of photograpic fieldnotes from the project Do photographic fieldnotes contribute to ”thick description”?

3. First: 4 Examples of photograpic fieldnotes They are from a study of the everydaylife of 4 children (mental retarded): In the form presented here,they are rather a ”thin description” than a ”thick description”

4. Some theoretical reflection about fieldnotes what is the difference between written and photographic fieldnotes? WRITTEN FIELDNOTES: They are keywords / koded signs They are perceptions transformed to written keywords They are not identical with the field – but word-symbols which represent a sense of the living world They represent an angel embedded into my first interpretation, a frame, a focus – but in an abstract not-visual form They represent a condensed meaning PHOTOGRAPIC FIELDNOTES: They are visual koded signs / and sometimes ”decisive moments” (Cartier-Bresson) They are perceptions - ”shot” and transformed to visual representations They are not identical with the field – but a mimetic transformation from the material world They represent a visual angel, a frame, a focus – in a form which look alike the material world They represent a construction of light/shadow and encoding meaning

5. More reflection about fieldnotes The proces before and behind fieldnotes is mysterius! What is involved in the proces when you are transforming a living field to fieldnotes? - the whole body is involved - our body is directed against something - our senses and emotions are involved - an expression has done an impression - we are encoding a sign (word, photo…) which later is decoded - words, sentences, photos… capture and depict informations and inscriptions of social life and social discourse What is the benefit of fieldnotes? - a help to our memory - a help to elicitate narratives - a help to keep details as well as context in mind - can later be a help to communicate to a public - photos can contribute to our descriptions

6. A few words about the methodologies behind the project about childrens everydaylife LATEST PROJECT: Everydaylife of children from a minority (Down Syndrom) EMPIRICAL METHODS: Following and observing each of 4 children during a week - from early morning to night - from home to preschool /school /other social arenas and back Written and photograpic fieldnotes THE AIM: To get close to the childrens everydaylife To make thick description close to childrens actions and everydaylife To describe the children as social actor – not as ”victims” Ideas and inspirations from: Former projects: Inviting children to participate, Giving cameras to children and encouraged them to make photos of what is importent to them, afterwards making photoelicitated interviews Ontology: New sociology of childhood Chldren as social actors Empirical studies: Children as informants and ”experts” about their own life Earlier studies and projects: Invitation to create photographic pictures – photo-elicitatet interviews

7. Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from a kindergarten for children with special needs - interaction and playing in the couch

8. Photograpich fieldnotes and descriptions from school & club - watching the others from the distance

9. Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from the bus: a space for symbolic creativity cultural reproduction (music) & meditative action (inner life)

10. Photograpic fieldnotes and descriptions from school and leisuretime activities - different pracsis at different social arenas

11. Do photographic fieldnotes contribute to ”thick description”? ”Thick description” - has to do with interpretating culture (Clifford Gertz) - aim: to produce a rich and detailed description (Denzin) - cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete - paradox: the more deeply it goes the less complete it is (even when photograpic fieldnotes are integreted) - it´s a way to work and you need to learn it (Ehn & Löfgren) - 1.question: Is it possible to integrate written text and visual ”text”? - 2.question: Does a written description become ”thicker” if a photo is integrated? Do Photograpic fieldnotes make a description thicker? - ”yes” - and - ”no” - yes – because a photo can show a lot concrete details, which would be difficult or impossible to write about - yes – if a photo is well integrated in the written text – and not loose connected (illustrasion) - no – because it is not every photo that possess qualities and informations enough Conclusion: It is the complementarity and the intertekstual play between photo and text/words that matters