The Web 2.

0: opportunities and challenges for improving the intersubjectivity of

control in visual research
A. Vardanega – Univ. Teramo (20 luglio 2010)
avardanega@gmail.com

IVSA 2010 International Conference

Bologna, Italy - 20-22 July 2010

1. Introduction

This afternoon, I will be presenting some recent opportunities offered by the Web 2.0 for improving
intersubjectivity in visual research, and the consequences of these changes for research. After a brief
introduction about the concept of “intersubjectivity”, I will go through a few examples to present
some of the new possible uses of the Web to facilitate the publication of visual materials, and to
support a public debate around them – that is what I mainly mean by the term “intersubjectivity”.
Finally, depending on the time we have, we’ll consider some problems and limitations tied to the
Internet as an instrument, and in particular the digital divide, and some specific copyright concerns
within academic environment.

2. Intersubjectivity

The word “intersubjectivity” can be used in two different senses. The first one has to do with the
intersubjective experience of the world, typical of common sense. For example, we generally agree
that the object represented in these photographs is a car, even if we have different understandings,
concerns or experiences of “cars” (source of the image: Sociological Images,
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/). Nevertheless, this type of intersubjectivity cannot be

1
considered natural at all, as it relies on common sense and its codes: that is, we generally agree on
recognizing and naming objects and experiences because we have learnt to interpret them in the
light of our own culture, and using a certain language.

If we consider experience in science, it is important to observe that empirical data are always
presented and published in a mediated form: whether they are databases, tables, graphs, or
photographs, they are interpreted and elaborated information, understandable only as a result of a
process of socialisation to the methods and the concepts of a specific discipline.

The second meaning of the word “intersubjectivity” is more widely referred to in the
methodological literature, in that it has to do with the intersubjective agreement on definitions and
meanings of concepts, and it is aimed at the stabilisation of a theoretical apparatus and a specialised
language. I suppose there is no need to illustrate the relevance of this theoretical work in the
accumulation of knowledge, or even in the repetition of empirical studies.

However, it is also noticeable that, even within disciplines with a highly specialised technical
language, scholars’ disputes around the meaning or the implications of empirical evidence are not
expected to come to an end. We may conclude that, after all, a complete intersubjective agreement
is not a realistic scope to pursue, since “empirical evidence is not evident” in and of itself, without
an effort to interpret it in the light of a theory.

In very practical terms, within the academic field, intersubjectivity is guaranteed by the publication
of the results on journals, working papers, books, etc. Since these types of publication are bound to
paper, results cannot be but texts, tables, and visuals – usually limited to graphs and some
photographs.

At the same time, information should be clear and complete in order to allow a public debate around
the results, and, where it is the case, the repetition of the study: in a word, the publication of the
results underlies that form of regulated criticism that – whatever may be our epistemological point
of view – constitutes academic knowledge.

So, even if visual materials have always had a problematic epistemological status as to their
capacity of being reliable evidence in social research, and in science in a wider sense1, there can be

1 See, recently, Pauwels L., 2008, «An integrated model for conceptualising visual competence in scientific research
and communication», Visual Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 147-161; Wilder K. E., 2009, «Photography and the art of
science», Visual Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 163 – 168; Wagner J., 2001, «Does image-based field work have more
to gain from extending or from rejecting scientific realism? An essay in review», Visual Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
7-21.

2
little doubt that, even in this field, the publication of “raw visual materials” used to draw the
conclusions of a study is a fundamental methodological issue.

The Internet may help in giving an answer to this question, facilitating the publication of visuals in
a more economical way, so that for example we can replace CD-ROMs attached to paper
publications or expensive colour photos printed on coated paper within books or journals.

However, it is the development of new tools and software, commonly defined as “social”, that has
introduced a radical shift, and has transformed the Internet into a two-way medium. As a
consequence, on the Internet, we now have also the opportunity to react and to contribute to others’
content.

These new tools of the Web 2.0 can thus be used to support the participation of different types of
subjects both in the production of research materials and in conceptualisation and interpretation, so
to facilitate not only intersubjectivity but also participatory research.

3. New ways of doing and supporting social research with visuals on the Web

Let’s consider now some examples of the “affordances” (in John Urry’s words) or opportunities
created by the new instruments we refer to with the expression “Web 2.0”.

Territori Sociologici (Sociological Territories: http://www.territorisociologici.info) is the website of

a working paper series, published within my Department. From the beginning, we decided to
exploit the Web for publishing visuals related to paper publications. To this end, we mainly use
photo-galleries. This is the first, basic, feature that can improve intersubjectivity, as we have just
seen: a great number of photos can be published, making the “empirical materials” on which the
studies are grounded “explorable”.

Photo-galleries and photo-blogs have also been used as teaching tools in doctoral workshops, where
they have proven to be very effective.

Recently, we have also introduced the possibility for visitors to participate with comments. This
feature is typical of blogs, and could extend our definition of intersubjectivity to include the
“conversations” among different interpretations and points of view.

I use the word “conversation” here with reference to the so called “conversational media”, like
Twitter.

3
We also use these social tools (Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook), with the aim of enlarging our
“audience”, but moreover, to receive comments and suggestions and answer them.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to expand upon the different technical characteristics of
these platforms, so I have to take for granted several things.

Another example I would like to show to you is Visible Voice (http://www.visiblevoice.info), the
website of an international network of researchers established some years ago by Vincent O’Brien ,
who you all know without doubt. The main scope of this association and its website is to perform
collaborative research and community development, by using participatory videos and photographs.

The use of visuals in participatory research — as far as it is intended, among other things, to share
and communicate different points of view — can be considered another way to improve
intersubjectivity. In fact, it is widely assessed that «visual methods contribute to increase validity of
data». In particular, as Liebenberg claims, «the use of images as a communication tool, increases
participant control over the research process, and incorporates participant self-representation […]
improving contextual accuracy and relevance of data»2. This form of self-representation and self-
reflection can be greatly improved by using the Web and social tools.

In fact, to keep to our example, the diffusion of participatory videos can support a public discussion,
thus contributing to the definition of relevant concepts and categories, as well as to the process of
community empowerment.

Even if “Visible Voices” is basically a static website, and makes no use of social tools (like
comments), it has recently been connected to a Twitter account, so that visitors can easily comment
and contact the authors in this way.

FEAD – film exchange on alcohol and drugs (http://www.fead.org.uk) is a website explicitly

intended to create a place for sharing visual materials, comments and knowledge. The website is an
initiative of the Lifeline Project, an association that in 1971 opened a day centre for drug users in
Manchester, and that – evidently – attaches great importance to the accumulation and free
dissemination of knowledge, besides, of course, the direct intervention on these social issues.
Visuals have – as the name of the website suggests – a pivotal role in the project.

While the first of the sites considered (ours) is evidently “homemade”, this website is designed and

2 Liebenberg L., 2009, «The Visual Image as Discussion Point: Increasing Validity in Boundary Crossing Research»,
Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 441-467

4
set up by professionals, and presents a high technical complexity. This, however, does not reduce
the usability of the site, which is certainly targeted to a competent audience.

The interesting point here is this idea of knowledge sharing and accumulation, that is, after all,
another facet of the concept of “intersubjectivity”, as we have defined it. And it is also interesting,
and in some respects surprising, that this aspect is given such an importance by a non-academic
association.

A first important property of the Web is the possibility of mixing texts, visuals and audio in different
ways, as to give an integrated presentation of different types of materials.

In the slide, it is possible to see the example of a study on banners at the Florence’s soccer stadium.
Even if the study has been actually conducted on texts, it is evident that the “object banner” plays a
specific role within the “curva” (the curved sector of the stadium). Thus, it is impossible to follow
the analysis carried out by the researchers, without considering the banner as an “actant”, that is,
without seeing it on stage. In this case, text analysis is also a visual analysis.

Another point I would like to stress, is that on the Web text doesn’t have primacy on visuals, like on
paper publications. On the contrary, it is well known that visitors do not spend time in reading long
texts. As a consequence, it could be even more natural and immediate to illustrate concepts using
images or videos, rather than to describe visuals with captions.

This is almost a reversal with respect to the “normal” use of photos in academic publications, made
possible – or maybe forced – by the structural characteristics of the medium.

On the organisation of our photo-galleries (published on Territori Sociologici), the influence of

Grounded Theory is evident. So, I do not want to say that this is the “correct” way to use visuals in
a study; I just want to underline that such use of photos would be impractical or very expensive if
using paper. It is an “affordance” previously not available.

To illustrate some possible uses and opportunities of the integration of social tools within a website,
I suggest having a look at FEAD, essentially organised as a weblog. Let’s consider in particular one
of the post pages presenting videos.

As you can see, each video is accompanied by a short description of its technical characteristics and
content, including tags (used as keywords, or categories).

Interestingly, comments here are called “Footnotes”, that should probably encourage visitors to post

5
structured and organised comments, rather than impressions, likes or dislikes.

The green button under the description is used to share contents on other platforms: that is, to send
links by email, to a blog, or to other social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. This is intended to
facilitate the spreading and the re-usage of published materials, in line with the “mission” of the
association and its website, that is, accumulating and sharing knowledge3.

This use of social tools has proven to be effective for building communities of practice around
specific issues. This is, in general, another remarkable opportunity offered by Web 2.0, that can be
exploited to perform participatory research, and to enrich academic and educational work.

4. New problems and challenges in doing and publishing research

However, the use of the Web in social research poses some important questions and challenges.

Perhaps, the most important one is the “digital divide”, that is, the exclusion of some population
groups from the benefits of these new technologies, due to infrastructural limitations. For example,
access to broadband is almost essential to upload and display correctly videos and photos.

These limitations affect destitute groups within rich countries, as well as researchers from
underprivileged countries or regions. It is of course a basic issue, since all the opportunities I’ve
been talking about are devoid of any value, if contents are not actually available.

So, before deciding to rely on the Web for doing research and/or publishing results, researchers
should assess the actual position of their target population with respect to the access to the Internet.

Another critical issue is represented by copyright, a very discussed problem for all types of
publications on the Web, which carries particular implications in the academic field, having to do –
let’s say it clearly – with the “recognition of merit”, in Merton’s words.

Indeed, a part from a general lack of familiarity with these tools, “academic ethos” seems to play an
important role on the resistances to the use of these new tools.

In the fields of natural sciences, in fact, the circulation of pre-prints and other types of unpublished
works is considered as a useful way for disseminating results (and contributing to the advancement

3 Another interesting example of this type is the Memoro Project (http://www.memoro.org), aimed at building “banks
of memory” in several countries.

6
of a discipline) in “real-time”, in contrast to the very long times needed for the publication of
articles on peer-reviewed journals.

On the contrary, in social sciences and humanities, researchers are not very disposable to spread
their works before the publication.

However, considering the publication of videos and photographs, we may easily notice less
resistance to the use of the Internet, though the problem could be in this case even more critical,
due, for example, to the possibility of downloading photos or to privacy concerns.

So it is possible to hypothesise that researchers — a part from the lack of familiarity with these
tools, which is of course the basic — are afraid that others may “steal” their ideas and
interpretations, rather than “rough data”; in addition, in the case of visual, it is very probable that
the advantages of the Internet outweigh the perceived relevance of this risk. Furthermore, for photos
and videos, for example, creative common licences are widely accepted, and the most used
platforms – like YouTube and Flickr – are sufficiently effective in protecting authorship.

To overpass this problem, one interesting solution is represented by platforms like Hypotheses in
France (http://hypotheses.org) or Edublogs in the United States (http://edublogs.org), that bring
together several research-blogs, thus ensuring a certain degree of control over the published
contents. It is an informal, communitarian kind of control, that discourages stealing: if somebody in
the community can attest that an item was originally published by another author, the plagiarism
will be exposed. It is also possible to imagine a guarantee committee, not intended to review the
posts, but to assure the recognition of the authorship.

5. Conclusions

I will conclude this presentation and recap on the points discussed above, saying that the Web 2.0
can improve intersubjectivity of visual research, by making it more “social”.

In fact, these tools make it much simpler:

• To publish and share contents, knowledge and materials;

• To elicit and gather comments by participants, scholars, students, stakeholders and even
unknown visitors.

While illustrating these changes, I have pointed out in particular two consequences that can be of

7
methodological interest:

• The definition of intersubjectivity can be practically enlarged to include the “conversation”

among different interpretations, that can be systematically gathered, published and analysed.

• Exploiting interactivity, multimediality and intermediality, new forms are possible for
integrating textual and visual materials in conducting studies, as well as in reports. Since
differences in data visualisation can affect the interpretation, as it is well known, this point
certainly deserves further study, in particular on actual research practices.

It is very difficult to say in what direction this evolution of the media system is heading: what seems
clear, however, is that the academic publication system is already facing relevant challenges, to go
beyond the paper, and to exploit these new “affordances”, that is something more than publishing
on electronic journals.